Journal of Human Security

1.1.- The Notion of Security

Security has multiple meanings used in various domains and its understanding differs depending on the area of analysis [14]. The plurality of definitions stems from the fact that representatives from different scientific domains perceive and describe security in the light of knowledge and terminology regarding their particular disciplines [15]. Despite the above, the majority of researchers agree that security is an anthropocentric category. It may pertain as well to physical and natural phenomena, but it is always seen from the perspective of a human being as a social individual [16]. As the subject of security is human being, one can discuss safety in the context of people and relations among them [17].

The etymology of the word security is from the Latin securitas. It comprises two elements: sine (without) and cura (care, concern, trouble), which signifies lack of concerns [17]. Security has long been identified as a state which ensures certainty of existence and survival. Nowadays, such an approach is often questioned and deemed too narrow and conservative. In the new methodology, it means not only a guarantee of inviolable survival of a given object, but also freedom of its development [18].

In general, human security may be determined as a subjective state of experiencing peace, confidence, and absence of threats [19]. From an objective perspective, it is referred to as life conditions external in relation to people, frequently rated with an application of measurable indicators. From a subjective perspective, in turn, it refers to individual experiences of human beings. Both perspectives overlap. What is vital is how humans perceive and live through the current situation against a backdrop of mental comfort and absence of threats [20].

The sense of security is the foundation of effective operations of an individual [20]. It is shaped in the process of evaluation of a situation one finds oneself in. Subject to one’s mental factors and available information, an analogous external situation may be viewed differently by various parties [17]. An individual may feel secure in a situation of high risk or feel insecure in the conditions of high stability and social peace. The indicators relevant to the evaluation of a situation may be personal (for instance, emotional stability, the level of optimism), the method of evaluation of one’s social surroundings, one’s attitude and beliefs concerning the surroundings, as well as variable factors, such as one’s mood or life situation [20].

Freedom from threats as a state in the functioning of a human being within the reality which surrounds him does not mean lack of risks. Instead, it means their acceptable level, which does not significantly limit the ability to function of the subject of security and allows one to attain his underlying goals [11]. One’s subjective sensation of threats is reflected either by potential security or by a real danger in subject’s consciousness (which may not correspond to the actual situation) and results from the system of needs and values or obsessions [21]. Given the foregoing aspects, we can distinguish the following four situations [10]:

1.2.- Security as the Employee’s Basic Need

The need is the sensation of lacking something that – due to biological, social, and cultural reasons –an individual requires to live and develop [22]. It is a causative element of human activity. The most well-known concept of needs is the theory of Maslow. It presents human needs as a hierarchic system, wherein a relative satisfaction of the lower-level needs (physiological and safety needs) conditions the activation of higher-level needs. According to the Maslow’s theory, safety needs (security, safety) occupy level two, directly following physiological needs, requisite to support existence. Therefore, they are the basic needs the satisfaction of which activates higher needs [23].

Czupryński states that the entire pyramid is the foundation for constructing the system of human safety (security) [17]. Physiological needs are related to the biological survival of the subject of security. They are the basis of security because, if the needs are not satisfied, the individual dies. Safety (security) as a separate category in the system of needs means freedom from threats for the subject of safety (security). The said freedom is reflected by a low level of aggression or its acceptable level seen as the ability of an individual (subject) to deal with the negative consequences of the threats. Belongingness and love needs are also associated with the sense of security. They refer to social acceptance which allows functioning in a friendly environment. The exclusion of any human being from social life results in an extremely low feeling of security. Likewise, appreciation and respect can be achieved in the context of a given group of people. The elements detailed in the need hierarchy create a system of values for the subject of security because they account for what is important for one to survive, become independent from threats, and stand a chance resultant from acceptance and opportunities to develop [17].

Security is a rudimentary human need and plays an immense role in the valuation of one’s surroundings and taking up actions [24]. The need refers to securing one’s life conditions, i.e. ensuring good income, stable job, and social stability. Siek emphasizes that the security need corresponds to self-preservation, whereas its satisfaction is associated with the feeling of anxiety and fear [25]. The level of security is a measurable indicator of the level of life [20]. It evolves along the needs, values, and expectations of the subject of security and the change of external circumstances.

The foundation of correct functioning of an individual within societies and working environments is to satisfy his safety or security need. The security need constitutes motivation for acting and developing. It is not a permanent motivation but one activated when it is not satisfied [26]. Against this backdrop, security is treated as a factor causing action only when one feels shortage of the former. Therefore, a threat to security causes an increase in motivation for undertaking actions aimed at its restoration. This must not be a real threat; it suffices that a given human being anticipates its possible lack [20]. Thus, security is not a constant, unchangeable value. That is why, one of the major aspects of actions targeted at obtaining the right level of its satisfaction is systematic identification, observation, diagnosis, and modification of conditions creating the security environment [1].

2.1.- Research Findings

The purpose of the research study was to evaluate the level of satisfaction of the broadly understood security need under the conditions of the Covid-19 pandemic with reference to:

To assess the level of economic security and working conditions security, the 5-degree Likert Scale was used. Therefore, the studied employees were asked to evaluate their level of security on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represented a very low sense of security and 5 – a very high sense of security. The results of the evaluation are illustrated by Table 2

The highest percentage of the respondents (40.0%) assessed their sense of security of working conditions as average. 23.4% of the respondents evaluated the security of the working conditions as high. Only 18.7% of the respondents evaluated the security of the working conditions as low or very low. The percentage of the respondents who positively evaluated the sense of working conditions security was, therefore, higher than those who evaluated it negatively. As a result, the mean level of the sense of security of working conditions in the studied group was 3.4 on the five-point scale. One may presume that this result was affected by employee commitment to observe the rules of sanitary regime at work.

As far as the economic security is concerned, more than a half of the respondents (as many as 55.8%) saw it as low, or very low (6.6%). Only 7.0% of the respondents assessed his economic security as high or very high, whereas every 3rd evaluated it as being at an average level. Consequently, the mean level of the sense of economic security in the studied group was 2.4 on the five-point scale, and it was lower than the sense of security of the working conditions by 1 point.

In Table 3, you will see the results of an evaluation of the safety level of working conditions and economic safety by the type of activities conducted by employing organizations, i.e. manufacturing, trade or services. The analysis of the said data demonstrates that the highest rate of the respondents in each group rated average both the sense of economic security and safety of working conditions. However, when one compares individual groups, it is clear that employees in the services sector felt safer in terms of working conditions and the economy than workers in the trade and manufacturing sectors. The respondents employed in the services trade were more likely to rate the safety level as very high.

In the course of further research, the respondents were asked to evaluate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the change of the sense of security. The results are presented in Table 4.

35.9% of respondents said that his sense of security of working conditions weakened. Most respondents (59.4%) did not see any changes in the level of security of working conditions as a consequence of the outbreak of the pandemic. A farm more pronounced scope of changes was recorded with respect to the sense of economic security. More than a half of the respondents (60.6%) claimed that during the Covid-19 pandemic their sense of economic security weakened. Only 34.1% of the respondents did not notice the effect of the pandemic on economic security. Thus, we can say that uncertainty, caused both by difficulties regarding the continuation of professional activities and the general conditions of the economy, has left employee economic security vulnerable. It is a consequence of a number of negative changes the Covid-19 pandemic has introduced in the professional lives of employees (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the employees’ professional situation*. * Respondents could select more than one answer.

Figure 2. Activities strengthening work security implemented in the enterprises in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic*. *Respondents could select more than one answer.

Figure 3. Ability to work remotely during the pandemic.

The economic effects of the pandemic most frequently signaled by the respondents comprised non-payment of incentives, bonuses, pay rises, as reported by 17.4% of the respondents. 10.2% of the respondents, in turn, was obliged to take a few days off work, whereas 14.4% of employees had extra workload without compensation. The scale of dismissals or redundancies in the studied group was relatively low, for it affected only 4.8% of the respondents. Without a doubt, this must be credited to the ‘‘anti-crisis’’ shields introduced by the Polish government to protect work posts. About four percent (4.2%) of the studied employees received remuneration that was lower than that before the pandemic. Therefore, it can be stated that the professional situation of the staff, including their material situation, significantly deteriorated. The negative impact of the pandemic on the professional situation was experienced by a marginal rate of the respondents (only 0.6%).

To improve work security, employers introduced a number of actions to contain the spread of coronavirus in the workplace. The most common practice was to equip the staff with personal protective equipment (masks and gloves). Such support was offered to as many as 68.2% of the respondents (Figure 2). In the case of a half of the studied population, employers implemented worker-to-worker interaction constraints. Circa forty percent (41.2%) of the respondents reported introduction of a body temperature check. 28.8% of employees had an opportunity to work from home, whereas 27.1% of the respondents used work-rotation schemes (working from the office and teleworking). A periodic downtime of the employing establishment affected by 11.2% of the respondents. Nearly thirty-nine percent (38.5%) of the respondents said that the actions undertaken by the employers contributed to improvement of their work security to a large or a very large extent. Whereas 19.2% reported that security improvements due to undertaken actions were either low or very low.

One of the ways to improve work security amidst the pandemic was to shift to remote work, i.e. work conducted from outside the seat of the employer (e.g. from home). Around forty percent (40.4%) of the respondents found that it strengthened their sense of security to a large or a very large extent. Nonetheless, not all employees could avail of this type of work (Figure 3). As many as 63.3% of the respondents did work the specificity of which did not allow remote working. Only 28.4% of the respondents had an ability to work remotely either full- or part-time.

In the course of the analysis, the respondents were also inquired about their general feelings affecting their wellbeing since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. The studies show that the current epidemiological situation raises concerns amongst employees (Figure 4). The largest proportion of the respondents (56.8%) felt alienated because of limited social interactions, and a half of them (49.1%) expressed concerns about their own future. The studies demonstrate that the pandemic is a source of additional stress for 33.7% of the analysed, whereas every fourth respondent fears losing a job, experiencing a salary or wage cut, and getting infected. For 14.2% of the respondents, work under the conditions of the pandemic is less satisfactory, and 12.4% are less motivated to perform it.

Uncertainty and changes occurring due to the pandemic also translated into the health condition of employees (Figure 5). The most frequently reported medical conditions were mood disorders (27.1%), anxiety (17.1%), sleep disorders (15.9%) and headaches (12.4%). In the case of every tenth respondent, the pandemic contributed to depression. Quite importantly, the Covid-19 pandemic significantly limited the already insufficient access to healthcare for the majority of people, including psychiatric and psychological support. Remote medical diagnosis may not be accurate, and it could be challenging to establish a therapeutic relationship. Furthermore, the obligation of the understaffed medical personnel to quarantine is also crucial. Although as many as 52.9% of the respondents have not suffered from aggravated symptoms since the outbreak of the pandemic, one must note that the studied group was dominated by young people below the age of thirty. Generally, this type of population features good overall health condition.

The consequences of physical and mental health deterioration, due to both the Covid-19 pandemic and its after-effects (e.g. social isolation), may be alleviated by various forms of support provided by employers. In the course of analyses, however, it was determined that support was marginal because as many as 42.9% of the respondents did not receive any support from their employers (Figure 6).

The most popular action appeared to be the provision of information on how to proceed to minimize the risk of infection. Such practices were reported by 47.1% of the studied population. Additional occupational health and safety training in the conditions of the pandemic was offered to 18.2% of the respondents, whereas 12.9% received equipment to work remotely. Only 4.1% of the respondents were offered psychological care on the initiative of the employer.

4.1.- Practical Implications and Future Directions of Research

The research findings may be of significance to human resource departments and managers, for they emphasize the role of the employees’ sense of security. High security levels of the staff have a powerful impact on their operations in the working environment and are the determinants of a full use of employee potential for the development of organizations. Thus, the broadening of knowledge about the employees’ sense of security and commitment to strengthen it are the conditions which determine the ability to attain the goals of the HR function.

Given the subsequent mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the consecutive waves of the pandemics, one may assume that the issue of developing safety among employees amidst epidemics may become an essential question and an obligatory element of the HR policy of every organization. Given this context, safety research may become an inspiration for the development of guidance regarding the shaping of safe conditions of work, oriented at the strengthening of the sense of safety and security of employees during pandemics.

This study demonstrates that the pandemic has had a negative impact on the sense of security among workers. Nonetheless, due to a limited number of study respondents, a short research period, it may not be generalized as having reference to the entire population.

The low number of respondents in the study precluded the conduct of an analysis of worker safety by sectors. It is common knowledge that constraints in some sectors were tighter than in others, e.g. in the hotel industry or catering. Other sectors, in turn, recorded a growth of income because of the pandemics, for example the production of protective wear or medical equipment. Without a doubt, this had an impact on the sense of security of employees employed in the above sectors.

The Covid-19 pandemic is ongoing. Therefore, it is justified to repeat the research study on a larger cohort in order to regularly monitor the level of security of employees and to assess involvement and effectiveness of actions undertaken by managers with the purpose of security reinforcement.

The author is aware of the limitations of the research studies presented in this article for they relate to a narrow group of respondents and the study findings are not universal. Nonetheless, they are a starting point for further, more extensive research in the field on a representative study sample.

The results of the studies relate to young employees below the age of 30 who are in the initial stage of their professional careers. Typically, young people are less afraid of pandemics and their health and economic consequences. Therefore, the future analyses should include a comparative analysis to juxtapose the sense of security in the group of young employees versus more experienced professionals. Such a study could help implement the concept of diversity management through a diversified approach to the development of working conditions across different generations of employees to enhance the use of their intellectual potential.