Security refers to a state where one is free from danger or injury, and is neither anxious nor fearful (Andrew, Whinston, & Xue, 2013). Organizations value the products and services they produce, and to a greater extent, the confidentiality and protection of vital information, personnel, and structures that relate with them. Ensuring the welfare of all these elements requires laws, regulations, procedures, and standards regarding safety. Hence, the author of this paper argues that security plays an integral role in the protection and prevention of associated risks.
Security measures are taken as a precaution in protection of an organization’s assets. The first role of security is mitigation (Archer, Connelly, Guo, & Yuan, 2011). This implies that it is used to reduce threat levels. The intensity of a threat can be acted upon and lessened when the security personnel in an organization are aware of the looming danger. If a bomb threat occurred in a neighborhood, the best mitigation measure would be ensuring that any vehicle or persons entering an organization’s premises are thoroughly screened, and constant surveillance put around the building.
It also enhances risk identification (Archer et al, 2011). It can be very difficult to identify personal behavior of persons in an organization, leave alone their intentions. People are able to fake appearances and appeal to one’s innermost emotions, especially security personnel, making them amenable. With witty security, a person’s trend can be noted, and whenever there’s a paradigm shift this can be recorded as a security risk to the firm, ensuring appropriate action is taken. Moreover, security ensures control (Andrew, Whinston, & Xue, 2013). An organization with proper security systems in place is able to offer physical security to its employees, personal security to employers, operation security to production, communication security to systems, and network security to information. This relates to a round-the-clock protection of an organization’s environment and efficiency in its running.
A director of security is mandated to prevent loss. This arises from disaster preparedness, whereby such personnel are able to identify cases of fraud, compromise, and interruptions. They curb such unwanted occurrences, leading to prevention of loss. They also monitor the services they provide. Man-made machines develop discrepancies, making them be constantly looked after to ensure thorough performance. The directors are professionally trained to look into their systems to guarantee quality performance (Andrew, Whinston, & Xue, 2013).
Professional directors check that there is a balance between security processes and management. Security officers may look down upon employees, the converse also being true. Being in charge, security directors see to it that there is a cordial relationship as pertains to employees and the management, creating a friendly environment within the organization (Andrew, Whinston, & Xue, 2013). Investigations are also carried out by security directors. Being, professional, they are unbiased and less likely to be swayed by opinion, unlike their juniors. They are, consequently, able to evaluate and analyze sensitive cases within an organization.
Gone are the days when security officers used to be recruited on the basis of how poor their performance was in class. In this rapidly globalizing world, it has been realized that brainpower is a significant part of safety, and physical power just a fading shadow (Bulgurcu, Cavusoglu, & Benbasat, 2010). Thus, security personnel need to acquire certain skills that approve them for their specific positions, one of which is confidentiality (Archer et al, 2011). This is being able to allow only authorized employees to access classified information and access within an organization. This ensures the safety of an organization’s operations and data.
In addition, integrity, which implies being morally sound, where one is not broken from the truth as a result of the influence of somebody else, is a crucial prerequisite. In this case, one is not biased to a certain line of thinking and uses pure logic to discern different situations. All organizations value integrity among the people they associate with (Bulgurcu, Cavusoglu, & Benbasat, 2010). Lastly, being available whenever one is needed is an important aspect of the skills required for a successful security management (Dahbur, Isleem, & Ismail, 2012). It can be devastating when information is needed, and one is not available for reasons only known to them, probably with intentions of malice or sabotage. This fact alone makes availability a critical skill that enhances high level security in an organization.
Relationships constitute a vital part of any organization. Good rapport needs to be built among the staff members, whether subordinate or top-tier, since this enhances communication (Archer et al, 2011). People are able to interact freely, creating an environment where any arising security issues can be addressed, and consultations made on the best way forward. This allows for pertinent exchange of information between persons and organizations, in the long run mitigating the risks of being insecure, and promotes the mission of the security department (Dahbur, Isleem, & Ismail, 2012).
Getting proper security detail is a rigorous process. It involves creating policies that govern the relevant personnel, creating awareness on the scope of their work, training them physically to ensure they keep fit, educating them to enable them assess situations reasonably and enhancing technological expertise to be able to run security systems (Andrew, Whinston, & Xue, 2013). Within an organization, the operators have to go through general organizational policies, functional policies, procedures, and guidelines to enhance uniformity, and uphold standards. In conclusion, security is a well-informed sense of assurance that information risks and controls are in proper balance.
Andrew, B, Whinston, Z .X., & Xue, L., (2013). Managing Interdependent Security Risks: Cyber insurance, security services, and risk pooling arrangements. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(1), 123-152.
Archer, N. P. Connelly, C.E., Guo, K.H., & Yuan, .Y (2011). Understanding Non-malicious Security Violations in the Workplace: A composite behavior model. Journal of Information Management Systems, 28(2), 203-236.
Bulgurcu, B., Cavusoglu, H., Benbasat, I. (2010). Information Security Policy Compliance: An Empirical Study of Rationality-Based Beliefs and Information Security Awareness, 34(3), 253.
Dahbur, K.; Isleem, M.R.; Ismail, S. (2012). A Study of Information Security Issues and Measures in Jordan. International Management Review, 8(2), 71-82.