ISSN 0798 1015
ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 39 (Number 24) Year 2018 • Page 34
Svetlana V. LOBOVA 1; Aleksei V. BOGOVIZ 2
Received: 21/01/2018 • Approved: 22/02/2018
2. Methods and implications of personnel threats
3. The direction of overcoming personnel threats in the company
ABSTRACT: The paper summarizes the theoretical approaches to the concepts of "personnel security", "personnel security threats", "the subject-object relationship of personnel security". The authors examine the security threats as a danger at the stage of transition from a possibility into reality, expressed an intention or a demonstration of readiness of the subject of threats to damage the object of security. The presence of personnel threats is determined by the threat of subject-object relations personnel security. The company's staff can act both as a subject and as an object of threats, which means that the threat of personnel security are two-track nature of the counterclaim. When considering personnel as the subject of threats to security are the subject of the organization's resources (material, human, information, and so on). In this case, the subject of personnel security threats are not only company's workers, but also applicants for vacant position, as well as former employees. When considering personnel as the object of the security threats are the subject of an employer, criminal organizations, social environment, etc. Overcome such types of personnel threats associated with security of personnel. The paper presents a systematization of methods and implications of human threats on the part of staff and to staff. Particular attention is paid to the study of the types of damages that the organization has in the implementation of human threats. |
RESUMEN: El documento resume los enfoques teóricos de los conceptos de "seguridad personal", "amenazas a la seguridad personal", "la relación sujeto-objeto de la seguridad personal". Los autores examinan las amenazas a la seguridad como un peligro en la etapa de transición de una posibilidad en realidad, se expresa una intención o una demostración de la disposición del sujeto de amenazas para dañar el objeto de la seguridad. La presencia de amenazas de personal está determinada por la amenaza de la seguridad del personal de relaciones sujeto-objeto. El personal de la empresa puede actuar a la vez como sujeto y como objeto de amenazas, lo que significa que la amenaza de la seguridad personal son la naturaleza de doble vía de la reconvención. Al considerar el personal como el tema de las amenazas a la seguridad son el tema de los recursos de la organización (materiales, humanos, de información, y así sucesivamente). En este caso, así como los solicitantes de puestos vacantes, así como los ex empleados. Al considerar al personal, las organizaciones delictivas, el entorno social, etc. Superar ese tipo de personal. El artículo presenta una sistematización de los métodos y las implicaciones de las amenazas humanos por parte del personal y al personal. Se presta especial atención al estudio de los tipos de daños que la organización tiene en la implementación de las amenazas humanas. |
In modern conditions the level improving of competitiveness of the company is determined by the availability of qualified and competent personnel, the optimal selection and placement of personnel. The particular relevant is the statement of one of the most influential management theorists Drucker and Maciariello: “The main goal of any business is survival, and the main principle of business Economics is not profit, but the loss of prevention” (Drucker, Maciariello, 2009). In this case, the most important thing is the personnel safety.
In this paper the personnel security a dynamically stable state of the company at which there is a protection against any threats related to activities of company. The personnel safety is the highest priority compared with other aspects of work which reduce risk of the organization (financial, legal, informational, technological, etc.). Just people prevent and make threats for security of the company (Laktionova, 2010).
The Russian researcher Kuznetsova has published a number of works devoted to the study of the implementation of personnel threats and subject and object relations of personnel security (Kuznetsova, 2012; Vinokurov, Kuznetsova, 2014). However they are not sufficiently solved the problem of the relationship of corporate social responsibility and ensure of the personnel safety.
The present work deals with the questions of overcoming human threats to the organization from the standpoint of the development of corporate social responsibility.
Ensuring of personnel safety is associated with concepts of “security threat” and “personnel security threats”.
Despite the theoretical and practical significance of the category “threat” in Russian and foreign scientific literature is still no single approach to this concept. Analysis of existing definitions of the term “threat” shows that in each process of damage as harm, danger, infringement, interference, negative effects, etc. is reflected.
In the law of Russian Federation “About security” the term “security threat” is defined as a set of conditions and factors that endanger the vital interests of individuals, society and the state. The definition of the concept is revealed in three categories:
(a) “condition” is something from which something else depends;
(b) “factor” is the cause, the driving force of any process, phenomenon, which determines its character or its individual features;
(c) “danger” is the ability to cause any harm, misfortune; the possibility of something dangerous, some misfortune, harm.
Threats, including personnel, are factors in the company's security breach (fig. 1).
Figure 1
The notion of "security" among the correlative concepts
Source: compiled by the authors
Determination of threat through risk accurately reflects the objective nature of the phenomenon under consideration. The general in their content is the possibility of damage. However, in comparison with threat, the danger has unaddressed, its subject and object are not explicitly expressed. In addition, the danger has hypothetical willingness to damage, whereas the threat expresses the real intention and the presence of conditions and factors for the possibility of their causing. Based on the conducted analysis, we can conclude that the security threat has a targeted nature, has the subjects and the objects of threats, and also has a strong trend – damage. This way, the “security risk” is the risk at the stage of transition from possibility to reality, the intention or the demonstration of the readiness of the subject of threats to cause damage to the security object. This fact allows us to conclude that the appearance or absence of a security threat is defined by the presence of subject and object relations.
If you follow the anthropological concept of security, the subject of threats to personnel security are people. Neoclassical theory of Economics defines a person with one hand as the rationalist, on the other hand as a labor resource, which is the source of income. In this case, the rationalism of the worker is the economic base of personnel dangers and threats. In this way, not only current employees, but the applicants for the vacant positions, and also former employees of the organization can threaten.
As the object of human security should be considered organizational resources of the employer, such as: material, financial, property, human or labor, information, etc. In this case staff of the organization can act as the object of threats. In this case we should talk not about personnel security of the organization, but about security for staff of the organization.
That way, in subjects and objects relations of personnel security the staff of the organization can act both as a subject and as the object of threats, which means that the threat of security personnel is two-track nature of the counterclaim. On the one hand, the organization's staff needs protection and on the other hand – can act as a source of threats and dangers.
From this points, the concept of “personnel threat” also has two aspects:
(a) an activity from former, existing or potential employees of the organization, making the risk for the whole organization or its individual parts and damaging;
(b) a danger (physical, health, psychological, reputational, financial and etc.) for the personnel of the organization, caused by the activity of individuals and social groups, the state and public institutes, the adverse effect of natural and anthropogenic forces.
The author's understanding of the term "personnel threat" is shown in fig. 2.
Figure 2
The content of personnel threats in the organization
Source: compiled by the authors
The personnel threat from employees (the aspect (a)) is also called an insider threat: “Any person with access, clearance, knowledge of information, or other privilege exceeding that of the general public, who is motivated to intentionally adversely impact an organization’s mission” (Festa, 2012).
Personnel threat can be expressed verbally, in writing, in actions, by influences, or otherwise.
First let's define what the consequences of threats of the subject may be for the security object. In scientific literature there are three types of possible damage as the result of realization of threats from their carrier:
(a) destruction, that is violation (destruction) of the structure of object;
(b) dysfunction, that is violation of the functionality of the object, constraints (blocking) its action and freedom of thought;
(c) the deterioration of the conditions of existence of the object, the reduction of the potentials in achieving the goals.
It was stated above that the carriers of personnel threats can act, as applicable, former employees, and applicants.
If a former employee after the dismissal harbored feelings of resentment, anger and thirst for revenge, he can take action against the organization, its image, officials of the organization. For example, he may challenge the decision of the management in the court, prepare physical violence towards the persons whom he believes to be guilty of his problems, destroy important documents, convey important information to competitors, etc. Personnel threats from former employees can cause various types of damage to the organization (Tab.1). Some species of these types of damage former employees, who switched to competitors can also cause to the organization.
The applicants can be “pseudoapplicants” and can represent the interests of competing organizations, criminal organizations, headhunters. They can also find out confidential information for the purpose of its further transmission to competitors or use it for their own selfish and illegal purposes (Tab.1). Current employees of the organization are also carriers of personnel threats to the organization. As the results of research by PricewaterhouseCoopers, "the most serious economic offences committed by persons employed by the company" (Russian economic crime survey, 2014).
Destructive activity from the staff can have a selfish motivation or unintentional nature. It may occur in the disclosure of confidential information, falsification or destruction of the business information, theft or intentional damage (destruction) of the property, financial fraud, embezzlement, intellectual property, insufficient training, irresponsibility to the performed work, etc. (Tab.1).
Table 1
The methods and implications of personnel threats by the staff
Methods and implications of personnel threats by the staff |
Personnel threats carriers |
||
Current employees |
Former employees |
Applicants |
|
Destruction |
Financial fraud, embezzlement, intellectual property theft or deliberate damage (destruction) of the property |
The destruction of important documents; property damage |
|
Dysfunction |
Failure of qualification, irresponsibility and negligence in relation to the work; the abuse of power that is able to cause damage to various economic and moral interests of the organization (e.g., work registration of fictitious employees receiving bribes for arranging employment) |
Challenging the decisions of the management in court; physical punishment over officials |
The use of confidential information for illegal purposes |
The deterioration of the conditions of existence |
Disclosure of confidential information, falsification or destruction of business information |
Sale or transfer of a business or other important information to competitors; the publication or dissemination of negative information about the activities in the organization |
Transferring the confidential information to competitors, headhunters |
Source: compiled by the authors
It should be noted that the implementation of the personnel threats from the staff is mainly of a latent character. Their effects are difficult to identify and assess.
Sometimes the implementation of personnel threats from the staff in accordance with Russian legislation often classified as a crime. As for the characteristics of the crimes committed by staff of the organization various terms are used: economic, service, job, corporate, corruption, professional, office crime. Implementation of personnel threats in accordance with the Russian criminal legislation may fall under some of the following offences: theft (article 158 of the Сriminal code); fraud (article 159 of the Сriminal code); misappropriation and embezzlement (theft of another's property entrusted to guilty, article 160 of the Сriminal code); damage to property by deception or abuse of trust (article 165 of the Сriminal code); abuse of authority (article 201 of the Сriminal code); commercial bribery (article 204 of the Сriminal code); illegal receipt and disclosure of information constituting commercial secrets and other secrets (article 183 of the Сriminal code) etc.
In Fig. 3 the information presents the number of posts in Russian organizations of perpetrators of crimes related to managerial performance in the period from 2011 till the first half of 2014.
Figure 3
The number of officers in the Russian organization who have committed crimes
against the organization doing the managerial functions in 2011 – 2016
Source: https://fedstat.ru/indicator/41839
As we can see in Fig. 3 over the last three years the number of persons who has committed the crimes, having positions in Russian organizations related to managerial performance increased more than twice which indicates about increasing of the number of cases of personnel threats by the staff.
The most destructive damage to the organizations is caused by theft by the staff, committed by appropriation and embezzlement. The results of studies by Vinokurov and Kuznetsova (Vinokurov & Kuznetsova, 2014) shows that the number of personnel threats, committed by way of assignment and waste is up to 10% in the total number of economic crimes against the organization.
Ensuring of personnel safety of the organization from the standpoint of neutralizing external threats and the internal environment of the organization to the staff is a fairly new area of research for the Russian economy and actively actualized in the last two decades.
Personnel threats expressed to the staff of the organization are subject to man-made, institutional, technological and natural factors. Anthropogenic factors determine the existence of threats carriers, such as: social environment (family, friends, work colleagues and the organisation of leisure), criminal organizations, representatives of the interests of the competitors of the organization, including head-hunters; institutional factors are manifested in the activity of state bodies of power and administration, including security agencies; natural and man-made factors threaten natural disasters, technogenic catastrophes, entailing breach of modes of operation of engineering, information and technical systems.
As an important threat to personnel security should be identified and psychological terror at the workplace (mobbing, bullying, bossing). As noted by Gatti and Fyodorova (Gatti & Fyodorova, 2014), the cause of psychological terror can be a simple managerial incompetence of the leadership in particular, no efficient mechanism of communication "supervisor – subordinate", no exhaust mechanism of conflict resolution, inability to find an effective middle managers. The researchers argue that the epidemic of bullying is identified in one of the five companies of Russia, the victims of terror are from 5% to 20% of employees (Gatti & Fyodorova, 2014). The desperate victim of the terror can cause irreparable damage to the company, about which we spoke above (Tab. 1).
When bossing and mobbing the employee should not expect protection from the organization. According to article 151 of the Civil code of the Russian Federation devoted to moral harm the employee can neutralize personnel threat. But there are not almost won cases on this article. To prove that the reason for the implementation of the personnel threats were psychological terror in the workplace is virtually impossible. More information about staffing terror can be found in the work of Fedorova, Vishnevskii and Dvorakova (Fedorova, Vishnevskii & Dvorakova, 2014).
Implementation of personnel threats against the staff entails different kinds of damage. The methods and the consequences of the implementation of the personnel threats against staff are presented in Tab. 2.
In this way, provision of personnel security organization requires the solution of a question of overcoming personnel threats.
The work of Bowen "Social responsibilities of the businessman" published in 1953 (Bowen, 1953), has initiated the development of many relevant concepts of interaction between business and society in the global literature management. Among them the most stable position belongs to the theory of corporate social responsibility, which according to A. Carroll is the unifying core of alternative concepts of business and society (Carroll, 1999). Earlier he proposed to consider corporate social responsibility as the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations imposed by society of the organization in a given period (Carroll, 1979).
Exactly this interpretation of the concept, later expressed in the elaborated model, the most widely used and defined “mainstream” of modern research in the field of corporate social responsibility.
How the corporate social responsibility and threats to personnel security of organization are related?
Table 2
Methods and implications of personnel threats to the staff
Types of damage to the organization or its separate parts |
Personnel threats carriers |
|||||
Social worker’s environment |
Criminal structures |
The representatives of the competitors’ interests |
Other employees of the organization |
State authorities |
Natural and man-made situations and phenomena |
|
Destruction |
|
Murder, attempted murder, kidnapping workers and members of their families |
Headhunting |
Recruiting on behalf of a third party organization |
|
The death of an employee |
Dysfunction |
|
Abetment of complicity in the cash theft |
Declination to participating in malfeasance |
Declination to participating in malfeasance |
Hiding from the employer compromising information |
Loss of health; violation of the modes of operation of engineering and technical systems in the course of employment |
The deterioration of the conditions of existence |
Moral and mental suffering of the workers; spreading negative information about the organization |
|
|
Psychological terror at the workplace (mobbing, bullying, bossing), the deterioration of the social climate in the working team, minimizing the business reputation of the employee |
The decline in competitiveness in the labour market |
|
Source: compiled by the authors
It was shown above that ensure of the personnel safety of the company is associated with neutralizing personnel threats against staff. Believe that the protection of the company’s staff as part of society from the negative impacts of anthropogenic, technogenic and natural factors is an area of corporate social responsibility in order to comply with prevailing social values – the rule must be “the strong protects the weak”, that is the of the company protects the staff as being more powerful structure in relation to the carriers of the threats.
The low level or absence of corporate social responsibility which is manifested in the failure of the company 's obligations to employees (delay in payment or reduction of wages, unfair dismissal, etc.), lack of competent policy of the layoffs, inefficient system of motivation of integrity of personnel (Zhyvko, 2009), provokes their destructive activity against the company.
The author's understanding of the relationships between the corporate social responsibility and the personnel security of the organization is reflected in Fig. 4.
In this case, we believe that overcoming personnel threats in the organization is due to the development of corporate social responsibility and is one of the conditions of its existence.
Figure 4
The author's understanding of the relationships between the provision of the
personnel security of the organization and development of the corporate social responsibility
Source: compiled by the authors
Addressing issues of neutralizating personnel threats in the organization must occur simultaneously in two directions. On the one hand, the necessary prevention of threats including a quality selection of personnel and the establishment of an effective system of social protection of personnel. Technology selection and screening of candidates for employment should exclude candidates personal qualities, habits or autobiographical information that makes them potentially vulnerable to recruitment or blackmail, and does not exclude the possibility of selfish motives for employee performance in the organization. In addition, you need continuous study of the situation in the workforce and employee relationship.
On the other hand, should have in place procedures of preventing the implementation of the personnel threats and punishment of perpetrators (Gerasymenko, 2012). In this direction it is necessary to develop and implement such personnel activities:
special training for staff in providing personal and corporate security;
protection of corporate secrets and confidential information of the organization from irresponsible and disloyal employees (Cholez, 2014);
motivation for loyal and responsible behaviour of the staff at work in the organization and also if the staff is released;
protection from disloyal and unreliable staff, including a set of measures for assessing the loyalty, trustworthiness of the staff and raising its level, prevention of unwanted behavior of the staff, and disciplinary action in relation to disloyal, irresponsible employees;
preventive conversations with managers about the possible appearance of a destructive conflict with key employees;
assisting employees involved with a difficult life situation;
timely and full implementation of social and monetary obligations to employees;
special sanctions for specific employees and labor groups for violations of the requirements and rules of property, information, intelligent security employer. These sanctions can be administrative (most severe impact), economic or psychological.
The paper is devoted to the study of meaningful personnel understanding threats in relations with possible losses for the company in their implementation. The obtained results allow to state that ensuring personnel security in the modern company must be associated with the implementation of a package of measures in the field of the personnel management aimed at minimizing the risk of damage to the company by staff and directly to the staff. It is shown that the combination of these measures defines the sphere of corporate social responsibility of the company towards the employees as part of the society.
BOWEN, H. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. N. Y.: Harper & Row.
CARROLL, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of definitional construct. Business and Society, (38 (3)), 268–295.
CARROLL, A. (1979). A three dimentional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, (4 (4)), 497–505.
CHOLEZ, H. (2014). Maturity assessment and process improvement for information security management in small and medium enterprises. Journal of Software: Evolution And Process, (26(5)), 496-503.
DRUCKER, P., and MACIARIELLO, J. (2009). Management Cases: Revised Edition. N.Y.: Harper & Row.
FEDOROVA, A., and I. VISHNEVSKII , and Z. DVORAKOVA (2014). Evaluation of the organizational influence on physical and psychosocial health at work. In 8th International Days of Statistics and Economics (pp. 395-404). Prague: Melandrium, Czech Republic.
FESTA, James P. (2012). New technologies and emerging threats: personnel security adjudicative guidelines in the age of social networking. Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School. Retrieved from: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a576171.pdf.
GATTI, M., and A. FYODOROVa (2014). Toxic elements of the corporate social and labor relations: workplace, management and staff. Bulletin of Omsk University. Series: Economics, (2), 46-51.
GERASYMENKO, O. M. (2012). Modelling the system of personnel security provision at business entity. Actual Problems of Economics, (128(2)), 99-104.
KUZNETSOVA, N.V. (2012). Ensure personnel safety as function of personnel management. Proceedings of the Irkutsk State Economic Academy (Baikal state University of Economics and law), (4), 16.
LAKTIONOVA, K. (2010). Prevention of corporate fraud . Handbook of personnel management, (5), 10.
RUSSIAN ECONOMIC CRIME SURVEY 2014. On the right track. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.pwc.ru/ru/ceosurvey/assets/crime_survey_2014.pdf
VINOKUROV, M.A., and N.V. KUZNETSOVA (2014). Ensure personnel safety organization: criminological aspect. Criminology journal of Baikal National University of Economics and Law, (4), 54-64.
ZHYVKO, Z.B. (2009). Analysis and evaluation of personnel motivation system as a security factor. Actual Problems of Economics, (100), 65-73.
1. Altai State University. Department of Personnel Management and Socio-Economic Relations. Barnaul, Russia. E-mail: barnaulhome@mail.ru
2. Ural State University of Economics. Department of Labor Economics and Personnel Management Ural State University of Economics. Ekaterinburg, Russia. E-mail: barnaulhome@mail.ru
3. Federal Research Center of Agrarian Economy and Social Development of Rural Areas – All Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Economics. Moscow, Russia. E-mail: aleksei.bogoviz@gmail.com