Certified: The ISACA AAIR Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on a problem that shows up in almost every organization that is trying to manage AI responsibly: shadow AI. Shadow AI is what happens when people use AI tools outside approved channels, outside governance, and sometimes outside the awareness of leadership. It can be as simple as an employee pasting sensitive text into a public tool to get a quick summary, or as complex as a team quietly building a model for decisioning without telling risk and compliance. Beginners sometimes assume this happens because people are careless or rebellious, but most of the time it happens because people are trying to do their jobs faster and do not see a safe, easy option. That is why controlling shadow AI is not only about enforcing rules; it is about understanding why it happens, finding it early, and offering safe alternatives that people will actually use. By the end, you should understand how discovery works, how policy should be written to reduce hidden use, and how safe alternatives prevent shadow AI from returning.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

Shadow AI is risky because it bypasses the basic controls that reduce harm. When a tool is used outside oversight, nobody knows what data is being shared, what outputs are being relied on, or whether the use case is high stakes. That makes it hard to detect issues like data leakage, biased outcomes, unsafe advice, or misuse of model outputs in decisions. Shadow AI also breaks consistency, because different parts of the business may be using different tools with different rules, creating confusion about what is allowed. If a public incident happens, leadership may not even know the system exists, which makes response slower and more damaging. It can also create legal and contractual problems, such as violating confidentiality agreements, violating privacy obligations, or breaching terms of service. In short, shadow AI is an organizational blind spot, and blind spots are the enemy of good risk management.

To control shadow AI, you first need to understand why it appears, because the controls that work depend on the motivation. One common driver is convenience, meaning people can find a public tool in seconds, while approved tools require permissions, training, or paperwork. Another driver is unmet needs, meaning approved tools may not support certain tasks like drafting, summarizing, translation, or brainstorming in a way users find helpful. A third driver is speed pressure, where deadlines push people to use whatever works right now. A fourth driver is curiosity, where employees explore AI capabilities without realizing that experimentation can still create data or reputational risk. Sometimes a driver is distrust, where teams believe governance will slow them down and they would rather avoid engagement. When you see these drivers, you can design controls that address the root causes rather than only punishing the visible behavior.

Discovery is the process of finding where shadow AI is happening, what tools are being used, and what kinds of data and decisions are involved. Discovery is not a one time effort, because tool usage changes quickly and new tools appear constantly. A beginner friendly way to think about discovery is to combine listening, observation, and signals. Listening means talking to teams in a non accusatory way about what they use and why, so you learn real workflows. Observation means looking at business processes where AI would be tempting, like customer communication, research, analytics, and content creation, and then checking how work is actually done. Signals mean using organizational data, such as procurement records, expense reports, network access patterns, or support tickets, to spot AI tool usage that was never formally approved. The goal is to build a map of AI usage, not to catch people, because the purpose is safety and alignment.

A crucial part of discovery is focusing on risk hotspots rather than trying to catalog every minor use. Risk hotspots are areas where AI use could cause serious harm, such as handling personal data, handling confidential business strategy, generating public statements, or influencing decisions about people. For example, a marketing team using an unapproved tool to brainstorm slogans is lower risk than a human resources team using an unapproved tool to rank job candidates. A support team using AI to draft replies may be moderate risk if it can leak customer details or make false promises. A finance team using AI to summarize internal forecasts could be high risk if those forecasts are sensitive. When you prioritize hotspots, you can act quickly on the most serious exposures while still building broader awareness. This avoids analysis paralysis and prevents shadow AI control from becoming an endless audit project.

Policy is the next pillar, but policies only work when they are clear, realistic, and tied to real behaviors. A weak policy says do not use unapproved AI, but it does not explain what counts as AI, what counts as approved, and what information is safe to use. A stronger policy defines categories of tools, defines allowed use cases, and defines prohibited inputs and outputs in plain language. It also explains why the rules exist, because people follow rules more reliably when they understand the harm being prevented. Policy should also include simple decision guidance, like if you are unsure whether information is sensitive, treat it as sensitive and use an approved path. Importantly, policy should avoid pretending that all AI use is the same, because blanket bans often push usage underground. A realistic policy guides and channels behavior instead of forcing people to choose between productivity and compliance.

Policy needs enforcement, but enforcement should be designed to increase visibility and reduce harm, not to create fear. If employees believe they will be punished for admitting they used a tool, they will hide it, and then governance loses the chance to correct risk. A healthier approach encourages early reporting of mistakes, similar to how safety cultures work in aviation or healthcare. That does not mean there are no consequences for repeated or intentional misuse, but the default response should be education and remediation, especially when the organization has not provided good alternatives. Enforcement can also be technical, such as blocking access to certain tools on managed devices or limiting data sharing pathways. The combination of clear policy and thoughtful enforcement makes it easier for people to do the right thing without feeling trapped. For beginners, the key lesson is that fear based governance often creates more shadow behavior, not less.

Safe alternatives are the most important long term control, because shadow AI thrives when approved options feel worse than unapproved ones. A safe alternative does not need to be perfect, but it must be good enough and easy enough that people choose it naturally. That might mean providing an approved generative assistant that has clear data protections, or providing internal templates and workflows for common tasks like drafting responses or summarizing documents. It might mean providing a safe channel for experimentation, where people can try AI on non sensitive data without breaking rules. It might also mean providing a way to request new capabilities quickly, so teams do not feel blocked. The principle is simple: if you want people to stop using unsafe tools, you must make the safe path the easiest path. Otherwise, shadow AI will return as soon as pressure increases.

Another strong control is to treat shadow AI as a governance signal, not just as misconduct. When you discover shadow AI, it often means the business has a legitimate need that governance has not met. For example, if many teams are using AI for summarization, that suggests a widespread workflow need. Instead of only shutting it down, governance can respond by creating approved guidance, approved tools, and training for that use case. This turns shadow AI into a feedback mechanism that helps the organization modernize safely. It also builds trust between governance teams and business teams, because people feel heard rather than punished. Over time, this approach reduces the incentive to hide, because teams see that bringing needs forward leads to solutions. Beginners should remember that governance is a partnership, not a police force, when the goal is sustainable risk reduction.

Monitoring is also necessary, because even with policies and alternatives, usage can drift. Monitoring can include periodic reviews of tool usage patterns, checks for sensitive data exposure, and trend tracking of where AI is used. It can also include audits of high risk processes, like hiring or customer communication, to ensure AI use is disclosed and governed. Monitoring should focus on outcomes and signals, not on spying, because the goal is to reduce harm and keep oversight current. If monitoring reveals repeated issues, the organization can adjust controls, improve training, or tighten boundaries. If monitoring reveals that certain controls create bottlenecks, the organization can improve the process so compliance is easier. This is how governance stays adaptive, because AI use evolves quickly and static controls fall behind.

To make all of this work, you need a simple communication strategy that normalizes responsible AI use. Employees should know what tools are approved, what kinds of tasks are appropriate, and what information must never be shared. They should also know where to go with questions and how to request approvals. Communication should avoid jargon and should use practical scenarios that match real work, because abstract rules are easy to forget. It also helps to communicate that responsible use protects employees as well as the organization, because misuse can create personal stress and accountability. When communication, policy, discovery, and alternatives are aligned, the organization develops a healthier AI culture. That culture makes shadow AI less attractive because safe use becomes the norm.

As we conclude, controlling shadow AI is about bringing hidden use into the light and replacing risky shortcuts with safe, practical paths. You start with discovery that combines listening, observation, and signals, focusing first on risk hotspots where harm could be serious. You build policy that is clear, realistic, and based on how people actually work, and you enforce it in a way that improves visibility rather than creating fear. Most importantly, you provide safe alternatives that meet real workflow needs, because people will choose the easy, useful option under pressure. You treat shadow AI as a feedback signal about unmet needs and adjust governance accordingly. With ongoing monitoring and clear communication, you can reduce shadow AI and make responsible AI use sustainable, even as tools and business demands continue to change.