4
4
4
4
Consistent enforcement of security processes and procedures can help to ingrain an effective nuclear security culture, but only where these processes and procedures are effective to begin with -and are updated to reflect changing security challenges. Rather than specific processes or procedures, according to the IAEA, ‘An effective nuclear security culture requires a set of principles that managers can instil in the organization to guide decisions and behaviour… Individuals should be inculcated with these principles and should be shown evidence that they are being applied consistently across the organization.’
These principles include:
(a) Motivation;
(b) Leadership;
(c) Commitment and responsibility;
(d) Professionalism and competence; and
(e) Learning and improvement.
The consistent application of security processes and procedures is both a product of effective nuclear security culture, but can also contribute towards it – particularly when change has been introduced. There may be many examples of change, but common forms may be the introduction of new processes and procedures, management re-organisation, or the induction of new staff.
Consistent application of processes and procedures contribute to the sense of shared belief and expectation among personnel. According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) shared beliefs and expectations helps foster a consistent approach throughout an organisation. Accordingly, SHRM notes that when an organisation has a strong culture that is supported by strategy and structure ‘three things happen’, namely: ‘Employees know how top management wants them to respond to any situation, employees believe that the expected response is the proper one, and employees know that they will be rewarded for demonstrating the organization's values.’
As staff are likely to reflect the values and behaviours of their superiors, the consistent application of nuclear security principles and practice is relevant to all levels of an organisation, and at all times within each layer of authority. Consistency is also effective for security – removing opportunities for insiders to commit malicious acts. According to RAND, ‘In 33 percent of the incidents perpetrated by insiders and outsiders and in 7 percent of those perpetrated by lone insiders, the companies did not follow their own established security procedures, and this negligence contributes to the success of the crime. Since the insider conspirators were often people responsible for enforcing security procedures, it is not surprising that 78 percent of the companies [assessed] that suffered from insider conspiracy crimes failed to practice the security measures they advocated’.
Minor errors will occur from time to time. In these situations, it is important that events are evaluated honestly and fairly by management, and that such incidents provide an opportunity for learning and improvement.
Further Reading:
