The cybersecurity industry has long operated within a framework defined by the colours red and blue. Red teams simulate attacks, probing systems for weaknesses, while blue teams defend against threats, monitoring networks, and responding to incidents. This dual-team model has served as a foundation for understanding and addressing cybersecurity threats for decades. However, what was once an effective structure is increasingly becoming a limitation. In a world where technology is evolving at an unprecedented rate and AI-driven threats grow more sophisticated, this rigid red-versus-blue mindset fosters division rather than unity, and competition rather than collaboration.
The reality is that many cybersecurity teams remain siloed. Whether through organisational design, tooling, or culture, red and blue teams often operate in isolation from one another. This disconnection can manifest as an internal rivalry—an unintended culture war—where offensive and defensive teams view their goals as distinct or even conflicting. The competitive tension that emerges might once have driven innovation or diligence, but today it risks undermining the very security efforts it was meant to enhance.
This internal conflict is not only unnecessary but also dangerous. Cyber threats have become more collaborative, with threat actors increasingly sharing tools, intelligence, and methodologies across vast underground networks. Organised cybercrime and state-sponsored entities do not operate in isolation—they coordinate, exchange tactics, and evolve collectively. The more cybersecurity teams internalise competition between red and blue, the more they mirror a fragmented defence facing a united enemy. Richard Beck, Portfolio Director for Cyber Security at QA, summarises this growing concern clearly: “The bad guys are coordinating. The dual nature of cybercrime is blurred by organised crime and nation-state sharing tactics, resources, and constantly innovating. So why aren’t we doing the same?”
This question goes to the heart of what must change. For modern cybersecurity teams to succeed, the adversarial relationship between red and blue must give way to a cooperative and integrated model. Beck argues that the traditional colour-coded distinctions are no longer sufficient to address the complexity of contemporary threats. Instead, we must develop a new team culture—one defined by collaboration and mutual respect, not rivalry.
The Case for a Unified Cybersecurity Culture
To appreciate why the existing structure no longer works, it is essential to understand what it was originally designed for. The red and blue team model evolved to simulate real-world attacks in a controlled environment. Red teams would emulate potential attackers to reveal vulnerabilities, and blue teams would practice detecting and mitigating these threats. This system encouraged realism in testing defences and improved the ability to withstand actual intrusions.
However, over time, this separation hardened into an operational structure where teams began to function in silos. Rather than viewing each other as collaborators in a shared mission, red and blue teams started to operate like opposing forces in a contest. Success was often measured by how well one team outperformed the other, rather than how well they collectively enhanced the organisation’s security posture.
This cultural divide has several harmful consequences. First, it creates a barrier to knowledge sharing. Red teams may uncover significant insights about vulnerabilities or exploit techniques, but if these are not communicated effectively or welcomed by blue teams, they go unused. Similarly, blue teams may develop detection and response capabilities that could inform offensive testing strategies, but without collaboration, that knowledge is trapped.
Second, the rivalry can lead to resource misallocation. When teams are pitted against each other, their incentives may shift away from organisational security outcomes towards personal or team prestige. Defensive teams might deprioritise implementing red team recommendations due to perceived criticism, while offensive teams might focus on scoring “wins” rather than driving systemic improvements. This mentality wastes time and talent and diverts attention from what should be the ultimate goal: protecting the organisation from external threats.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, this mindset hinders adaptability. Cyber threats do not respect organisational boundaries or internal politics. They are fluid, collaborative, and constantly evolving. A siloed response is inherently less flexible, less informed, and ultimately less effective. In a world where attackers can use AI to identify and exploit vulnerabilities at scale, defenders must be equally agile and united in response. Divisions only serve to weaken the overall defensive posture.
From Opposition to Partnership
Recognising the limitations of the red-versus-blue paradigm does not mean abandoning offensive and defensive roles. Each has a distinct value and purpose. Red teams remain essential in identifying blind spots and simulating adversarial behaviours. Blue teams are crucial for maintaining robust defences and ensuring continuity during actual attacks. But these roles must be integrated into a single, coordinated effort where insights flow freely, and strategies are built collaboratively.
Richard Beck emphasises that both red and blue teams share a common mission: to protect the organisation. This shared goal should be the foundation of a new team culture—one where collaboration is the norm, not the exception. When red teams identify weaknesses, they should work directly with blue teams to develop remediation strategies. Likewise, blue teams should actively seek the adversarial insights red teams provide to strengthen their defences proactively.
There are practical ways to implement this collaborative model. Joint post-incident reviews allow both red and blue teams to contribute perspectives and learnings. Regular knowledge-sharing sessions create space for dialogue, reflection, and innovation. Perhaps most importantly, access to offensive training should not be restricted to red teams. Providing blue teams with exposure to adversarial tactics builds a deeper understanding of how attacks unfold and enhances defensive capabilities. Gatekeeping knowledge only reinforces silos; sharing it builds bridges.
This shift is more than a procedural adjustment—it is a cultural transformation. It requires leaders to prioritise collaboration in how they structure teams, measure performance, and recognise success. It means redefining what effective cybersecurity looks like: not just in terms of individual skill or isolated wins, but in terms of integrated, strategic resilience. It means investing in communication skills, empathy, and mutual trust, alongside technical expertise.
Building a Culture that Can Adapt to the Speed of Change
The pace of technological change is staggering. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and automation are not future concerns—they are current realities. Threat actors are already using these technologies to scale attacks, evade detection, and identify vulnerabilities faster than ever before. Cybersecurity teams must be equally forward-thinking and coordinated in their response.
This level of coordination cannot happen in silos. The rapid evolution of threats demands equally dynamic and collaborative defence mechanisms. A united team is better positioned to respond to zero-day threats, adapt to new technologies, and create proactive security strategies that go beyond reacting to incidents. This is not simply a matter of efficiency—it is a matter of survival.
Richard Beck points out that cybercriminals have long understood the value of collaboration. They operate in complex ecosystems, often working in proxy groups that specialise in different parts of the attack chain—from malware development to phishing distribution to money laundering. These groups share tools, techniques, and intelligence, making them faster and more adaptable. Cybersecurity teams must mirror this model of cooperation if they are to stay competitive.
Beck’s recommendation is clear: organisations should move towards a purple team approach. This is not a new concept, but it remains underused. A purple team model integrates red and blue functions into a continuous feedback loop where offensive and defensive insights are shared in real-time. The goal is to strengthen defences through constant learning, reflection, and strategic alignment. It promotes transparency, agility, and mutual respect.
A purple team culture does not mean eliminating red and blue roles. It means creating a workflow where these roles intersect, inform, and support each other. It is a model built on trust and shared purpose, not on separation and competition. It allows teams to anticipate rather than merely react, to build solutions collaboratively rather than in isolation, and to evolve alongside the threats they face.
This is the future of cybersecurity. The only question is whether organisations will embrace it before it’s too late.
Moving Towards a Purple Team Model: Breaking the Red and Blue Silos
The call to abandon the rivalry between red and blue teams is not a rejection of their unique functions but rather an invitation to rethink how these functions can coexist in a unified, strategic approach. The Purple Team model does not eliminate the red and blue team structure but reconfigures it into an integrated operation where collaboration is the default, not the exception. This transformation addresses the persistent issue of siloed thinking and helps organisations build cyber defences that are resilient, responsive, and agile.
At its core, the Purple Team model is a methodology that facilitates continuous collaboration between offensive and defensive security teams. Unlike traditional red and blue models, where engagements are often limited to scheduled exercises or post-breach analysis, Purple Teams operate in real-time, exchanging insights and adapting strategies constantly. The aim is to maximise the effectiveness of both teams by synchronising their efforts and aligning their goals.
In the traditional model, red teams test defences and report their findings in a closed loop. The blue team, often with little context or collaboration, is expected to interpret these findings and implement changes. This process can be time-consuming, inefficient, and prone to misinterpretation. In contrast, the Purple Team model embeds red team knowledge directly into blue team workflows. This facilitates not just information transfer but mutual understanding, resulting in more accurate detection, faster remediation, and strategic threat anticipation.
Implementing the Purple Team model is not as simple as renaming a department or organising joint meetings. It involves systemic changes in team structure, communication methods, and cultural expectations. These changes must be intentional, consistently reinforced by leadership, and embedded in both daily operations and long-term strategy.
Designing Integrated Workflows for Collaboration
To make the Purple Team model a functioning reality, cybersecurity leaders must design workflows that promote integrated thinking and discourage isolation. This starts by removing physical and operational barriers between red and blue teams. Co-location, whether virtual or in-person, is one of the simplest ways to foster collaboration. When teams are seated together, share communication channels, and work from the same platforms, the exchange of ideas becomes more fluid.
But co-location alone is not enough. There must be shared processes that guide how the teams collaborate. For example, during penetration testing or simulated attack exercises, red and blue teams should plan and execute scenarios together. This allows both sides to understand each other’s methodologies and respond dynamically. Blue teams can provide insight into which systems are most critical and should be prioritised for testing, while red teams can explain the rationale behind their chosen tactics. The outcome is a more targeted, efficient, and effective exercise.
Post-exercise reviews should also be conducted jointly. These reviews should focus not on assigning blame but on identifying growth opportunities. When teams review findings together, they can co-develop response strategies that reflect a balanced perspective. Red team observations are no longer received as criticisms but as collaborative inputs. This helps establish a culture of continuous improvement rather than episodic evaluation.
One of the most powerful benefits of integrated workflows is the ability to run threat simulations that reflect the full scope of organisational risk. In a Purple Team exercise, an attack scenario is executed by the red team while the blue team simultaneously works to detect and defend against it. Feedback is shared in real-time, and the results are evaluated together. This kind of active, dynamic testing reveals not just whether defences can withstand an attack, but how quickly teams can adapt, how well they communicate, and where coordination needs improvement.
Integrated workflows should also extend into incident response planning. When a real attack occurs, there is no time for internal barriers. Purple Team operations should include regular joint incident response drills where red and blue team members practice working as a unified unit. These exercises can reveal gaps in decision-making authority, alert fatigue, or communication breakdowns that would otherwise go unnoticed. Fixing these gaps in advance ensures a more effective response when the stakes are real.
Building a Shared Language and Performance Metrics
One of the major obstacles to implementing a Purple Team model is the lack of a shared language between red and blue teams. Offensive security professionals often use different frameworks, terminology, and performance indicators than their defensive counterparts. Without a shared understanding, even well-intentioned collaboration can result in confusion or inefficiency.
Creating a unified language begins with education. Red team members should be trained to understand defensive frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK, defense-in-depth, and risk prioritisation. Similarly, blue team members should receive training in adversarial thinking, attack chains, and offensive tooling. This does not require every team member to become an expert in both disciplines, but a foundational understanding of each other’s work helps bridge communication gaps.
Shared language is reinforced through the use of standardised documentation and collaborative tooling. Platforms that allow both red and blue teams to log activities, document observations, and suggest changes in real-time can reduce ambiguity and promote transparency. Consistency in how threats are described, incidents are recorded, and vulnerabilities are prioritised allows teams to act more quickly and cohesively.
Beyond language, aligning performance metrics is critical to reinforcing Purple Team culture. Traditional red team success might be measured by the number of vulnerabilities discovered, while blue team success might be judged by how many incidents were prevented or mitigated. These separate metrics can unintentionally promote individual achievement over collective success.
In a Purple Team model, performance should be evaluated based on shared outcomes. For instance, how quickly and effectively a threat was identified, analysed, and neutralised. How well did the team work together to minimise impact? Were lessons learned and implemented in future operations? These kinds of metrics encourage cooperation and mutual accountability. When both teams are judged by their ability to work together to protect the organisation, incentives align and silos begin to dissolve.
Establishing shared metrics also helps in gaining executive support. Leadership is more likely to invest in collaborative approaches when outcomes are clearly defined and measurable. Demonstrating how integrated efforts reduce risk, improve response times, and increase overall resilience provides a compelling business case for the Purple Team model.
Leadership and Organisational Support
The transition to a Purple Team model requires strong leadership and consistent organisational backing. This transformation is not simply a technical or procedural change—it is a cultural shift that must be championed from the top. Leaders set the tone for collaboration and have the power to shape team structures, priorities, and rewards in ways that promote unity.
To support this shift, cybersecurity leaders must actively dismantle the barriers that keep red and blue teams apart. This includes reassessing reporting structures to avoid duplications or power imbalances. In many organisations, red teams report to different chains of command than blue teams, which can create conflicting agendas. By unifying reporting lines or establishing cross-functional oversight, leaders can ensure alignment across all security functions.
Leadership must also encourage a mindset of mutual respect. Red team roles are often seen as glamorous or elite, while blue teams may be perceived as reactive or less strategic. This imbalance can breed resentment and hinder collaboration. Leaders must actively promote the value of both functions, recognising that neither can succeed without the other.
Organisational support is also essential in terms of training and professional development. Building a Purple Team culture means investing in cross-disciplinary education. Encourage red team members to participate in defensive certifications and blue team members to engage in offensive workshops. Providing structured opportunities to explore the other side’s perspective fosters empathy and builds a more versatile and resilient security force.
Another critical support area is resource allocation. Purple Team implementation often requires new tools, collaborative platforms, and updated processes. Budgeting for these resources is not a luxury—it is a necessity for teams to work effectively. Providing the necessary infrastructure, both technical and operational, demonstrates that leadership is committed to the collaborative model.
Finally, leadership must embody the behaviours they want to see in their teams. This includes participating in joint exercises, attending debriefs, and communicating openly across functions. When leaders demonstrate collaboration, they permit fthers to follow. Without visible and authentic support from the top, the Purple Team model will struggle to gain traction.
Cultural Transformation and Mindset Shift
While process, structure, and tooling are important, the most difficult aspect of implementing a Purple Team model is the cultural transformation it requires. Shifting from a mindset of competition to one of collaboration is not a simple change. It involves re-evaluating long-held beliefs, habits, and definitions of success.
One of the most effective ways to drive this transformation is through role-swapping exercises. These involve temporarily placing blue team members in red team roles and vice versa. This kind of experiential learning fosters a deep understanding of the other team’s challenges, priorities, and decision-making processes. It also helps break down biases and assumptions, replacing them with empathy and appreciation.
Leaders should also promote storytelling and open dialogue. Encourage team members to share lessons learned from their roles, both successful and unsuccessful. These stories humanise the work and create space for vulnerability and growth. In a Purple Team culture, admitting a mistake is not a failure—it is a contribution to collective improvement.
Another key element is the recognition of collaborative behaviours. Organisations often reward individual technical achievements but overlook the value of effective teamwork. Recognising and rewarding behaviours that support collaboration—such as knowledge sharing, joint problem-solving, and cross-team mentorship—sends a powerful signal that these actions are valued.
Transforming culture takes time, consistency, and patience. It requires revisiting values, redefining norms, and constantly reinforcing the message that cybersecurity is a team sport. The reward for this investment is a security operation that is stronger, more adaptive, and far better equipped to handle the threats of today and tomorrow.
Breaking Down Organisational Silos: A Unified Security Culture Beyond Red and Blue
While addressing the red and blue team divide is a critical step, true resilience in cybersecurity requires an even broader cultural transformation. Many organisations face fragmentation not just between offensive and defensive security teams, but also across wider operational units such as software engineering, IT operations, compliance, and business leadership. These silos result in missed opportunities for visibility, delayed response times, and fragmented defences that can be exploited by adversaries.
The threats organisations face today are not confined to any single department. A vulnerability in software code, a misconfiguration in cloud infrastructure, or a poorly managed endpoint can all serve as entry points for attackers. To combat this complexity, security must be integrated across every layer of the business. It must become a mindset, not a function—a shared responsibility that spans disciplines, departments, and roles.
This holistic approach demands collaboration that goes beyond red and blue. It requires building cross-functional teams that bring together diverse expertise to manage risk collectively. These teams must operate with a shared understanding of objectives, a clear communication framework, and a commitment to continuous improvement.
Integrating Security into Engineering and DevOps
One of the most critical relationships in modern cybersecurity is the one between security teams and software engineering teams. As organisations increasingly adopt agile development methodologies, security can no longer afford to operate as a separate, downstream function. It must be embedded within the software development lifecycle (SDLC), aligned with the principles of DevSecOps.
DevSecOps, a portmanteau of development, security, and operations, is a practice that integrates security into every stage of the development process—from initial design to deployment and maintenance. It is not a tool or a framework, but a mindset that prioritises secure coding, automated testing, and proactive threat modelling as core elements of software delivery.
For this integration to succeed, security professionals must work alongside developers, not as gatekeepers, but as collaborators. Security reviews should happen early and often, not as an afterthought before production. Threat modelling sessions, secure code reviews, and security requirements must be treated with the same urgency as feature development and performance testing.
Security teams must also provide developers with the right tools to succeed. Static and dynamic analysis tools, automated security testing in CI/CD pipelines, and secure coding libraries can help shift security left, meaning vulnerabilities are caught early, when they are cheaper and easier to fix.
But perhaps even more important than tooling is education. Developers should be equipped with the knowledge to identify security risks and understand the impact of their code decisions. Regular training on secure development practices, as well as access to real-world breach case studies, can help bridge the knowledge gap.
Security must also adopt an empathetic approach. Developers are under pressure to deliver quickly, and security requirements can be perceived as blockers. By framing security as an enabler—one that protects innovation and builds user trust—security teams can build stronger relationships and achieve better outcomes.
Aligning with IT and Operational Teams
Beyond software development, IT and operational teams play a central role in the security posture of an organisation. These teams are responsible for infrastructure, endpoints, networks, user access, and system availability—all of which are frequent targets for threat actors.
However, in many organisations, operational teams work independently of security functions. They may have different goals, such as uptime, performance, or cost control, which can sometimes conflict with security objectives. For instance, patching a critical system may require downtime that impacts business operations, leading to delays or resistance.
To align these teams, security must be reframed not as an external enforcement bod, but as a partner in enabling safe and reliable operations. Joint planning sessions, shared dashboards, and co-authored incident response protocols can help break down barriers and promote mutual understanding.
One effective strategy is to establish cross-functional response teams that include security, operations, and engineering staff. These teams can be activated during incidents but should also meet regularly to plan, test, and improve processes. Having multiple perspectives during tabletop exercises ensures that responses are practical, comprehensive, and fast.
Change management processes should also be reviewed to ensure that security input is considered early in any configuration or infrastructure change. Security involvement should be proportional, risk-based, and focused on enabling secure innovation rather than introducing unnecessary friction.
Operational teams also benefit from security training. Providing awareness on common attack vectors such as phishing, credential stuffing, and lateral movement tactics can make these teams more proactive and responsive. Security should not just sit in a SOC; it should be a mindset embedded in every technical team.
Creating Cross-Functional Security Squads
A powerful way to operationalise collaboration across departments is to create cross-functional security squads. These are small, agile teams composed of individuals from various functions—engineering, operations, security, compliance, and even product management—who work together to address specific risks or projects.
For example, a security squad may be tasked with securing a new cloud-based service. The squad might include a cloud architect, a security engineer, a developer, and a compliance officer. Together, they can assess risks, design controls, implement solutions, and validate compliance—all within the context of the service they are supporting.
This model allows for rapid response, contextual decision-making, and stronger accountability. Because the squad owns the outcome collectively, there is less finger-pointing and more action. Cross-functional squads also break down communication barriers by encouraging informal, high-frequency interactions rather than rigid, formal handoffs.
Security squads can be structured in various ways depending on the organisation’s size and maturity. Some may be permanent teams that support key business functions, while others may be temporary task forces assembled for a particular initiative. In either case, success depends on clear goals, empowered team members, and strong leadership support.
Importantly, cross-functional squads also enable security professionals to understand business priorities more deeply. By sitting alongside colleagues who are responsible for customer experience, revenue generation, or operational stability, security teams can better appreciate the trade-offs involved in decision-making. This understanding leads to more balanced, business-aligned risk management strategies.
Fostering Communication Across Hierarchies
Breaking down silos is not only about cross-functional collaboration but also about vertical alignment. In many organisations, there is a communication gap between frontline security practitioners and executive leadership. Security risks are either under-communicated, overly technical, or disconnected from business outcomes.
To address this, security leaders must act as translators. They need to take complex technical risks and frame them in terms that resonate with board members, CFOs, and CEOs. This includes highlighting potential impacts on reputation, revenue, regulatory compliance, and customer trust.
Regular, structured communication channels—such as executive dashboards, quarterly risk reviews, and incident retrospectives—should be established to ensure that security is visible and accountable at all levels of the organisation.
Equally, executive decisions should cascade down clearly and consistently. When leadership prioritises a security initiative, this message must reach every layer of the business. This alignment ensures that strategic intent is converted into operational reality.
Communication across hierarchies also includes empowering employees at every level to speak up about security concerns. A culture that values curiosity and openness over fear and blame is essential for identifying risks early. This requires psychological safety, clear reporting mechanisms, and visible support from leadership.
Embedding a Security-First Culture Across the Business
Ultimately, the goal of breaking down silos is to embed a security-first culture across the entire organisation. This culture is not dictated by policy but cultivated through everyday actions, shared values, and continuous learning.
A security-first culture means that every employee, regardless of role or seniority, understands their responsibility in protecting the organisation. It means that security is considered in every decision, from product design to vendor selection. It means that people are encouraged to report issues, learn from mistakes, and ask questions without fear of jjudgment
To build this culture, organisations must invest in ongoing security awareness programmes. These should go beyond basic compliance training and instead focus on contextual, engaging, and role-specific content. For example, finance teams should be trained on invoice fraud, while HR should understand data protection obligations.
Gamification, storytelling, and real-world simulations can make training more memorable and impactful. Leaders should participate visibly in these efforts to demonstrate commitment and model desired behaviours.
Cultural change also requires rewarding the right behaviours. Celebrate teams that identify and fix vulnerabilities, share knowledge, or go beyond their job descriptions to improve security. Make these stories visible across the organisation to reinforce that security is everyone’s business.
By breaking down silos, building cross-functional teams, and aligning communication from the boardroom to the frontline, organisations can create a truly unified security culture. One where every team, every function, and every individual is empowered to contribute to a safer, more resilient future.
Building Future-Ready Cyber Security Teams: Skills, Structure, and Sustainable Growth
As the threat landscape continues to evolve with increasing complexity, volatility, and scale, cybersecurity teams face a growing mandate: not only to defend their organisations against existing threats but to anticipate and adapt to emerging ones. Meeting this challenge requires more than strong technical capability—it demands resilient, adaptive, and collaborative teams built for long-term success.
In the past, ccybersecurityhiring strategies were heavily weighted towards technical expertise. Organisations sought out penetration testers, SOC analysts, and compliance officers based on their certifications, command-line fluency, or knowledge of specific frameworks. While these skills remain critical, they are no longer sufficient on their own.
Today, the cybersecurity professional must wear many hats: communicator, collaborator, critical thinker, strategist, and sometimes even educator. With more teams working in hybrid or remote environments,and more roles requiring cross-functional coordination, the importance of soft skills, emotional intelligence, and flexibility has never been greater.
To build future-ready teams, organisations must rethink how they attract, train, retain, and grow their talent. They must design career paths that are fluid, supportive of mobility between roles, and aligned with both individual aspirations and business needs. They must also invest in learning cultures that encourage curiosity, experimentation, and mutual respect.
This part explores how organisations can create cycybersecurityeams that are not just technically strong, but culturally resilient, diverse, and prepared for the dynamic nature of modern threats.
Evolving Recruitment Beyond Technical Credentials
Traditional cybersecurity hiring has often focused on candidates with specific certifications, degrees, or experience in narrowly defined roles. While these requirements help set baseline qualifications, they can unintentionally exclude highly capable candidates who bring other essential qualities—such as problem-solving abilities, adaptability, or experience in adjacent domains like IT, development, or compliance.
More progressive hiring strategies look at potential as well as pedigree. Instead of seeking perfect fits for narrowly scoped job descriptions, these organisations assess how well a candidate can learn, communicate, and collaborate within dynamic environments.
One effective strategy is to implement skills-based hiring practices. This means evaluating candidates through practical exercises, case studies, or simulations that mirror real-world challenges. Rather than relying solely on CVs, these assessments measure a candidate’s ability to think critically, work in a team, and apply knowledge creatively.
Organisations should also cast a wider net in terms of recruitment pipelines. This includes building relationships with non-traditional educational programmes, community bootcamps, and upskilling platforms. Many strong cyber security professionals come from diverse backgrounds—military, teaching, customer service, or self-taught pathways—and may not follow conventional routes into the industry.
Richard Beck notes the importance of diversity not just in demographics but in thinking styles: “When building teams that defend against ever-changing threats, it’s critical to include people who see problems differently, who question assumptions, and who challenge groupthink.”
Recruiting for culture add, rather than culture fit, ensures a team becomes more versatile over time. New hires should be valued for the unique perspectives they bring, and team culture should evolve to incorporate those perspectives into broader security strategies.
Designing Flexible Career Paths Between Red and Blue Roles
The traditional separation of red and blue teams has led to siloed career trajectories. Offensive professionals often stay on the red side, while defensive roles become a separate ladder. This limits professional growth and, over time, weakens the mutual understanding that is essential for effective collaboration.
To create more versatile and resilient teams, organisations should allow and encourage movement between offensive and defensive roles. This not only strengthens individual skillsets but also fosters empathy and knowledge-sharing across disciplines.
Richard Beck explains that salary structures should not penalise employees who move between these roles. “A red teamer who wants to learn defence should be supported in that transition—not face a pay cut or feel they’ve taken a step backwards.”
Career development frameworks must reflect the hybrid nature of modern security roles. Titles like “Purple Team Analyst” or “Cyber Security Engineer” should have clear, recognised progression paths that combine both technical depth and interdisciplinary breadth.
This fluidity also supports retention. Employees are more likely to stay in organisations where they see pathways for growth, new challenges to tackle, and support for their evolving interests. By providing structured mentorship, peer-to-peer learning, and role-switching opportunities, leaders can create an environment where team members don’t just grow individually—they elevate the collective capability of the entire security function.
In addition to technical cross-training, rotating roles can include exposure to risk management, compliance, or even public relations in incident response scenarios. The more team members understand the wider context of cyber security, the better equipped they are to support business outcomes under pressure.
Investing in Continuous Learning and Collaborative Development
The speed of technological change—especially in fields like AI, cloud infrastructure, and zero-trust architecture—means that what a cyber security professional knows today may be outdated tomorrow. In this environment, learning cannot be a one-time onboarding exercise or annual compliance course. It must be embedded into the day-to-day culture of the team.
Organisations that succeed in security are often those that treat learning as part of the job, not as an extra activity. This includes access to formal training and certifications, but also informal learning through labs, internal capture-the-flag events, and knowledge-sharing sessions.
One particularly powerful approach is scenario-based learning. As Richard Beck advises, “Put both red and blue team members in each other’s shoes. Let them role-play real attack and defence situations. This helps build empathy, understanding, and sharper instincts.”
These exercises can include red teams simulating phishing attacks, followed by blue team postmortems; or defenders building layered responses to adversary emulation. By working through scenarios together, teams not only practice coordination—they also build trust and psychological safety, which are essential during high-stakes real-world incidents.
Mentorship is another key enabler of continuous learning. Experienced professionals should be encouraged to guide newer team members, not just in tools and techniques, but in critical thinking, decision-making, and resilience. Likewise, reverse mentorship—where junior team members share new trends, tools, or methods—can keep experienced staff fresh and curious.
Finally, collaboration tools and digital platforms should support learning as much as operations. Internal wikis, shared threat intelligence databases, and asynchronous training modules allow teams to keep learning regardless of geography or time zone.
Building Psychological Safety and Sustainable Team Health
High-performing cyber security teams operate in high-pressure environments. They often work long hours, respond to urgent incidents, and face adversaries who never stop evolving. In this context, burnout, isolation, and internal conflict are real risks that can degrade both performance and morale.
To sustain long-term effectiveness, teams must be designed for health as well as strength. This starts with psychological safety—a culture where team members feel comfortable asking questions, admitting mistakes, or sharing concerns without fear of blame or judgment.
Psychological safety encourages openness, which is essential for learning from failures. In environments where mistakes are punished rather than examined, issues are hidden, risks are downplayed, and progress stalls. In contrast, teams that embrace a growth mindset use incidents as opportunities to learn and improve.
Leadership plays a critical role here. Managers and senior engineers must model humility, transparency, and curiosity. Post-incident reviews should be collaborative and blameless, focused on system improvements rather than individual fault.
Workload management is another vital factor. Teams must be staffed appropriately for their responsibilities, with room for rest, rotation, and recovery. Continuous firefighting is not a strategy—it’s a symptom of unsustainable operations. Leaders should monitor for burnout signs and prioritise work-life balance as seriously as they do SLAs.
Flexibility in working patterns, generous professional development budgets, and access to mental health resources all contribute to a healthier, more resilient security workforce.
Richard Beck puts it simply: “No one thrives in a security team where they feel like a cog in a machine. Let people contribute meaningfully, grow visibly, and be recognised for their impact—that’s what makes a team sustainable.”
Creating a Shared Vision for the Future
Finally, to build and sustain future-ready teams, organisations must establish a shared vision. Everyone on the team should understand not just what they do, but why it matters. They should see how their work contributes to the larger mission of protecting people, data, and systems in an increasingly connected world.
This vision must be communicated, reinforced regularly, and reflected in day-to-day actions. Whether responding to a breach, designing a new defence strategy, or mentoring a colleague, every team member should feel empowered by a sense of purpose.
Leaders should connect technical success to business outcomes. For example, a reduction in dwell time after an incident isn’t just a metric—it’s a reflection of customer trust. A successfully defended phishing attempt isn’t just a block—it’s a safeguard for an employee’s peace of mind.
When teams feel their work is meaningful, and their contributions valued, they are more engaged, more committed, and more likely to drive innovation forward.
A future-ready cyber security team isn’t defined by the size of its tech stack, the number of certifications, or how many alerts it triages. It’s defined by the strength of its culture, the depth of its collaboration, and the resilience of its people.
Organisations that invest in these foundations today will not only be better prepared for tomorrow’s threats—they will help shape a safer, more cooperative, and more intelligent future for all.
Final Thoughts
Cyber security is no longer just a technical discipline—it is a dynamic, collaborative, and deeply human effort. The old paradigm of red versus blue may have once served as a framework for structuring teams, but in today’s complex digital environment, it risks becoming a barrier to progress rather than a foundation for success.
The threats we face are increasingly fast, smart, and coordinated. Our response must be the same. Fragmented teams that compete instead of collaborate will fall behind. But organisations that nurture integrated, cross-functional security cultures—where adversarial thinking is used constructively, and defensive insight is sharpened through partnership—will be best equipped to anticipate, mitigate, and outpace modern cyber threats.
As Richard Beck so clearly points out, success lies in unity. When red and blue work not in opposition but in synchrony—through purple teaming, cross-skilling, shared objectives, and mutual respect—they become far more than the sum of their parts. They become a resilient force, capable of learning faster, acting smarter, and protecting better.
This requires leadership, vision, and a willingness to challenge outdated norms. It calls for investment in people as much as in tools, in communication as much as in code. Most of all, it demands that we embrace a culture where knowledge is shared, mistakes are learning moments, and every team member—regardless of role—is empowered to contribute to the defence of the whole.
Avoiding a culture war within cyber security is not just about harmony; it’s a strategic imperative. In an age where attackers are organised and adaptable, we can no longer afford internal divides. Collaboration isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity. And it could well be the difference between resilience and compromise, between surviving and thriving in the face of cyber threats.
If we can bridge the red and blue divide with empathy, strategy, and intent, then we not only strengthen our defences—we redefine what success looks like in cyber security. Together.