A quantitative assessment of trust, or how much is your loyalty
In this article, I propose to consider a methodology for assessing the loyalty of company employees. Despite the many expert methods for assessing information security risks, I still could not find methods that at least somehow assess the risk of insiders and the human factor.
That is why I will venture to propose this approach for discussion. The solution is still very crude, and first of all I’m interested in your opinion on the topic “Is it worth developing the technique further” and “There are similar approaches and so many, why reinvent the wheel”.
So, if anyone is interested, welcome tackle.
In one of my conversations with my girlfriend, I somehow touched on the issue of interpersonal relations as economic transactions. For example, if you are asked to meet you at the train station and take you home, then in essence you are offered to conclude a contract for the provision of transportation services, in exchange for the person’s society and his good attitude (credit of trust).
Then I asked her “what mileage do you rate your company?”, I just wanted to know how far she was going, but then everything turned out completely different. She got mad at me, and I couldn’t say anything, because the idea had not yet formed.
To begin, consider the relationship model using the example of “Give a friend a lift.” Let's define the terms:
As a result, we get a deal where, the buyer offers a certain price, taking into account the experience of past appeals (Confidence coefficient), and the seller decides whether to provide the service, taking into account the history of the relationship (A trust loan in this context is very similar to a credit history when obtaining a loan).
And as it is not difficult to notice, in interpersonal relations it is not the buyer, but the seller that plays the decisive role. The buyer can only offer some compensation for the inconvenience presented to the seller, and he already decides whether it is worth it or not.
Here we can draw an intermediate conclusion: Your self-esteem costs exactly as much as you are ready to deliver to others.
Self-Assessment = (Compensation / Caused)
As you know, in this case, the concept of self-esteem is tied to specific relationships. Indeed, when communicating with some people, you can show arrogance, and vice versa with servility.
Since we have decided on a person’s self-esteem, we can assess on its basis the extent to which he is ready to endure additional inconvenience, without changing loyalty. That is, we will try to evaluate a person’s loyalty in monetary terms, no matter how blasphemous it sounds.
In this case, we will rely on the relationship between the employee and the employer, because in them Compensation for inconvenience is rigidly fixed and expressed in the form of wages. And the inconvenience provided can be replaced by the time in hours. As a result, we get:
Self-esteem = Salary / Hours
Now we divide the time on what the employee is obliged to do and what he does additionally. If the employee avoids fulfilling his duties, we will consider the processing negative.
Hours = work + processing We
establish that during Processing = 0, the employee’s self-esteem is 1.
Salary / Work = 1
Salary = Work
In the event that Processing is present, we get an equation of the following form:
Salary / (Work + Processing) = 1
i.e. we determined that through processing (whether positive or negative), the employee compensates for his self-esteem. We will also determine the percentage of time that an employee spends on work and on processing separately. Suppose P is the time to work, P is the time to process.
P + P = 1
Then we can derive the ratio:
Self-esteem / (P * Salary) = 1 / Salary
And therefore, we can express self-esteem:
Self-esteem = (P * Salary) / Salary
Well and, accordingly, the time spent on processing, similarly determines loyalty.
Loyalty = (P * Salary) / Salary
This, of course, is a very rough estimate, since here you still need to add the loyalty coefficient, some personal characteristics, but this example determines the main direction.
It remains to answer the question of why all this is necessary.
In my opinion, in addition to the goal indicated at the beginning of the article and the assessment of employee loyalty, this methodology will also be useful to HR managers in determining employee motivation.
In matters of information security, trust is a much more important factor. Starting from the fact that you cannot control employees around the clock, which means you have no guarantee that there will be no leakage. And if you are sure that the employee’s loyalty is higher than the value of the information to which he is admitted, then you can reduce the cost of controlling this employee.
Thus, this technique can make significant adjustments to the organization of the security services, provided that it is brought to a suitable state.
PS I did not want to publish this work in such a raw form, so I hope for your constructive criticism.
That is why I will venture to propose this approach for discussion. The solution is still very crude, and first of all I’m interested in your opinion on the topic “Is it worth developing the technique further” and “There are similar approaches and so many, why reinvent the wheel”.
So, if anyone is interested, welcome tackle.
Part zero. Lyrical.
In one of my conversations with my girlfriend, I somehow touched on the issue of interpersonal relations as economic transactions. For example, if you are asked to meet you at the train station and take you home, then in essence you are offered to conclude a contract for the provision of transportation services, in exchange for the person’s society and his good attitude (credit of trust).
Then I asked her “what mileage do you rate your company?”, I just wanted to know how far she was going, but then everything turned out completely different. She got mad at me, and I couldn’t say anything, because the idea had not yet formed.
Part one. Introductory. Your self esteem.
To begin, consider the relationship model using the example of “Give a friend a lift.” Let's define the terms:
- Buyer - a person who purchases a service, in our case, the one who is being transported;
- Seller - a person providing a service, the one who drives;
- A credit of trust is a certain ratio of relationships, based on the experience of past contacts;
- Confidence coefficient is a certain indicator of how many people are sure that they will not be refused help.
As a result, we get a deal where, the buyer offers a certain price, taking into account the experience of past appeals (Confidence coefficient), and the seller decides whether to provide the service, taking into account the history of the relationship (A trust loan in this context is very similar to a credit history when obtaining a loan).
And as it is not difficult to notice, in interpersonal relations it is not the buyer, but the seller that plays the decisive role. The buyer can only offer some compensation for the inconvenience presented to the seller, and he already decides whether it is worth it or not.
Here we can draw an intermediate conclusion: Your self-esteem costs exactly as much as you are ready to deliver to others.
Self-Assessment = (Compensation / Caused)
As you know, in this case, the concept of self-esteem is tied to specific relationships. Indeed, when communicating with some people, you can show arrogance, and vice versa with servility.
Part two. Estimated. Your devotion.
Since we have decided on a person’s self-esteem, we can assess on its basis the extent to which he is ready to endure additional inconvenience, without changing loyalty. That is, we will try to evaluate a person’s loyalty in monetary terms, no matter how blasphemous it sounds.
In this case, we will rely on the relationship between the employee and the employer, because in them Compensation for inconvenience is rigidly fixed and expressed in the form of wages. And the inconvenience provided can be replaced by the time in hours. As a result, we get:
Self-esteem = Salary / Hours
Now we divide the time on what the employee is obliged to do and what he does additionally. If the employee avoids fulfilling his duties, we will consider the processing negative.
Hours = work + processing We
establish that during Processing = 0, the employee’s self-esteem is 1.
Salary / Work = 1
Salary = Work
In the event that Processing is present, we get an equation of the following form:
Salary / (Work + Processing) = 1
i.e. we determined that through processing (whether positive or negative), the employee compensates for his self-esteem. We will also determine the percentage of time that an employee spends on work and on processing separately. Suppose P is the time to work, P is the time to process.
P + P = 1
Then we can derive the ratio:
Self-esteem / (P * Salary) = 1 / Salary
And therefore, we can express self-esteem:
Self-esteem = (P * Salary) / Salary
Well and, accordingly, the time spent on processing, similarly determines loyalty.
Loyalty = (P * Salary) / Salary
This, of course, is a very rough estimate, since here you still need to add the loyalty coefficient, some personal characteristics, but this example determines the main direction.
Part three. The final. Practical significance.
It remains to answer the question of why all this is necessary.
In my opinion, in addition to the goal indicated at the beginning of the article and the assessment of employee loyalty, this methodology will also be useful to HR managers in determining employee motivation.
In matters of information security, trust is a much more important factor. Starting from the fact that you cannot control employees around the clock, which means you have no guarantee that there will be no leakage. And if you are sure that the employee’s loyalty is higher than the value of the information to which he is admitted, then you can reduce the cost of controlling this employee.
Thus, this technique can make significant adjustments to the organization of the security services, provided that it is brought to a suitable state.
PS I did not want to publish this work in such a raw form, so I hope for your constructive criticism.