Senior executives
Practice pausing and using known advisers or approval routes for unusual high-impact requests across email and messaging.
Executives and their support teams have public visibility, broad relationships, sensitive information, approval authority, and limited time across email, messaging, travel, and mobile devices.
Their simulations should practice high-value verification and escalation without exploiting personal details, creating market confusion, or disrupting consequential business decisions.
Enterprise governance • Role-based scenarios • Controlled delivery • Contextual reporting
Start with the entities, roles, systems, decision rights, and support teams involved in the selected workflow. Enterprise scale makes ownership and local conditions as important as message content.
Practice pausing and using known advisers or approval routes for unusual high-impact requests across email and messaging.
Reflect delegated calendar, travel, document, payment, and communication responsibilities without using live arrangements.
Use fictional governance documents and meetings outside the actual board portal and confidential board calendar.
Pilot supported mobile experiences and reporting routes without collecting precise location or personal-device information.
Give every scenario one observable learning objective. Use fictional people, organizations, transactions, systems, and incidents, and keep the campaign outside production and privileged environments.
Practice validating an invented requester, business purpose, authorization, and approved sharing destination.
Ask leaders to use the established independent confirmation and finance approval process for a fictional transaction.
Reinforce checking the organizer and opening the known governance service independently.
Practice verifying a fictional itinerary or account request through the approved travel channel.
| Consideration | Question to answer | Required preparation |
|---|---|---|
| Authorization | Who approves scenarios involving executive names, roles, delegated authority, and communications? | Document sponsor, executive-support, legal, communications, and security approval before launch. |
| Sensitive events | Could the message imply an acquisition, layoff, investigation, litigation, crisis, or market-moving event? | Exclude consequential themes and use a routine fictional workflow. |
| Delegation | Do assistants or other employees receive and act on requests for the executive? | Include the actual verification and escalation chain without exposing personal schedules or contacts. |
| Result access | Who needs individual event data, and how will it be protected? | Restrict access, define retention, avoid public reporting, and focus review on workflow and control improvements. |
Define the behavior, authorized audience, exclusions, scenario, permitted data, delivery windows, owners, reporting route, stop conditions, and intended use of results.
Map central and local approvals, system and data owners, response teams, providers, and the real verification or escalation process employees should use.
Test entities, locations, roles, devices, languages, email controls, landing pages, event records, reports, and follow-up material included in scope.
Prepare security, privacy, legal, communications, HR, operations, local support, and relevant providers while preserving normal handling of real incidents.
Explain the expected action, provide relevant private learning, and record every process or control improvement with a responsible owner and review date.
Source: NIST SP 800-50 Rev. 1: Building a Cybersecurity and Privacy Learning Program
Record intended recipients, exclusions, successful deliveries, unique recipient events, verified reports, response handling, and completed follow-up. Reconcile automated inspection and repeated events before attributing activity to employees.
Executive populations are small and often identifiable, making percentages and rankings inappropriate. Use restricted case-level review of expected controls, reports, response handling, device context, delegation, and process findings.
Use findings to improve real verification, reporting, identity, access, email, provider, and support processes. One interaction is not an employee risk score, and an enterprise-wide percentage does not establish program effectiveness.
Common questions about Phishmake's features, onboarding, and support, answered to help you get started with confidence.
Difficulty should follow a defined learning need and the executive's real authority, not an attempt to trick or embarrass. The expected action must remain realistic and available.
Avoid acquisitions, layoffs, litigation, investigations, health events, family emergencies, and other consequential themes that can cause harm or trigger business action.
Include them when they operate the relevant delegated workflow and are within the approved scope. Tailor scenarios to their actual verification and escalation responsibilities.
Use tightly restricted, contextual reporting focused on use of expected controls, response handling, and process improvements. Avoid rankings and broad distribution of identifiable events.
Explore how Phishmake connects controlled employee simulations, relevant training, campaign activity, and follow-up reporting in one workflow.