| Literature DB >> 35669336 |
Victoria Kisekka1, Sanjay Goel2.
Abstract
Diligent compliance with Information security Policies (ISP) can effectively deter threats but can also adversely impact organizational productivity, impeding organizational task completion during extreme events. This paper examines employees' job performance during extreme events. We use the conservation of resources (COR) theory to examine how psychological resources (individual resilience, job meaningfulness, self-efficacy) and organizational resources (incident command leadership, information availability, and perceived effectiveness of security and privacy controls) influence ISP compliance decisions and job performance during extreme events. The results show that a one-size-fits-all approach to ISP is not ideal during extreme events; ISP can distract employees from critical job tasks. We also observed that under certain conditions, psychological resources, such as individual resilience, are reserved for job performance, while others, such as self-efficacy, are reserved for ISP compliance. A post hoc analysis of data from respondents who experienced strain during a real extreme event while at work was conducted. Our discussion provides recommendations on how security and privacy policies can be designed to reflect disaster conditions by relaxing some policy provisions.Entities:
Keywords: Extreme events; Job performance, Security policy compliance; Security behavior
Year: 2022 PMID: 35669336 PMCID: PMC9156359 DOI: 10.1007/s10796-022-10281-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Inf Syst Front ISSN: 1387-3326 Impact factor: 5.261
Fig. 1Conceptual model of the factors that influence perceived job performance during extreme events
Attributes of participating hospitals
| Hospital | Number of beds | Specialty services provided | Emergency care? | Catholic healthcare ministry affiliation? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital 1 | 133 | 1 | No | No |
| Hospital 2 | 175 | Multiple specialties | Yes | Yes |
| Hospital 3 | 457 | Multiple specialties | Yes | Yes |
| Hospital 4 | 70 | Multiple specialties | Yes | Yes |
| Hospital 5 | 262 | Multiple specialties | Yes | No |
| Hospital 6 | 413 | Multiple specialties | Yes | Yes |
| Hospital 7 | 602 | Multiple specialties | Yes | No |
| Hospital 8 | 261 | Multiple specialties | Yes | Yes |
Survey instrument
| Construct | Items | Citation |
|---|---|---|
| ISP compliance intentions | 1: After the extreme event (when the Health Information System (HIS) comes back online), I intend to carry out my responsibilities prescribed in the information PRIVACY POLICIES of my hospital when I use information and computers 2: After the extreme event, I intend to comply with the requirements of the information SECURITY POLICY of my hospital in the future 3: After the extreme event, I intend to protect information and technology resources according to the requirements of the information SECURITY POLICY of my hospital in the future 4: After the extreme event, I intend to comply with the requirements of the information PRIVACY POLICY of my hospital in the future 5: After the extreme event, I intend to maintain the privacy of information and technology resources according to the requirements of the information PRIVACY POLICY of my hospital in the future | (Bulgurcu et al., |
| Perceived Job Performance | Immediately after the extreme event (when the HIS comes back online), I would be… 1: …. able to perform my duties on time 2: …. able to respond to patient requests promptly 3: …. able to give individual attention to patients | (Cronin Jr & Taylor, |
| Individual resilience | 1: I would bounce back quickly after the extreme event 2: It would not take me long to recover from the extreme event 3: I would come through the extreme event with little trouble | (Smith et al., |
| Job meaningfulness | 1: Immediately after the extreme event, I feel that the work I do would be very important to me 2: Immediately after the extreme event, I feel that my job activities would be personally meaningful to me | (Spreitzer, |
| Perceived self- efficacy | 1: Immediately after the extreme event (when the HIS come back online), I would be confident in my ability to recognize security and privacy risks to patients’ information 2: Immediately after the extreme event (when the HIS come back online), I would be confident in my ability to maintain the privacy of patients’ information at all times 3: Immediately after the extreme event (when the HIS come back online), I would be confident in my ability to keep patients’ information secure | N/A |
| Perceived effectiveness of ICL | Item 1: There is a leader who oversees and manages activities Immediately after the extreme event (when the HIS comes back online), the leader would. 2:.. provide me with clear instructions 3:.. be available to respond to my questions 4:.. be encouraging and supportive 5:.. allow me to make decisions | (MacKenzie et al., |
| Perceived effectiveness of privacy controls | 1: My hospital would have sufficient controls for safeguarding the privacy of patients’ information after the extreme event 2: My hospital would have policies for safeguarding the privacy of patients’ information after the extreme event 3: My hospital would have workflows for safeguarding the privacy of patients’ information after the extreme event | N/A |
| Perceived effectiveness of security policies | 1: Immediately after the extreme event (when the HIS comes back online), the Hospital Information Systems (HIS) would make it possible for me to securely share information within the hospital 2: Immediately after the extreme event (when the HIS comes back online), the Hospital Information Systems (HIS) would make it possible for me to securely share information with individuals outside the hospital 3: Immediately after the extreme event (when the HIS comes back online), the (HIS) would prevent unauthorized access to patients’ information | N/A |
| Information Availability | 1: Immediately after the extreme event the information I need to do my job would be made available to me 2: Immediately after the extreme event real-time information regarding the extreme event (such as resource availability, the status of electronic systems, etc., would be made available to me 3: Immediately after the extreme event (when the HIS come back online), I would have access to up-to-date information | (MacKenzie et al., |
Descriptive statistics (n = 163)
| Respondent Groups | Number of Respondents |
|---|---|
| Work group | |
| Clinical staff | 111 |
| Nonclinical staff | 50 |
| Gender | |
| Women | 121 |
| Men | 38 |
| Leadership role | |
| Managers | 36 |
| Non-managers | 126 |
| Role during emergencies | |
| Leadership role | 26 |
| Non-leadership role | 135 |
Validity and Reliability Results
| Variable/Items | Item loading | Cronbach alpha | Composite reliability | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISP compliance intentions | 0.942 | 0.956 | 0.812 | |
| 1 | 0.836 | |||
| 2 | 0.867 | |||
| 3 | 0.941 | |||
| 4 | 0.923 | |||
| 5 | 0.935 | |||
| Perceived Job Performance | 0.937 | 0.960 | 0.888 | |
| 1 | 0.937 | |||
| 2 | 0.953 | |||
| 3 | 0.937 | |||
| Individual resilience | 0.747 | 0.839 | 0.648 | |
| 1 | 0.814 | |||
| 2 | 0.815 | |||
| 3 | 0.786 | |||
| Job meaningfulness | 0.919 | 0.961 | 0.925 | |
| 1 | 0.965 | |||
| 2 | 0.958 | |||
| Perceived self- efficacy | 0.918 | 0.948 | 0.860 | |
| 1 | 0.896 | |||
| 2 | 0.953 | |||
| 3 | 0.931 | |||
| Perceived effectiveness of ICL( | 0.964 | 0.962 | 0.844 | |
| 1 | 0.887 | |||
| 2 | 0.950 | |||
| 3 | 0.948 | |||
| 4 | 0.942 | |||
| 5 | 0.863 | |||
| Perceived effectiveness of security and privacy controls (second-order construct) | 0.921 | 0.939 | 0.719 | |
| Perceived effectiveness of privacy controls | 0.909 | 0.943 | 0.847 | |
| 1 | 0.877 | |||
| 2 | 0.941 | |||
| 3 | 0.942 | |||
| Perceived effectiveness of security policies | 0.759 | 0.862 | 0.678 | |
| 1 | 0.903 | |||
| 2 | 0.792 | |||
| 3 | 0.767 | |||
| Information Availability | 0.914 | 0.945 | 853 | |
| 1 | 0.929 | |||
| 2 | 0.932 | |||
| 3 | 0.909 |
Fig. 2Results of the hypothesized model of the factors that incluence perceived job performance during extreme events. Path significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.000
Results summary of support for hypotheses
| Path | β | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual resilience ➔ ISP compliance intentions | 0.60 | 10.68*** | Yes |
| Individual resilience ➔ Perceived job performance | -0.06 | 0.978 | No |
| Job meaningfulness ➔ ISP compliance intentions | 0.12 | 1.931* | Yes |
| Job meaningfulness ➔ Perceived job performance | 0.14 | 2.109* | Yes |
| Self-efficacy ➔ ISP compliance intentions | 0.23 | 2.836** | Yes |
| Self-efficacy ➔ Perceived job performance | -0.00 | 0.00 | No |
| Perceived effectiveness of ICL ➔ Individual resilience | 0.38 | 5.655*** | Yes |
| Perceived effectiveness of ICL ➔ Job meaningfulness | 0.37 | 5.412*** | Yes |
| Perceived effectiveness of ICL ➔ Self-efficacy | 0.45 | 6.355*** | Yes |
| Perceived effectiveness of security and privacy controls ➔ ISP compliance intentions | 0.18 | 2.363** | Yes |
| Perceived effectiveness of security and privacy controls ➔ Perceived job performance | 0.24 | 2.662** | Yes |
| Information availability ➔ ISP compliance intentions | -0.22 | 2.586** | Yes |
| Information availability ➔ Perceived job performance | 0.52 | 4.291*** | Yes |
| Perceived effectiveness of security controls ➔ Perceived effectiveness of security and privacy controls | 0.47 | 17.880*** | Yes |
| Perceived effectiveness of privacy controls ➔ Perceived effectiveness of security and privacy controls | 0.64 | 18.373*** | Yes |
| ISP compliance intentions ➔ Perceived job performance | -0.11 | 1.319 | No |
Path significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.000
Fig. 3Results of the post hoc analysis of the factors that influence perceived job performance amongst respondents who have experienced an extreme event. Path significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.000