The January Phishing Test: Timing It Fairly

Many security programs schedule a phishing simulation for early January, on the reasonable theory that a new year needs a baseline. There is a problem with the theory: the first two weeks of January find people at their most distracted, digging out of the holiday inbox, half-reading everything.

A simulation that lands in that window does not measure your training. It measures the calendar, and the results will tell you less than you think while embarrassing people who were set up to fail.

Key takeaways

• Early-January simulations measure distraction, not awareness.

• Let people settle first: mid to late January is a fairer baseline.

• Fair timing makes the results usable for the year's training plan.

• Whoever clicks needs coaching, not consequences, especially in week one.

• Tell the story of the results honestly when you report them upward.

Step 1: Understand what early January actually measures

The first weeks back are a known trap: hundreds of unread messages, password resets, year-end admin, everyone triaging by subject line. Click rates in this window run high for reasons that have nothing to do with awareness.

That does not make the data useless, but it changes what it means. A January 6th simulation tells you how people perform at their worst. If that is what you want to know, fine. Just do not call it a baseline.

Step 2: Pick the fair window

For a baseline that represents the year, wait until people have settled: mid to late January, after the inbox is cleared and the rhythm is back. The result then measures the training rather than the calendar.

There is a legitimate argument for testing the distracted window too, because attackers certainly will. If you do, frame it that way: a stress test, not a baseline, with results read accordingly.

Step 3: Decide the response before the clicks

What happens to the person who clicks in the first week of January, fresh from the holidays? If the answer is anything harsher than friendly coaching, the simulation program will be resented, and resented programs fail: people stop reporting, start hiding, and learn to fear the test instead of the phish.

The click is a coaching moment, full stop. The goal is a workforce that reports quickly, and nobody reports what they are punished for.

Step 4: Report the results with the context attached

When the numbers go to leadership or the board, they travel with their circumstances: the timing, the difficulty of the lure, the trend against previous tests. A bare click rate invites the wrong conclusion, whatever direction it points.

We looked at reading these numbers properly in the phishing simulation results deserve a second look. The report rate matters more than the click rate, and both matter more than either alone.

Frequently asked questions

Is there value in testing during the distracted weeks?

Yes, as a stress test, since attackers will not wait for a fair week. The key is labeling the results correctly and not punishing what the calendar caused.

How often should simulations run?

Monthly is common and reasonable, with the lures varying in difficulty. The trend over quarters is what the board should see, not any single month's number.

What is the number that actually matters?

The report rate: how many people flag the suspicious message, and how fast. That is the behavior that contains real attacks.

A practical next step

If a simulation is scheduled for this week, look at the calendar and decide deliberately: stress test now, baseline later, or one well-timed test. If the reporting of results upward needs a steadier hand, book a Decision-Clarity Call.