ResearchPDF Available



Abstract and Figures

Scholars and businesses are expansively engrossed in researching cybersecurity and its intricacies and complications from an operational, technical, and planning perspective. This examination seeks to investigate the people, processes, and technological aspects of cybersecurity. Vital is this investigation because health care professionals, their actions, expertise, advancing digitization, and security of patient care and monitoring represent the most fundamental and indistinct aspects of cybersecurity leadership. The findings revealed from this investigation accentuate the significance of cybersecurity researchers, educators, and practitioners increasing their acumens and discernment telemedicine and telehealth development to interlock in a more all-inclusive approach to cybersecurity leadership and fortification.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Department of Business and Information Sciences
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Science
Sharon L. Burton, DBA, MBA-HRM, MBA-Mgmt, LSSMBB, CCMP
Educate. Innovate. Inspire.
2 | Page
Accepted and Signed:
31 January, 2022
Dr. Darrell N. Burrell, Exegesis Chair Date
31 January, 2022
Allen H. Exner, External Exofficio Committee Examiner Date
31 January, 2022
Dr. Ian McAndrew, Date
Dean of Doctoral Programs
An Exegesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Cybersecurity Leadership
Capitol Technology University, Laurel Maryland
January, 2022
3 | Page
Table of Contents
Department of Business and Information Sciences ............................................................................ 1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ............................................................................... 6
Problem Statement................................................................................................................... 10
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Organization of the Remainder of the Study .................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ...................................................................................... 14
Method for Reviewing the Literature ................................................................................................ 14
Method for Analyzing the Literature ................................................................................................ 15
What is the Weakest Link in Cybersecurity? ................................................................................... 18
Digitization Technology ...................................................................................................................... 19
Andragogy (Adult Learning) ............................................................................................................. 20
Investment in Technology Training vs. Leadership Skills ............................................................... 22
Characteristics of Effective Knowledge Leadership ......................................................................... 23
Tactical Communication .................................................................................................................... 24
Conclusions and Discussions .............................................................................................................. 25
Chapter 3: Article 1 - Artificial Intelligence (A.I.), Disability, and
Telemedicine/Telehealth: Building and Academic Program ............................................... 29
Chapter 4: Article 2 - Technological Digital Disruption in the Age of Artificial
Intelligence: A New Paradigm for Leadership ...................................................................... 60
Chapter 5: Article 3 - 3) Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) and Augmented Reality (A.R.)
Disambiguated in the Telemedicine/ Telehealth Sphere ...................................................... 95
Chapter 6: Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................... 108
Original Contribution to Knowledge in the Field ............................................................... 110
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 118
4 | Page
Numerous exceptional people helped me through this exegesis, a labor of love. To Dr.
Ian McAndrew, the Dean of the Cybersecurity Leadership program, you offered support and
asked the right questions. Dr. Darrell N. Burrell, my exegesis chair: thank you for your insightful
guidance and comments; you prepared a path for me to pace. Thanks for the inspiring
interchange and discussion that elevated my own research and analysis during this process.
You have been the best to my immediate family (Yoshino W. White, MSc., Cameron R.
White, and Solomon R. White). I made it through six (6) months of research in the cold of New
Hampshire. My father, Roosevelt Burton, left a generational roadmap to life beyond reproach;
thank you. Aunt Shirlee (Lillian) White, thank you for being there for us. To Synster A. Johnson,
Myrtle C. Jackson, Tekeela S. Austin, T-4, and Margie Ree Hill, thanks for answering the calls
during my breaks and offering encouragement. Duane E. Cartwright, your math advice continues
to live. WHEW! Extended NH and MA families (Baljit Jackson, MST., R. Stanton Jackson, MS.,
and Bernard Jones), thank you for the encouragement and good meals. Simran Jackson, keep
pushing to complete that PharmD.
Dr. Francene Perry-Brown, thank you for articulately stating the case for a doctorate and
why I should move toward a terminal degree. For Dr. Johnnye Maye Witcher: your name moved
to the annals of time, yet you left an indelible mark on me and others. Your continued
encouragement helped me get to the end of this process. You reminded me of hard-core grammar
and using the correct subjunctive mood, introductory participial phrases, etc. Thank you for the
many prayers to Cannon, Dr. Edwin Earl Smith, and Mother Alma Smith (deceased). Mrs.
Rudyne D. Brown, thanks for the many words of wisdom. To Ranlin Sanders: thanks for keeping
my computer going while I ran this race because it tried to drop out numerous times. To the
entire Capitol Technology University: I appreciate the learning, teaching, and research
opportunities, instruction, great conversations, advice, and support. Thank you to my friends for
allowing me to disappear for another year and always welcoming me back when I needed a break
from my research.
Allow me to thank my prominent friends and colleagues. To Judge Diane Clarke-Streett,
Lydia C. F. Anderson, Esq., Lydia Cox Backstrom, Esq., Patricia Smith-Walker, Stephen
Walker, Esq., and Gloria V. McCray: thank you for the years of encouragement. You are great
examples to my esteemed colleagues who lead the way with two and three doctorate degrees
Dr. Darrell N. Burrell, Dr. Maurice Dawson, and Dr. Calvin Nobles. To my writing team
members, Dr. Kim L. Brown-Jackson, Dr. Dustin I. Bessette, Dr. Shanel Lu, Dr. Jorja Wright,
Dr. Jonathan Abramson, Dr. Dawson, Dr. Calvin Nobles, and Yoshino W. White: you all are
5 | Page
Scholars and businesses are expansively engrossed in researching cybersecurity and its
intricacies and complications from an operational, technical, and planning perspective. This
examination seeks to investigate the people, processes, and technological aspects of
cybersecurity. Vital is this investigation because health care professionals, their actions,
expertise, advancing digitization, and security of patient care and monitoring represent the most
fundamental and indistinct aspects of cybersecurity leadership. The findings revealed from this
investigation accentuate the significance of cybersecurity researchers, educators, and
practitioners increasing their acumens and discernment telemedicine and telehealth development
to interlock in a more all-inclusive approach to cybersecurity leadership and fortification.
Keywords: cybersecurity, digitization, communication, artificial intelligence, telemedicine,
telemedicine, continuous improvement, training, andragogy, and transdisciplinary
6 | Page
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
A noticeable fact is the United States and other countries are experiencing an
amalgamation of identified and unidentified susceptibilities (Hoffman, 2018). These
susceptibilities precipitously intensify challenger know-hows and exhibit significant and
widespread threat and susceptibility mindfulness (American Hospital Association [AHA], 2021;
Hoffman 2018; House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee On Oversight and Investigations
Hearing, 2011; Olsen, 2020). Within this active setting and climate, leadership is challenged with
and must tackle cyber security threats that continue to flourish as aimed, more complex, and
more critical (American Hospital Association [AHA], 2021; Olsen, 2020). Confidential data is
being pilfered from healthcare facilities and institutions (Surveys Raises Concern, 2019),
government, the private sector, therefore leading to destabilization of public assurance in the
information systems and the distribution of information (Public-Private Analytic Exchange
Program, 2019). In other words, breakdowns exist for offering inappropriate cybersecurity
training and controls within the critical infrastructure sectors; such disquiets and failures leave
the United States and others exposed to attacks that could leave destructive, overwhelming, and
ruinous effects on security (Dawson et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2017; Muller, 2021; Olsen, 2020).
The shortcoming to treating cyber security as a foremost business strategy is disadvantageous to
the health of any organization's information security processes, critical systems, and data (Oltsik,
The knowledge, skills, and capabilities required to manage valuable national intellectual
capital are significant. Yet, the current burden to be understood is accessibility, shielding data
and other high-value assets, and reliability of our information infrastructure (Dawson et al.,
2021; Olsen, 2020). Modern society continues to transmute from technology associating
7 | Page
physical, digital, and biological worlds, the fourth industrial revolution (Daemmrich, 2017), to
the fifth industrial revolution encompassing cybersecurity's augmented reality and artificial
intelligence. At the center of the transformation exploded a pandemic, COVID-19. On January
30, 2020, the World Health Organization [WHO] broadcasted the COVID-19 outbreak as a
Public Health Emergency of International Concern (Ohannessian & Yaghobian, 2020). Owing to
the existing COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and telehealth technologies are experiencing an
upsurge and quickening utilization by healthcare professionals and patients (Tuckson et al.,
2017). The COVID-19 pandemic lingers to consequence inordinate connectivity in the healthcare
arena (Simon, 2019). The eruption of security issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic and more
people working from home added to the cybersecurity leadership concern (Lohrmann, 2020;
Morgan, 2016). Specifically, cyber threats and hacks are expected to exacerbate as the demand
for internet-driven technology resources is foreseeable to increase exponentially (Nayyar, 2021).
Also, the sprint to cloud technology is causing security void challenges, misconfigurations, and
outages. The problem existed to stabilize cybersecurity management needs with business
priorities, including time and resource constraints (Healthcare & Public Health Sector
Coordinating Councils, n.d.). The operating ideas between healthcare organizations and their
security operations centers (SOC) and security incident event management (SIEM) providers
were not in sync. Attacks arose due to the need for more knowledgeable providers to effectively
manage healthcare operations firewalls and endpoints 24x7x365 (Public Health Emergency,
According to the Healthcare Information Management System Society, HIMSS (2021a),
the healthcare workforce has a discrete necessity to comprehend the privacy and security policies
of the healthcare organization; thus, in the current electronic world, cybersecurity in healthcare
8 | Page
and protecting data is imperative for the standard functioning of healthcare organizations.
Healthcare organizations encompass countless types of specialized hospital information systems
(e.g., clinical decision support systems, EHR systems, e-prescribing systems, Internet of things
devices, practice management support systems, radiology information systems, and
computerized physician order entry systems). Attacks to these systems, such as ransomware, can
be devastating and is a sizeable threat to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data
(HIMSS, 2021a). Thirty-eight attacks interrupted patient care at approximately 963 locations by
August 2021, contrasted with 80 separate incidents at 560 hospital locations that impacted 2020
(Bilyeau, 2021). As early as 2013, documentation shows every hospital, including their
reputations, is at risk of cybersecurity vulnerabilities and intrusions (Callahan, 2013). Increased
use of networked technology, minimal training, learning and development, new technology
additions, internet-enabled medical devices, shifting technology to the cloud, and electronic
records databases are all vulnerabilities to business evolution and growth (Burrell et al., 2018;
Burton, 2019). Therefore, consistent and systematic cybersecurity awareness knowledge &
development in healthcare are vital (HIMSS, 2021a). The healthcare knowledge & development
challenge is for leaders at all levels to understand threats, converse about dangers, and
comprehend processes and procedures in case of actual cybersecurity incidents (HIMSS, 2021a).
More substantial change is expected to affect healthcare. Leaders must understand cybersecurity
as it relates to digital health, artificial intelligence (A.I.), and machine learning (ML), and
financial health (HIMSS, 2021b). Knowledge includes machines and humans working together
wherein machines can extend the know-how of their human colleagues and, from time to time,
help establish new experts (Daugherty & Wilson, 2019). However, caution is required. The data
shows that organizations utilizing A.I. and automation security underwent breach costs of $2.90
9 | Page
million, contrasted to $6.71 million for organizations not using A.I. and automation security
(IBM Security, 2021).
Progressing and insistent threats, data-breaches, are dominating healthcare. There is no
matching focus on educating the leadership and technical management to prepare forces to guard
against attacks. The data shows that executive and management level education dawdles behind
business practice education (Arbaiza, 2016), thus unveiling a void in the development of leaders,
and organizational resiliency, specifically in cybersecurity education. This void in understanding
and resiliency is evidenced by numerous cyberattacks and ransom payments in healthcare
Healthcare institutions are primary targets of cyber-attacks because hackers find the
astonishing number of records stored and the access to patients' information as significant to sell
on the dark web; black market (Healthcare & Public Health Sector Coordinating Councils, n.d.).
Also, healthcare personnel are many times ill-equipped to manage cyber risks. Further,
healthcare institutions are targets because of legacy and outdated technology as well as the fiscal
budget constraints owning to expensive capital equipment and minimal capital budgets
(American Hospital Association [AHA], 2021). Targeting these institutions are bad cyber actors
(American Hospital Association [AHA], 2021) to include nation-states actors and non-state
actors (Public-Private Analytic Exchange Program U.S., 2019). In 2018, North Carolina's
Catawba Valley Medical Center experienced two initially undetected phishing attacks that
exposed patients' names, birth dates, medical data, health insurance information, and some Social
Security numbers (Davis, 2018). October 16, 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services announced a 75,000 record hack regarding Affordable Healthcare enrollments (Morse,
2018). The year 2019 did not go without cyber-attacks. The New Jersey Health System paid an
10 | Page
undisclosed ransom to release 17 hospitals and clinics of Hackensack Meridian Health (Eddy,
2019). In an effort to educate and offer significant data points, the Healthcare Cybersecurity
Coordination Center (2020) provided that 239.4 million cyber-attacks were attempted in 2020.
Hospital critical vulnerability points are Networks, Records Disposals, Remote Work, Internet of
Things, Data Storage, and Personal Devices (Healthcare Cybersecurity Coordination Center,
2020). After this publication of crucial points, 2021 begins with patient names and results of
their U.S. hospital colonoscopy examination results that appeared on the dark web (Wetsman,
2021). Despite year-after-year of cyber-attacks and hacks on healthcare systems and published
data, there is the realization that cybersecurity has to be a long-term strategy. Yet, year after year,
leaders are experiencing the embarrassment of cyber hacks and possibly paying ransom to get
systems released. The focus on leadership understanding is no longer a want but has risen to be a
requirement to protect people, processes, and technology.
Problem Statement
Healthcare is experiencing more considerable cyber risks than other sectors due to
essential and integral weaknesses in the overall security posture (Davis, 2020; Martin et al.,
2017). The average total cost of a data breach for healthcare in 2021 at $9.23 million; this is an
increase of 29.5% from the 2020 figure of %7.13 million (The IBM Security, 2021). The
Information Systems Security Association International (ISSA, 2021) fifth annual global study of
cybersecurity professionals offers that cybersecurity knowledge, skills, and abilities crisis
persists on a descending, multi-year trend of bad to worse and has negatively influenced over
half (57%) of organizations. According to Mimecast Threat Center Research (2021), current and
future concern are that cybersecurity professionals’ knowledge, skill, and abilities are not better.
Cybersecurity professionals must learn to change the way they perform the same as
11 | Page
cybercriminals continue to change how they do business and remain atop of changes. Eggleton
(2017) posited that the people aspect in knowledge, skill, and abilities has been the most acute
and disregarded in cybersecurity; organizations must develop digital transformation and ensure
that people are included in the change journey. The data shows that 62% of organizations
miscarry in efforts to offer sufficient knowledge & development to continue situational
mindfulness on business and information technology risks (Oltsik, 2017).
A problematic component of this knowledge, skill, and abilities void is the gap could be
noticeably decreased if organizations offered plausible support to the cybersecurity mission -
career development and leadership development. Professional and leadership development
continues as a minimal priority for cybersecurity and information technology professionals
(Oltsik, 2017). A precise difficulty is when there is a choice between increasing current
cybersecurity personnel knowledge versus cybersecurity leadership development; organizations
have placed more effort into cybersecurity personnel (Tsado, 2016). The abyss in understanding
is that technical skills are not enough to manage cybersecurity operations and concerns
effectively; stopping cybersecurity attacks depends as much upon governing the online conduct
of employees as is the installation of firewalls (Murray, 2018). A further complication is the
necessity to educate and develop cybersecurity leaders at all levels who can understand, work
through, and converse regarding cybersecurity concerns – people, process, and technology
(Burton, 2019). The general research problem is that cybersecurity leadership has the knowledge,
skill, and development impediments and difficulties. The specific problem is to comprehend
better the knowledge level and leadership concerns associated with cybersecurity leadership. The
literature gap is that cybersecurity research is focused on technological processes and procedures
(American Hospital Association [AHA], 2021; Public Health Emergency, 2017; Tasdo, 2016).
12 | Page
Yet, limited research is couched on the people side of the people, process, and technology
equation (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017; Tasdo, 2016; Burrell, 2018; Tulgar, 2019). This researcher
sought to investigate, analyze, and advance scholars' research in cybersecurity leadership.
Reliance included the belief that published researchers were experts who had rich and
credible experience in cybersecurity, knowledge & development, and telemedicine/telehealth
initiatives. This cybersecurity research and literature review relied on this researcher's
assumptions that documents are accurate. First, organizations in all sectors are assumed to face
comparable challenges for establishing cybersecurity development programs and obtaining well-
prepared leaders at all levels; therefore, they stand to benefit from the findings of this research.
Second, cybersecurity leaders are assumed to recognize that internet-driven and cloud-driven
technology is increasing and is affecting educational pursuits, organizational structure, and
organizational resiliency.
The results of this study were limited to cybersecurity and cybersecurity leaders at all
levels in telemedicine/telehealth and journalism. Next, limitations of this research are on the
critical infrastructure, people knowledge, skills, and abilities. Although there are not clearly
defined lines between private organizations and government, both concerns are knotted and
entwined; both are plagued with cybersecurity issues. Variations in the research documents,
including organizational procedures, the size of the organizations in the research documents to
embrace the organizational culture, may influence the applicability of the results to other
13 | Page
Delimitations provided the boundaries for this research. Delimitations are leadership
knowledge concerns and the growth of cybersecurity leadership, digitization technology,
andragogy, and training in the cybersecurity landscape for telemedicine/telehealth and academic,
journalistic organizations. Discussions of cybersecurity leadership are interspersed throughout
this research. The final results identified in this research document may or may not be applicable
to all cybersecurity organizations.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Five chapters comprised this exegesis. Chapter 1 provided background and rationale and
the problem statement. Chapter two (2) presented a review of the literature. Chapters three (3)
through five (5) are published documents via scholarly publishing organizations. Chapter six (6)
presented a discussion for future research.
14 | Page
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Method for Reviewing the Literature
The method for reviewing this literature comprised copious steps. First, questions
regarding the exegesis topic were developed and organized by categories into a systematic
examination process to ascertain whether scholarly data were obtainable. Next, pursuits and
reclamation of relevant literature were performed using academic fee-based databases and the
internet. The fee-based databases and their hosts (shown in parentheses) included ABI Inform
Complete (ProQuest), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), Business Source Premier (EBSCO),
Chronicle of Higher Education (Chronicle of Higher Education), e-Book Collection (EBSCO),
and ERIC (EBSCO), and First Research. The internet search engine, Google, was utilized to
rescue peer-reviewed literature. Using these databases offered a measure of confidence about the
authority of the retrieved data. The research underwent rigid, meticulous, thorough, and
controlled evaluation systems, which are the characteristics of scholarly work. Historical data
located via internet searches was successively confirmed via searches utilizing academic
In reviewing the literature, the researcher divided 500 documents into two categories:
primary resources and secondary resources. The primary resources category included original
materials, first-hand accounts of an event or topic utilized by a business or organization. The
secondary resources offered an analysis, clarification, or a restatement of primary sources. These
resources are literature reviews of specific subjects that entailed a generalization, synthesis, and
analysis of earlier work. Examples are diaries, letters, photographs, weblogs, articles published
in magazine articles, press releases, reviews, and annual organizational reports (University of
New South Wales Sydney, 2021). These two categories of research documents, information was
15 | Page
further categorized according to the subject matter: cybersecurity leadership, technological
digitization, andragogy, and training in the cybersecurity landscape. The categories were
organized and reviewed. Subsequently, key documents from each category were logged on a
spreadsheet for comprehensive analysis. Of the 500 resources, 377 are within the last five-year
range. One hundred and twenty-three are outside of the previous five-year range of the
finalization of the exegeses. The number of documents designated as primary is 400. The number
of documents designated as secondary is 100. Chapter 2 includes 109 references, of which 87 are
within the last five-year range, and 22 are outside of the previous five-year range of the
finalization of the exegeses. See table 1.
Table 1: Literature Tree
Exegeses Literature Tree
in Exegeses
within last
5 years
outside the
last 5 years
Number of
as Primary
Number of
Chapter 2
- Total
Chapter 2
within the
last five
the last
Method for Analyzing the Literature
The choice of research studies in each category was sorted according to keywords and
phrases. These words and phrases are as follows: cybersecurity, digital technologies disruption,
communication, artificial intelligence, telemedicine, telemedicine, continuous improvement, and
transdisciplinary. Next, the research documents were analyzed to use a qualitative methodology.
Themes were determined for the extended organization of data. Bringing together the data
according to themes helped design a research strategy for investigating cybersecurity research
focused on the people side of the people, process, and technology equation. Research documents
were also scrutinized for a void of consistency, which aided in recognizing supporting and non-
16 | Page
supporting information. Next, this researcher examined the strengths and weaknesses of past
research. This analysis offered a comprehension of missing data from the current body of
knowledge as reflected in the literature.
Additionally, this practice led to an improved understanding of how the absence of data
could formulate a proper research topic and the techniques utilized to examine and scrutinize
academic works. Analyses of the overall literature offered guidance for the design of this
research topic. A prominent feature of the primary resources was the culmination of suppositions
by researchers and educators that inspired and directed future research. Lastly, data and
documents were examined to detect present-day investigation of cybersecurity research focused
on the people side of the people, process, and technology equation.
The purpose of Chapter 2 is to review scholarly literature related to leadership knowledge
concerns and growth of cybersecurity leadership, technological digitization, andragogy, plus
learning and development in the cybersecurity landscape. Additionally, this text discusses
concepts of cybersecurity leadership that can be combined to create an overall transdisciplinary
framework for the investigation of modern society as it continues to transmute from fourth
industrial revolution technology fusing physical, digital, and biological worlds (Bruhn et al.,
2019; Daemmrich, 2017). Next, the fifth industrial revolution embraced cybersecurity's business
continuity planning, operational security, end-user education, and leadership commitment (Clim,
2019; Fisher et al., 2017; Roohparvor, 2019). The transdisciplinary framework references
leaders' cybersecurity knowledge through curriculum mergers which disband the boundaries
between the conventional disciplines (International Bureau of Education, 2021) such as
Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Information Systems, Information Technology, and
Software Engineering (Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, 2020). And then, the
17 | Page
transdisciplinary framework organizes learning and teaching around building meaning in the
perspective of real-world complications or themes (International Bureau of Education, 2021).
These real-world complications and themes include subject matter such as business
administration, ethics, human factors, human factors, law, and risk management (Canadian
Centre for Cyber Security, 2020). Application of the framework occurs through understanding
and awareness. Cybersecurity awareness is a series of training, policies, and actions that steer an
organization's enhanced security culture (Bada & Nurse, 2019; Michellehavich, 2021; Zuopeng
et al., 2021). An overall find is it is essential to understand and recognize cyber threat actors
(e.g., individual hackers, cyber-terrorists, hacktivists, cybercriminals, and state-sponsored
hackers (Kim et al., 2021; Osliak et al., 2019) to ensure that cybersecurity leaders remain
knowledgeable in the ever-advancing field.
According to Beich (2018) from the Association for Talent Development, when
knowledge and skills are the concern, training is the solitary solution. Maccoby (2007) and the
Futures School (2021) expressed that technology leaders must develop foresight to include
technology and static processes. Also, technology leaders must understand people (the customer)
to know how best to examine the research and development for hints of future concerns and
breakthroughs. The notion of improving the nation's cybersecurity, precisely the precarious
necessity for the country to advance its cybersecurity defense, is not just a technical issue; it is a
business issue that has to be grasped appropriately by cybersecurity leaders at all levels (Clinton,
2009; Sallos et al., 2019). Ershadi (2021) references the technology readiness level, which
includes 18 key subjects, with the first topic being data analysis. When using data analysis,
leaders should understand inspecting, cleansing, transforming, and modeling data for the
expressed goal of learning beneficial knowledge informing established conclusions, plus
18 | Page
strengthening decision-making (for present or future endeavors). Eggleton (2017) and Gastaldi et
al. (2018) posited that organizations must develop digital transformation and ensure the people
are included in the change journey. Further, the people aspect has been the most acute and
disregarded (Eggleton, 2017).
What is the Weakest Link in Cybersecurity?
In today's world of digitization and aggressive growth, the leading challenge for
cybersecurity is connecting disruptive technologies (whether internet-driven or cloud) and
human cybersecurity behavior (Diffee & Datta, 2018; Imran et al., 2021). The data shows that
people's involvement remains the weakest and most vulnerable link in cybersecurity and risk
management regarding the people, process, and technology triad (Help Net Security, 2020; Jalali,
2018; KPMG, 2017; Nobles, 2018; Tessian Webinar, 2020). Currently, employees control
organizations' most sensitive data (Tessian Webinar, 2020). Systems are only as secure as their
human layers, which control digital systems and data (Nobles, 2018; Poulter et al., 2020).
Knowledge leadership is an essential feature of leadership (Chieh-Peng et al., 2020; Lakshman,
2005). Further, in-depth knowledge of the business is swathed in the ability of leaders to lead via
energizing and inspiring (Caza & Posner, 2019; Welch & Welch, 2005).
Cybersecurity breaches are on the increase and occur through voids in knowledge
(Dawson et al., 2021; and Muller, 2021), plus rule-breaking, mistakes, and employee hacks
(Tessian Webinar, 2020). The data shows that 78% of business executives report that they cannot
identify how or when a cybersecurity incident will hit their organizations (Accenture, 2021).
Also, cybersecurity structures are outdated (Lu & Burton, 2017; Sezer & Caliyurt, 2018). In the
1990s, cybersecurity leaders' focus shifted from guarding networks to implementing firewalls to
establish a hurdle between the internal network and incoming traffic from external sources so as
to impede viruses and hackers. In 2010, cybersecurity leaders' focus shifted from protecting
19 | Page
devices to utilizing endpoint detection response (EDR) platforms, technology platforms designed
to alert security teams of viruses and hackers, plus permit quick examination and suppression of
attacks on endpoints. In 2020, recognition changed to protect people through Knowledge &
development, policies, and rule-based technology (Karagiannis & Magkos, 2021; Sezer &
Caliyurt, 2018). A salient concern is that a mere 19% of employees are suitably mindful of the
cyber risk (KPMG, 2017). According to Blair (2017), organizations are dynamic functioning
within an interrelated system driven by change, competitive behavior, and misuse. The challenge
remaining is a shortage of cybersecurity talent in all organizations specifically personnel
educated and trained to lead cybersecurity risks (HM Government, 2017; Olsen, 2020).
According to (Chowdhury et al., 2019), factors that impact the actual behavior of the employees
are behavioral, skill-based. IT behavior challenges include a void in the development of leaders
(Hickman et al., 2018; Morris, 2019), and environmental difficulties include a gap in
organization resiliency (Arbaiza, 2016).
Digitization Technology
Digitization technology is the learned use of digital technologies to transform a business
model and afford new revenue and value-producing occasions. The overall topic, technology
disruption, began to affect society during the first industrial revolution (Burton, 2019). The data
shows various methods to analyze the digital shift. These methods are technological (Schwab,
2017), or post-industrial (Burton, 2019) revolution, a conversion to an information (Pinto et al.,
2018) or network (Gupta et al., 2021) society, a shift to a meta-literacy view - learner at the
center of four – learning, affective, behavioral, and metacognitive, and cognitive, inter-related
domains of (Friedman, 2021) reflecting the change in human consciousness (IESE Business
School of Navarro, 2020). Each of these methods supplements the other to make a complete
picture of the vital phenomenon of this period. Today, digitization has advanced, and artificial
20 | Page
intelligence infused digitization (Burton 2021; Massat, 2018; Ramesh et al., 2021). In other
words, digitization technology is the procedure and progression of shifting to a digital business
(Ramesh et al., 2021). Democratized access to culture, previously limited to privileged classes or
physically bound to specific influential neighborhoods, is fundamentally welcoming digital
technologies that place content digitally over networks (Yeo, 2020). The anytime and anyplace
internet has enabled escalating entry to cultural content, with digital systems and applications
being understood as essential to technological progress (Bhatti, 2021; Levin & Mamlok, 2021).
Another view is that a plethora of daily access to culture is not due to technological advancement
but is because of corporate-led digitization of overall culture. This change has modified public
cultural organizations into means and channels for capital and continues to transform and absorb
these organizations into the digitized technological marketplace (Yeo, 2020). As digitization
technology maturity progresses and consumer demands expand, organizations need to acclimate
to these alterations (Computer, 2020; Russell, 2019). Digitization technological is the sole
answer to safeguard business growth and development and continuously change to evolving
normal (Computer, 2020). Digitization technology knowledge is learned at work or in
institutions of higher learning (Dawson, Jr., 2020). This learning occurs through Constructionist
Learning Approach in the Digital Age (Levin & Tsybulsky, 2017), the technique known as
andragogy, adult learning (Burton, 2014, Knowles, 1975, 1980).
Andragogy (Adult Learning)
Andragogy is specific to this text as it relates to adult learning required by leaders to
understand technology, technology disruptions - cybersecurity threats hack in a telemedicine and
telehealth environment. Siala et al., (2020) applied andragogy and the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) in research to examine if learners from different cultures adopt technology to
facilitate the learning of transferable leadership skills (ethics) and knowledge. The trend to use
21 | Page
technology to train people in organizational environments is not new and continues to be used
(Larson, 2019). As given by Brown-Jackson (2017), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
and TAM2 in their cleanest forms indicate recognized worthwhileness, and distinguished ease of
use would forecast user acceptance and adaption of information technology in telehealth, a
disruptive technology (Brown-Jackson, 2017; Holden & Karsh, 2010).
Andragogy, a learner-centered method introduced in 1968 (Burton, 2014; Cooke, 2010),
is the opposite of pedagogy, an educational instructor-focused approach (Burton, 2014; Ozuah,
2005). Malcolm S. Knowles, the father of andragogy, offered the theory of andragogy. Knowles
postulated that adults learn differently from younger learners – problem-centered, applicable, and
impact on their specific lives, connection, and the application of their individual experiences
(Saunders & Wong, 2020). Consequently, adult learning necessitates a dissimilar educational
approach to pedagogy (Knowles, 1975, 1980). Characteristics of andragogy theory applied to
technical knowledge and application principally pertinent to this text are: (a) self-directedness,
(b) need to know, (c) use of experience in learning, (d) readiness to learn, (e) orientation to
learning, and (f) internal motivation (Burton, 2014; Taylor & Kroth, 2009). Disruptions fueled
innovation in the form of COVID19. Technology advanced extraordinarily, the internet has
reached every part of society, and web-based technology is prevalent in organizations (Ju, 2019).
Telemedicine, and telehealth technology usage are increasing exponentially to enhance access to
healthcare in remote, rural, and underserved locations, thus spreading specialty care to these
types of places (Brown-Jackson, 2017; Taylor and Burton, 2018).
Due to COVID19, Telemedicine and telehealth exploded onto the virtual stage. They
added to the education required by cybersecurity leaders to comprehend and safeguard systems
22 | Page
used for remote monitoring, record keeping, and extended care. Through this lens can be
understood how telehealth connects andragogy and training in the cybersecurity landscape.
Investment in Technology Training vs. Leadership Skills
The data shows a skills gap in the number of skilled cyber technology professionals. The
initial thought was that cybersecurity is an I.T. problem when it is a business concern (Nobles,
2018; and Murphey, 2020). Ironically, cyber leaders have the atrocious and essential goal of
securing an organization (Doan, 2019). On the other hand, when organizations work through
major strategic decisions such as business models, digital strategy, product mix, and M&A, the
cybersecurity team and leadership is a codicil, without a seat at the decision-making table (Doan,
2019). The salient question is, why are organizations squirming to guide cybersecurity as a vital,
tactical segment of overall strategy, operations, and culture?
Three concerns exist. The first concern is that awareness by executive-level human
capital is not building fast enough. A solitary 16 percent of organizations are equipped to handle
cybersecurity risks (Choi et al., 2019) such as risk assessment, risk treatment, risk management,
security assurance, and auditing (Gyun No & Vasarhelyi, 2017). The second concern is that
cybersecurity leaders' average length of employment is right at 18 months (Doan, 2019). A dual
factor that produces a nonconformance and should be constantly excluded via process
improvement is (1) Cybersecurity is treated as an administration and support personnel job, and
(2) the majority of cyber leaders are incapable of wielding strategic influence (Doan, 2019). Just
what is propelling this gap? The third concern is organizations are hiring and promoting human
capital professionals with purely technical skills. However, the data shows that such roles are not
consistently equipped with management skills. According to Smith (2021) and White (2020), the
top skills to be a successful manager are communication and motivation, forward planning and
23 | Page
strategic thinking, interpersonal, organization and delegation, mentoring and coaching,
organizational awareness, plus problem-solving and decision-making.
Advances in technology, for example, artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, data
mining, and IoT, are broadening the knowledge gap (Murphey, 2020). Also, executive-level
leadership must be made aware of the concern prior to a cyber hack. Hiring additional staff to
increase knowledge, skill, and ability is not the final solution, even though this solution can help.
Conquering the cybersecurity skills gap necessitates broader and more imaginative resolutions,
such as offering education and training (Hayter, 2020; Rooksby & Hayter, 2017). As posited by
Murphey (2020), a precise manner to reduce and eliminate the skills gap is to invest in human
organizational capital. There should be a top-down and bottom-up push for knowledge &
development of human capital at all levels of organizations. This change increases their security
awareness and better comprehension of how to recognize cyber hacks, bad actors, and protect the
organizations against cybersecurity crimes (Murphey, 2020). Experiential training should be
considered, too (Boyd et al., 2020). These changes can be indispensable.
Characteristics of Effective Knowledge Leadership
As given by the Stratford Group Ltd. (2021), solid and grounded leaders connect with
people to render their knowledge into initiative and advantages that benefit the organization.
Also, such leaders guide via their actions and behavior, not just words. As opposed to hoarding
knowledge, solid and grounded leaders share the knowledge quickly, generously, and proactively
(David et al., 2020). These leaders do not foster reliance on their uncommon individual skills but
pursue educating, mentoring, and coaching others to become more successful and valuable,
therefore less needful (David et al., 2020; Stratford Group Ltd., 2021). Effective and influential
leaders realize that knowledge sharing is a precarious element of knowledge management
(Ballesteros-Rodriguez, 2020). Knowledge management is usually denoted as how an
24 | Page
organization generates, retains, and shares knowledge. Therefore, knowledge sharing is the
practice by which leaders at all levels exchange communication to create new knowledge
(Ballesteros-Rodriguez, 2020).
Communication can be strategic such as key performance indicators, or tactical such as
metrics. Strategically communication concerns the sustainability of corporate decisions. Tactical
communication promotes proactive actions to prevent issues and contributes to the definition of
organizational objectives, and supports the attainment of organizational objectives (Lurati &
Eppler, 2011). Effective and influential leaders relate KPIs to metrics to achieve tactical
Tactical Communication
Knowledge is a significant intangible organizational asset gleaned from an organization's
production processes, investment history, or workforce (Güell, 2012; Jolalee, 2014). Knowledge-
intense organizations are those wherein the principal activity is grounded on the employment of
knowledge, whether within teams or across organizations (Andreeva, 2009; Ballesteros-
Rodriguez, 2020). Cognitive resources, knowledge within an organization is
underutilized when it is not shared. Knowledge enables leaders at all levels to be more receptive
and able to handle unforeseen circumstances (Rohman et al., 2020). Once knowledge is gained,
and to advance organizations' competitive advantage, this knowledge can be shared in several
ways. Sharing is through cross-functional mentoring, cross-functional project works, the usage
of collaboration portals, and promoting the value of teamwork and knowledge sharing from the
leadership at all levels of leadership through to all levels of employees (David et al., 2020).
Knowledge sharing permits organizations to improve and cultivate needed skills and
competencies, enhance value plus maintain their competitive advantage (David et al., 2020). This
flow of knowledge helps to facilitate the making of new knowledge (Ballesteros-Rodriguez,
25 | Page
2020). In other words, the creation of knowledge should be intense. Within knowledge-intensive
organizations, knowledge sharing is the critical resource that has enormous conceivability to pull
forth positive results such as creativity (Lei et al., 2021), innovative organizational behavior
(Vandavasi et al., 2020), and overall team performance (Lui et al., 2020). Effective cyber-
security is necessary to avert business disruption and consequently to safeguard operational
continuity (Gordon et al., 2015). Leading in the knowledge and management of cybersecurity is
a knowledge-intensive task (David et al., 2020).
Conclusions and Discussions
Transdisciplinary leadership encompasses seeking information to comprehend better and
address challenges inherent in current and subsequent implications for program planning and
development. This type of leadership lends to the process by which leaders of all levels and
policymakers labor collectively apply a shared vision and language that pulls collectively
scientific, experiential, and contextual comprehension and realization to work through a
complicated communal conundrum resourcefully. Transdisciplinary methods are dissimilar from
the more customarily applied interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches. This
dissimilarity is because the aim is to spawn solutions while revealing effective communication
crossways in multiple sectors (Lawlor et al., 2015). The concept of transdisciplinary represents a
traditionally vital driving force in interdisciplinary approaches (Petrie, 1992). Explicitly, the
representation is the substance of the attractiveness of mixing knowledge into a profound whole
(Petrie, 1992). The application of the interdisciplinary approach references issue-driven
concerns. It denotes that no single instructor or sector can answer the intricacies of the difficulty
(Burton, 2014; Waltner-Toews, 2017). Using transdisciplinary leadership is demanding because
this leadership necessitates knowledge amalgamation that pilots ambiguities, rigidities, varied
interactions, and risk sharing (Burton, 2014).
26 | Page
Transdisciplinary leadership entails traversing across different knowledge forms and
views. The results must include business and socially relevant resolves that demand reciprocal
and communal learning processes that apply the understanding of science and society (Lang et
al., 2012). Cybersecurity leaders must have a sense of quality and risk management efforts as
attacks can weaken the quality of outputs and damage expensive physical assets (Radziwill,
2018). Importantly, cybersecurity leaders are responsible for sharing knowledge and
collaborating (Burrell et al., 2021; Muller, 2021). This method can be exceptionally crisis
stimulating, expressly when past experiences are siloed or limited (Barrett et al., 2019; Burrell,
2021). Needed is the application of transdisciplinary leadership skills - teamwork, collaboration,
communication, and conflict resolution (Barrett et al., 2019).
The role of cybersecurity leaders necessitates the need for strong communication and
influence when encouraging teams to realize the overall vision and gain support so that the
vision can be attained. To mentor and coach teams toward the vision, teams must be attracted to
the idea. Team members must have selfless envisioned outcomes, for example, improved cyber
health of the organization. Irrespective of the team's reasons, the challenge remains for
cybersecurity leaders to weather the concerns and devotion of the teams. For example, the Chief
Information Security Officer (CISO) is answerable to understand the mission, share specific
knowledge, work for risk avoidance, and communicate bad news. These leaders must organize
knowledge from varied people, disciplines, perspectives, and divisions (Barrett et al., 2019). In
other words, efficient communication skills are fundamental to this transdisciplinary leadership.
The data shows that gaps in understanding between scientists and practitioners could lead
to disagreement (Wang et al., 2019). Even when difficulties can be agreed upon, there could be
uneven ownership of the problem. Instances are when leaders are involved passively instead of
27 | Page
proactively and have pre-determined preferences. In 2018, Atlanta, GA, was subject to a
ransomware attack. Before the attack, Atlanta's government's critique of not upgrading its I.T.
infrastructure enabled numerous vulnerabilities open for attack (Hutcherson, 2018). The initial
request was $35 million (Kearney, 2018) to correct the I.T. concerns; however, that cost was
denied. The lack of transdisciplinary leadership, working across disciplines to resolve the
concern, led to a hefty price. After the ransomware attack, the price rose by an additional $9.5
million (Kearney, 2018). This incident represents what is likely a significant challenge for
cybersecurity leaders, effectually communicating unpopular needs and requirements such as $35
million to correct infrastructure.
The data shows that leadership needs more learning and development to be effective on
the job. The realism of cyber risk for organizations, accompanied by the void of preparedness,
lingers as evident with each cyber-attack (Fisher at al., 2017; Fisher at al., 2021). Sixty-two
percent of organizations have miscarried in their efforts to provide adequate knowledge &
development, to carry on situational mindfulness on business and information technology risks
(Oltsik, 2017). The idea of excelling at work is not new; what needs consistent change is the
practice (Hayek et al., 2018; Murthy, 2014). Organizations should no longer allow leadership to
work in silos but create paths of understanding for team development and consensus making, and
managing crises (Paquin, 2018). Through the interdisciplinary approach, leaders are trained to
expel pre-existing notions and apply cognitive thinking using the facts.
Negandhi et al. (2015) delineated interdisciplinary leadership abilities, and practices that
are precarious for leadership achievement include the following:
Be self-aware
Visionary with a sense of mission
28 | Page
Committed and motivated
Decisive, courageous, and honest
Good communication/interpersonal skills
Influence peers to innovate
Strategic and tactical planning
Networking, team collaboration
Encourage innovation and facilitate transformation
Set a direction
An effective change agent and role model
The given competencies are about developing leaders to perform at their best. More than being
known as the leader, leadership is about growing the personal qualities needed to function
essentially and realistically with others (Peter et al., 2021; Negandhi et al., 2015). Organizations
hinge on talented and proficient leaders to direct them through extraordinary changes. However,
there is sufficient confirmation in the news and current reports that some prominent and most
respected organizations are waning when adjusting to change, implementing security
cybersecurity resiliency, employing strategic plans, or priming for prolonged and doubtful times.
29 | Page
Chapter 3: Article 1 - Artificial Intelligence (A.I.), Disability, and
Telemedicine/Telehealth: Building and Academic Program
This chapter is referenced as Burton, 2021a.
30 | Page
31 | Page
32 | Page
33 | Page
34 | Page
35 | Page
36 | Page
37 | Page
38 | Page
39 | Page
40 | Page
41 | Page
42 | Page
43 | Page
44 | Page
45 | Page
46 | Page
47 | Page
48 | Page
49 | Page
50 | Page
51 | Page
52 | Page
53 | Page
54 | Page
55 | Page
56 | Page
57 | Page
58 | Page
59 | Page
60 | Page
Chapter 4: Article 2 - Technological Digital Disruption in the Age of
Artificial Intelligence: A New Paradigm for Leadership
This chapter is referenced as Burton, 2021b.
61 | Page
62 | Page
63 | Page
64 | Page
65 | Page
66 | Page
67 | Page
68 | Page
69 | Page
70 | Page
71 | Page
72 | Page
73 | Page
74 | Page
75 | Page
76 | Page
77 | Page
78 | Page
79 | Page
80 | Page
81 | Page
82 | Page
83 | Page
84 | Page
85 | Page
86 | Page
87 | Page
88 | Page
89 | Page
90 | Page
91 | Page
92 | Page
93 | Page
94 | Page
95 | Page
Chapter 5: Article 3 - 3) Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) and Augmented
Reality (A.R.) Disambiguated in the Telemedicine/ Telehealth
This chapter is referenced as Burton, 2021c.
96 | Page
97 | Page
98 | Page
99 | Page
100 | Page
101 | Page
102 | Page
103 | Page
104 | Page
105 | Page
106 | Page
107 | Page
108 | Page
Chapter 6: Recommendations for Future Research
The goal of this exegeses was to offer comprehension and add to the body of knowledge
regarding cybersecurity leadership from a telemedicine/telehealth knowledge and organizational
development examination. As given by Dr. Clishia Taylor, "Educational institutions are diverse.
Telehealth and telemedicine education must be engaging, relevant, renewed, and all-
encompassing to remain effective. It is impracticable to ignore or miss the impacts of
telemedicine and telehealth on society. Internet-driven technology continues to drive
technologies in healthcare. The result is that healthcare organizations are spending exponential
sums on technology and cybersecurity to upgrade their practices for safe, secure, virtual
telemedicine and telehealth technologies."
The task of researching and preparing an exegesis is arduous. Numerous research was
reviewed. No data revealed a transdisciplinary framework with four methods - cybersecurity
leadership, digitization technology, andragogy, and training in the cybersecurity landscape. This
cross blending of methodologies produces a framework that comprises the traits of all the parent
methodologies to create a model with hybrid robustness. This robust hybrid methodology can be
comprehended through its biological associates. Postulated by Greiger et al., (2011), positive
hybrid robustness in plants and animals can prevail over diminished genetic variation because of
minute originator population size and permits organisms to endure, blossom, and efficaciously
adjust to a new set of environmental conditions. Three recommendations are suggested based on
the findings.
First future research should be conducted using two different groups of cybersecurity
leaders - senior managers and middle to lower-level leaders. Research topics should include five
aspects. The aspects are the (a.) types of technology to be understood, (b.) needed number of
109 | Page
courses, seminars, and webinars that such leaders have completed, (c.) topics for cybersecurity
learning, (d.) frequency of interactions among other cybersecurity leaders, and (e.) the level and
method of knowledge delivery. Research particular to learning topics should include pre-
determined issues (i.e., A.I., ransomware, cybersecurity, and business resilience), specified sub-
topics to include various learning modalities, and the amount of practice available to
cybersecurity learning participants. Conducting additional research on how cybersecurity leaders
can increase their knowledge can affect their knowledge capital and empower them to become
more informed leaders. More knowledgeable and well-informed leaders would add to the body
of knowledge for cybersecurity leadership. Additional benefits are increasing telemedicine and
telehealth knowledge and organizational development examination to ensure cybersecurity
leaders remain up-to-date in knowledge, skills, abilities, and specific cybersecurity learning
communities' bodies of knowledge.
Second, future research should examine the development of a process for cybersecurity
leaders to offer feedback on improving a pre-determined course, better help other cybersecurity
leaders, and strengthen cybersecurity leaders' learning experiences. The research should be
qualitative and include data reviews (i.e., cybersecurity leaders at all levels evaluations, surveys,
and faculty surveys), semi-structured interviews, and semi-structured focus groups. The
recommendation is for organizations to conduct this type of research semi-annually. Each new
examination report should be compared and contrasted against changes in the previous year's
Third, future research should examine instructors' knowledge and ability to teach others.
The study should gather feedback on how instructors enhance their knowledge, improve courses
and interactive exercises, share knowledge with other instructors, and improve cybersecurity
110 | Page
instructors' learning and teaching experiences. Akin to the learners, the research should be
qualitative and include data reviews (i.e., cybersecurity leader instructors at all levels
evaluations, surveys, and student surveys), semi-structured interviews, and semi-structured focus
groups. The recommendation is for organizations to conduct this type of research semi-annually,
the alternate year for learners. Each new examination report should be compared and contrasted
against changes in the previous year's data.
In business, technology, and the social sciences, hybrid robustness can enable researchers
to understand the transdisciplinary framework better. The transdisciplinary framework negotiates
cultural borders and disciplines, is presumptuous, learner-centered, constructivist, and helps
researchers produce evidence pertinent to sustainability-positioned decision-making (Shakya et
al., 2019).
Original Contribution to Knowledge in the Field
This study added to the scholarship and the body of knowledge in the field of study,
cybersecurity leadership. The direct beneficiaries of this study are telemedicine and telehealth
organizations that are responsible for ensuring that their cybersecurity leadership, at all levels,
are educated and developed who can understand, work through concerns, and converse regarding
cybersecurity concerns – people, process, and technology. Because of the high incidence of
cybersecurity threats and incidence, the need for educated and developed cybersecurity leaders
continues to grow (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017; Healthcare Cybersecurity Coordination Center,
2020; Tulgar, 2019). The data shows that a meager 19% of employees are suitably mindful of the
cyber risk (KPMG, 2017). Effective cybersecurity leadership and development programs must
convey knowledge of their dynamic functioning organizations within an interrelated system
driven by change, competitive behavior, and misuse, and how to apply process improvement
111 | Page
(Blair, 2017). The challenge addressed is preparing cybersecurity leadership talent in all
organizations – specifically personnel educated and trained to lead cybersecurity risks (HM
Government, 2017; Olsen, 2020). The results of this qualitative literature review and
ethnography research study offered three contributions to the body of knowledge that supported
a learning and development practice to ensure that cybersecurity leadership, at all levels, are
educated and developed to understand, work through concerns, and converse regarding
cybersecurity concerns – people, process, and technology.
First, the results of this study expanded knowledge regarding the skills that should be
taught to cybersecurity leaders as part of an effective leadership development program for
cybersecurity leadership. Based on the literature review, this was the first study to offer current
compiled data regarding the specific skills that should be taught as part of the learning and
development of cybersecurity leaders within telehealth and telemedicine environments. These
findings offer information for preparing to identify the necessary cybersecurity leadership skills
to establish them as standards of practice. The development of knowledge is grounded on
applying Knowles’ six characteristics of adult learning (Požega et al., 2020; Taylor & Kroth,
2009). Through embracing an andragogical adult learning method, the outcomes may be
regarded in the framework of cybersecurity education learning points and educational
innovations. This perspective led to a comprehension of how andragogy’s self-directedness could
employ communities of learning for cybersecurity leaders. In these types of communities,
cybersecurity leaders can frequently practice the andragogical characteristics of self-directed
learning. This happens by applying prior experiences and new information to deliver novel
learning into their repertoires, remain ready to received learning and development, plus value
and welcome the relevancy of learning about cybersecurity threats and incidents as they evolve.
112 | Page
Moreover, cybersecurity leaders can instantaneously relate new knowledge, skills, and ability to
unravel new challenges; stay internally inspired and driven via recommencing their tenacities
and speaking their goals; and realizing why they need to learn about new cybersecurity and
threats knowledge, skills, and abilities.
The second contribution to the body of knowledge of these research findings relates to
the content that should be included in an effective cybersecurity learning and development
program, whether face-to-face or online education. The expansion of this body of knowledge
was explored by developing an academic business integrated conceptual framework that can be
developed into distinct models. See figure 1 and chapter four (4).
Figure 1: Academic Business Integrated Conceptual Framework
Adopted from S. B. Burton, 2021b
There are eight constructs/elements to this Academic Business Integrated Conceptual
Framework. “These constructs/elements are continuous process improvement, best practices in
113 | Page
[telemedicine/telehealth] journalism learning and development, standard operating procedures,
costs evaluations, organizational change management, knowledge management, partnership, in
addition to technology, digitization, and artificial intelligence” (Burton, 2021b). This literature
review and ethnography distinguish these evidenced-based constructs/elements as topics that
cybersecurity leaders and educators do not always comprehend; the data shows understanding at
19% (KPMG, 2017). Regularity can be achieved by implementing this framework developed in
chapter four (4). Overall, this framework offers the body of knowledge of how cybersecurity
learning and development must reflect new data delivery and reception approaches.
Cybersecurity leaders, practitioners, and learners, through this framework, will gain heightened
education, plus practitioner and learner viewpoints to study arguments and experiences, as well
as investigate the manner that this data explains the formation, and exercise of cybersecurity
telemedicine/telehealth journalism, expertise, traditions, applications, determinations,
coincidences, purposes, agreements, and risks (Burton, 2021b). This detail, a forward-looking
framework founded on technological continuous process improvement, should better prepare
learners to compete in this technologically digitized society.
The third contribution of the findings of this research relates to the manner that the
telemedicine/telehealth healthcare industry, grappling with increased workload and advancing
digitization technological concerns, can offer appropriate cybersecurity controls within a critical
infrastructure that sheds applicable light on the advanced persistent threat (APT) that could have
incapacitating effects on organizations. Data analysis offers what to incorporate in cybersecurity
leadership learning and development guidance to construct knowledge where enhanced
knowledge and skills are entrenched in the learning and application process. The data showed
that a detangling of healthcare tool usage and application should exist that offers learning and
114 | Page
development for cybersecurity leaders at all levels regarding continuous leadership development.
This text (Burton, 2021c) offers to learn regarding the following:
Cybersecurity leaders gain a heightened awareness of AI and AR connections to
cybersecurity for the telemedicine/telehealth environment. This learning offers a channel for
leaders and educators to acquire necessitated, practical, and desired knowledge; sharpen their
applicable skill sets, and communicate knowledge aimed at impacting cybersecurity personnel
this 21st century. Cybersecurity leaders and educators receive enhanced learning and
development through digital technological interpretations and critiques for effective leadership
development programs whether face-to-face or online. This education meets the sprouting
international demand for education, meets the demand for flexibility in cybersecurity education,
is a response to societal change spurred by the internet, and supports an emphasis on continuous
learning and development. Through this research, the data offers the critical significance for
organizations to consistently support cybersecurity leaders to understand the industry and remain
atop of the hurdling changes and distinctions. “…a review of how AI [artificial intelligence] and
AR [augmented reality] serve as co-technologies to support the security of patient care and
monitoring, examine impacts on individuals’ and overall healthcare organizations, address how
enhanced comprehension of AI and AR could guide medical professional leaders’ decisions and
boost the overall patient experience.” The findings from this work have added to the body of
scholarship and knowledge in cybersecurity leadership in telemedicine and telehealth. Healthcare
Cybersecurity Coordination Center (2020) logged that 239.4 million cyber-attacks were
attempted in 2020. Hospital critical vulnerability points remain as networks, records disposals,
remote work, internet of things, data storage, and personal devices (Healthcare Cybersecurity
Coordination Center, 2020). This research helps to fill a void in knowledge and understanding
115 | Page
and helps with the comprehension that learning and development have to be a long-term
cybersecurity strategy.
From these findings, cybersecurity telemedicine/telehealth leaders and educators can
recognize the need to offer continuing education and learning options in a technological digitized
disruptive society. Moreover, information from this research can help the telemedicine/telehealth
cybersecurity leaders and educators establish leadership development initiatives. Furthermore,
identifying a leadership development program's necessary scope and involvement is significant
to support the long-term mission.
This transdisciplinary study offers information to close knowledge and practice gaps in
cybersecurity leadership, technological digitization, andragogy, plus learning and development in
the cybersecurity landscape. To cross and navigate disciplines, the methods must work
concurrently in a transdisciplinary approach that is forward-moving, leader-centered, and
constructivist. In this research, the transdisciplinary approach is applied to review discipline-
specific theories and fields, clarify and disambiguate their interactions, and connect them to a
circumnavigated concept of positively impacting cybersecurity leadership learning and
development. Diverse cybersecurity leaders, educational institutions, and telemedicine/telehealth
organizations can benefit from this examination by applying the findings as a strategy to reduce
and eliminate cyber hacks and develop continued learning and development for cybersecurity
leaders, practitioners, educators, and learners. From this perspective and standpoint, a knowledge
gap was closed considering cybersecurity leadership learning and development as a rapidly
developing distinct discipline that has surpassed objective and subjective deliberations of the
internet, healthcare, and digitized technological advancements alone.
116 | Page
In conclusion, this study offers a basis and groundwork that other researchers may further
investigate these topics. The internet has produced a ubiquitous environment of perpetual
digitized technological evolution and diminished distances. Whether face-to-face or online,
cybersecurity leaders, practitioners, learners, and educators must understand and embrace
cybersecurity leadership learning and development. Relevant to this study, focus on leadership
learning and development is a business concern (Nobles, 2018). It is no longer a want but has
become a requirement to protect people, processes, and technology (Burrell, 2021; Caza &
Posner, 2019; Westman, 2021).
117 | Page
118 | Page
Accenture. (2021). State of cybersecurity resilience 2021: How aligning security and the
business creates cyber resilience. Author.
Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented
reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review,
20, 11, 2017.
American Healthcare Association [AHA]. (2021, July 27). Fitch: Health systems face growing
financial pressure from cyberattacks. Author.
Andreeva, T. (2009). Tensions between knowledge creation and knowledge sharing: Individual
preferences of employees in knowledge-intensive organizations. In D. Jemielniak, & J.
Kociatkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Knowledge-Intensive Organizations.
(pp. 459-477). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-176-6.ch028
Arbaiza, L. (2016). A human-centered approach in executive education at ESN Graduate School
of Business in Peru. In Human Centered Management in executive education, (pp. 82-94)
Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Ballesteros-Rodríguez, J. L., De Saá-Pérez, P., García-Carbonell, N., Martín-Alcázar, F., &
Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2020). The influence of team members’ motivation and leaders’
behaviour on scientific knowledge sharing in universities. International Journal of
Administrative Sciences. 0020852320921220
Bada, M., & Nurse, J. R. C. (2019). Developing cybersecurity education and awareness
programmes for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Information and Computer
Security, 27(3), 393-410. doi:, M., &
Barrett, M. J., Alphonsus, K. B., Harmin, M., Epp, T., Hoessler, C., McIntyre, D., Reeder, B., &
Singh, B. (2019). Learning for Transdisciplinary Leadership: Why Skilled Scholars
Coming Together Is Not Enough, BioScience, 69(9), 736–745,
Bhatti, A., Malik, H., Ahtisham, Z. K., Aamir, A., Lamya, A. A., & Ullah, Z. (2021). Much-
needed business digital transformation through big data, internet of things and blockchain
capabilities: Implications for strategic performance in telecommunication sector.
Business Process Management Journal, 27(6), 1854-1873.
Biech, E. (2018). ATD's foundations of talent development: Launching, leveraging, and leading
your organization's T.D. efforts. Alexandria: ATD Press.
119 | Page
Bilyeau, N. (2021, August 18). Newest target of cyber attacks: America's hospitals. The Crime
Blair, T. (2017). Investigating the cybersecurity skills gap (Order No. 10623377). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1989786177).
Boyd, N. E., Zaynutdinova, G. R., Burdette, M., & Burks, N. (2020). Value added: West
Virginia University’s approach to innovative experiential learning. Managerial Finance,
46(5), 599-609. doi:
Brown-Jackson, K. (2017). Disrupting and retooling: A model for an effective community-based
telehealth program (Order No. 28144638). Available from ProQuest Central.
Bruhn, T., Herberg, J., Molinengo, G., Oppold, D., Stasiak, D., & Nanz, P. (2019). Grounded
action design transdisciplinary co-creation for better transformative processes:
Frameworks for transdisciplinary research # 9. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for
Science and Society, 28(4), 336.
Burrell, D. N. (2021). Cybersecurity leadership from a talent management organizational
development lens. [Unpublished Exegesis]. Capitol Technology University.
Burrell, D. N. (2018). An exploration of the cybersecurity workforce shortage. International
Journal of Hyperconnectivity and the Internet of Things, 2(1).
Burrell, D. N., Aridi, A. S., & Nobles, C. (2018). The critical need for formal leadership
development programs for cybersecurity and information technology professionals.
Reading: Academic Conferences International Limited.
Burton, S; L. (2021a). Artificial intelligence (A.I.), disability, and telemedicine/telehealth:
building and academic program. In C. Hughes (Ed.) Implementation Strategies for
Improving Diversity in Organizations (pp. 193-223). IGI-Global publications.
Burton, S; L. (2021b). Technological digital disruption in the age of artificial intelligence: A new
paradigm for leadership. In L. S. Byrd (Ed.) Cultivating Entrepreneurial Changemakers
Through Digital Media Education (pp. 1-35). IGI-Global publications.
120 | Page
Burton, S; L. (2021c). Artificial intelligence (AI) and augmented reality (AR): Disambiguated in
the telemedicine / telehealth sphere. Scientific Bulletin of the Nicolae Balcescu Land
Forces Academy, Sibiu, Romania, 26(1), pp. 1-11). DOI:
Burton, S. L. (2019). Grasping the cyber-world: Artificial intelligence and human capital meet to
inform leadership. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management,
Burton, S. L. (2014). Best practices for faculty development through andragogy in online
distance education (Order No. 10758601). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (1989663912).
Callahan, M. E. (2013). Cybersecurity and hospitals. American Hospital Association.
Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. (2020). The Cyber security discipline. Author.
Caza, A., & Posner, B. Z. (2019). How and when does grit influence leaders’
behavior? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(1), 124-134.
Chieh-Peng, L., Her-Ting Huang, & Tse, Y. H. (2020). The effects of responsible leadership and
knowledge sharing on job performance among knowledge workers. Personnel Review,
49(9), 1879-1896. doi:
Choi, J., Kaplan, J., Krishnamurthy, C., & Lung, H. (2019). Hit or miss? Understanding the costs
and impact of cybersecurity programs. In a report Perspectives on Transforming
Cybersecurity. McKinsey & Company.
Chowdhury, N.H., Adam, M.T.P., Skinner, G., 2019. The impact of time pressure on
cybersecurity behaviour: A systematic literature review. Behaviour & Information
Technology 38, 1290-1308.
Clim, A. (2019). Cyber security beyond the industry 4.0 era. A short review on a few
technological promises. Informatica Economica, 23(2), 34-44.
121 | Page
Clinton, L. (2009, September 4). Education's Critical Role in Cybersecurity. Educause.
Computer, E. (2020). Digital technology senate: Digitisation is the only solution to adapt to the
new normal, and roy, star health and allied insurance company. Express Computer.
Cooke, N. (2010). Becoming an andragogical librarian: Using library instruction as tool to
combat library anxiety and empower adult learners. New Review of Academic
Librarianship, 16(2), 208-227.
Daemmrich, A. (2017). Invention, innovation systems, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Technology and Innovation, 18(4), 257-265.
Daugherty, P. R. & Wilson, H. H. (2019, August 19). Using A.I. to make knowledge workers
more effective. Harvard Business Review.
David, D. P., Keup, M. M., Mermoud, A. (2020). Knowledge absorption for cyber-security: The
role of human beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 106.
Davis, J. (2020, October 7). U.S. Ransomware attacks doubled in Q3; Healthcare sector most
targeted. Cybersecurity News.
Davis, J. (2018, October 25). 3 phishing hacks breach 20,000 Catawba Valley patient records.
Healthcare I.T. News.
Dawson, Jr., M. E. (2020). Cyber warfare threats and opportunities. Universidade Fernando
Pessoa, Porto.
Dawson, M., Bacius, R., Gouveia, L. B., Vassilakos, A. (2021). Understanding the challenge of
cybersecurity in critical infrastructure sectors. Land Forces Academy Review 251 (101), 69-
75. DOI: 10.2478/raft-2021-00110
Diffee, E., & Datta, P. (2018). Cybersecurity: The three-headed janus. Journal of Information
Technology Teaching Cases, 8(2), 161-171. doi:
122 | Page
Doan, M. (2019, November 27). Companies need to rethink what cybersecurity leadership is.
Harvard Business Review.
Eddy, N. (2019, December 16). Hackensack Meridian Health pays up after ransomware attack.
Healthcare I.T. News.
Eggleton, M. (2017, August 1). Leaders will need to drive culture change: Technology. The
Australian Financial Review.
Ershadi, M. J., Qhanadi, T. O., & Hadji Molana, S. M. (2021). Selection and performance
estimation of green lean six sigma projects: A hybrid approach of technology readiness level,
data envelopment analysis, and ANFIS. Environmental Science and Pollution Research
International, 28(23), 29394-29411. doi:
Fisher, R., Porod, C., & Peterson, S. (2021). Motivating employees and organizations to adopt a
cybersecurity-focused culture. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 21(1), 114-131.
Fisher, R., Norman, M., & Klett, M. (2017). Enhancing infrastructure resilience through business
continuity planning. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 11(2), 63-172.
Friedman, S. (2021). Metaliteracy and your role as a metaliterate learner.
Gastaldi, L., Appio, F. P., Corso, M., & Pistorio, A. (2018). Managing the exploration-
exploitation paradox in healthcare: Three complementary paths to leverage on the digital
transformation. Business Process Management Journal, 24(5), 1200-1234.
Geiger, J. H., Pratt, P. D., Wheeler, G. S., & Williams, D. A. (2011). Hybrid vigor for the
invasive exotic brazilian peppertree (schinus terebinthifolius raddi, anacardiaceae) in Florida.
International Journal of Plant Sciences, 172(5), 655-663. doi:10.1086/659457
Gyun No, W. and Vasarhelyi, M.A. (2017), “Cybersecurity and continuous assurance”, Journal
of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(1), pp. 1-12.
Gordon, L. A., Loeb, M. P., Lucyshyn, W., & Zhou, L. (2015). Externalities and the magnitude
of cyber security underinvestment by private sector firms: A modification of the Gordon-
Loeb model. Journal of Information Security, 6 (1), 24-30
123 | Page
Güell, F. (2012). Apply knowledge and intangible assets management. Agile Innovation.
Gupta, H., Kumar, S., Simonov Kusi-Sarpong, Charbel Jose, C. J., & Agyemang, M. (2021).
Enablers to supply chain performance on the basis of digitization technologies. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 121(9), 1915-1938. doi:
HM Government. (2017). FTSE 350 cyber governance health check tracker.
Hayek, M., Randolph-Seng, B., Guclu, A., & Montalvo, D. (2018). The influence of political
skill on career success in an Ecuadorian family firm. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management: CCM, 18(2), 175-190. doi:
Hayter, C. S., Rasmussen, E., & Rooksby, J. H. (2020). Beyond formal university technology
transfer: Innovative pathways for knowledge exchange. Journal of Technology Transfer,
45(1), 1-8. doi:
Healthcare Cybersecurity Coordination Center. (2020). 2020: A Retrospective Look at
Healthcare Cybersecurity. Author. Report #: 202102181030
Heathcare Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS). (2021b). Future of healthcare
report: Exploring healthcare stakeholders' expectations for the next chapter. Author.
Heathcare Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS). (2021a). Cybersecurity in
healthcare. Author.
Healthcare & Public Health Sector Coordinating Councils. (n.d.). Health industry cybersecurity
practices: Managing threats and protecting patients. Department of Health and Human
Help Net Security. (2020, July 23). Human error: Understand the mistakes that weaken
cybersecurity. Author.
Hickman, L., & Akdere, M. (2018). Effective leadership development in information technology:
Building transformational and emergent leaders. Industrial and Commercial Training, 50(1),
1-9. doi:
124 | Page
Hoffman, K. E. (2018). The two faces of A.I.: Real threat intelligence promise...and risk. S.C.
Magazine,29(1), 14-17.
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B. T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: Its past and its future in
health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43(1), 159-172.
House energy and commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations hearing:
Cybersecurity: An overview of risks to critical infrastructure. (2011). Washington:
Federal Information & News Dispatch, LLC.
Hutcherson, K. (2018, March 28). Six days after a ransomware cyberattack, Atlanta officials are
filling out forms by hand. CNN.
IBM Security. (2021). Cost of a data breach report. Author. Cost of a Data Breach Report 2021
IESE Business School of Navarro. (2020). How to be a hyperconnected leader.
Imran, H., Salama, M., Turner, C., & Fattah, S. (2021). A systematic literature review on the
technical and non-technical cyber risk management models in the oil and gas sector.
Varazdin: Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency (VADEA).
Information Systems Security Association International (ISSA). (2021). Cybersecurity skills
crisis continues for fifth year, perpetuated by lack of business investment. Author.
International Bureau of Education. (2021). Transdisciplinary approach. IBE-UNESCO.
International Committee of the Red Cross. (2018). ICRC: Health-care workers suffer attacks
every single week. ICRC.
Jalali, M. S. (2018). Decision-making and biases in cybersecurity capability development:
evidence from a simulation game experiment. arXiv.
125 | Page
Jolalee A, Nor K.M., Khani N, Yusoff RM. (2014). Factors affecting knowledge sharing
intention among academic staff. International Journal of Educational Management, 28:
413–431. IJEM-03-2013-0041
Ju, B. (2019). The roles of the psychology, systems and economic theories in human resource
development. European Journal of Training and Development, 43(1), 132-152.
KPMG. (2017). Clarity on cyber security.
Karagiannis, S., & Magkos, E. (2021). Adapting CTF challenges into virtual cybersecurity
learning environments. Information and Computer Security, 29(1), 105-132.
Kearney, L. (2018, March 31). Atlanta officials reveal worsening effects of cyber attack.
Kim, K., Alfouzan, F. A., & Kim, H. (2021). Cyber-attack scoring model based on the offensive
cybersecurity framework. Applied Sciences, 11(16), 7738.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directing learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago, IL:
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy
(revised and updated). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.
Lakshman, C. (2005). Top executive knowledge leadership: Managing knowledge to lead change
at general electric. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 429-446.
Lang, D., Wiek, J., Bergmann A., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, .P, Swilling, M., Thomas,
C. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and
challenges. Sustainability Science 7,25–43.
Larson, K. (2020). Serious games and gamification in the corporate training environment: A
literature review. TechTrends, 64(2), 319-328. doi:
Lawlor E, Kreuter M, Sebert-Kuhlmann A, Mcbride T. (2015). Methodological innovations in
public health education: Transdisciplinary problem solving. American Journal of Public
Health 105, S99–S103.
126 | Page
Lei, H., Gui, L., & Le, P. B. (2021). Linking transformational leadership and frugal innovation:
the mediating role of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge
Levin, I., & Mamlok, D. (2021). Culture and society in the digital age. MDPI.
Levin, I. and Tsybulsky, D. (2017). The constructionist learning approach in the digital age.
creative education, 8, 2463-2475. doi: 10.4236/ce.2017.815169.
Liu, F., Wu, J., Huang, X., Fong, P.S.W. (2020). Impact of intra-group coopetitive incentives on
the performance outcomes of knowledge sharing: evidence from a randomized
experiment. Journal of Knowledge Management. 24, 346–368.
Lohrmann, D. (2020). The top 21 security predictions for 2021. Government Technology.
Lu, S. & Burton, S. L. (2017). Man vs robot? Future challenges and opportunities with artificial
intelligence (A.I.) health care education model. Working Papers Human Development A
Multidisciplinary Research, November 67, 2017. Research Association for
Interdisciplinary Studies.
Lurati, F., & Eppler, M. J. (2011). Communication and management: Researching corporate
communication and knowledge communication in organizational settings. Core.
Maccoby, M. (2007). Developing research/technology leaders. Research Technology
Management, 50(2), 65-67.
Martin, G., Martin, P., Hankin, C., Darzi, A., & Kinross, J. (2017). Cybersecurity and healthcare:
how safe are we?BMJ:British Medical Journal (Online), 358.
Massat, M. B. (2018). The intersection of AI and precision medicine at RSNA 2018. Applied
Radiology, 47(11), 24-27.
Michellehavich. (2021). October is cyber security awareness Month—So what's new? The
American City & County.
Mimecast Threat Center Research. (2021). The state of email security report. Author.
127 | Page
Morgan, S. (2016). Hospitals lack staff needed to combat cyber attacks: Healthcare is the most
cyber-attacked industry, and it needs to hire up. CSO
Morris, G. F. (2019). The cyber-security concerns regarding the internet of things associated
with the critical infrastructure within Northern Nevada (Order No. 13428023). Available
from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2185755372).
Morse, S. (2018, October 22). CMS responds to data breach affecting 75,000 in federal ACA
portal. Healthcare Finance.
Muller, S. R. (2021). A Perspective On the intersection of information security policies and I.A.
awareness, factoring in end-user behavior. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Research in Management & Technovation, December 5-6, 2020. pp. 137–142. DOI:
Murphey, D. (2020). How your H.R. department can help to overcome the cybersecurity skills
gap. BenefitsPRO.
Murray, S. (2018, July 12). MBA courses start teaching digital security skills: Education
business schools add cyber to the curriculum as attacks become a boardroom matter,
writes Sarah Murray. Financial Times.
Murthy, V. (2014). Interdisciplinary lessons for contemporary challenges: The zeitgeist
leadership practice of excelling at work. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management
and Sustainable Development, 10(4), 262-284.
Nayyar, S. (2021, March 17). Why healthcare could face unprecedented cyber threats in 2021.
Negandhi, P., Negandhi, H., Tiwari, R., Sharma, K., Zodpey, S. P., Quazi, Z., Gaidhane, A.,
Jayalakshmi N, Gijare, M., & Yeravdekar, R. (2015). Building Interdisciplinary Leadership
Skills among Health Practitioners in the Twenty-First Century: An Innovative Training
Model. Frontiers in public health, 3, 221.
128 | Page
Nobles, C. (2018). Botching human factors in cybersecurity in business organizations. Holistica
– Journal of Business and Public Administration,9(3), 71-88.
Olsen, T. (2020). Understanding the digital transformation. Chemical Engineering
Progress,116(9), 29-35.
Oltsik, J. (2017). The life and times of cybersecurity professionals. ESG and ISSA: Research
Cybersecurity-Professionals-Nov-. 2017.pdf?hsCtaTracking=a63e431c-d2ce-459d-8787-
Ohannessian, R., & Yaghobian, S. (2020). The practicality of telemedicine and telehealth during
the COVID-19 global outbreak. European Journal of Public Health,30.
Osliak, O., Saracino, A., & Martinelli, F. (2019). A scheme for the sticky policy representation
supporting secure cyber-threat intelligence analysis and sharing. Information and Computer
Security, 27(5), 687-710. doi:
Ozuah, P. O. (2005). First, there was pedagogy and then came andragogy. The Einstein Journal
of Biology and Medicine, 21, 83-87.
Paquin, H., Bank, I., Young, M., Nguyen, L. H. P., Fisher, R., & Nugus, P. (2018). Leadership in
crisis situations: Merging the interdisciplinary silos. Leadership in Health Services, 31(1),
110-128. doi:
Peter, K. A., Halfens, R. J. G., Hahn, S., & Jos, M. G. A. S. (2021). Factors associated with
work-private life conflict and leadership qualities among line managers of health
professionals in Swiss acute and rehabilitation hospitals – a cross-sectional study. BMC
Health Services Research, 21, 1-12. doi:
Petrie, H. G., (1992). Interdisciplinary Education: Are We Faced with Insurmountable
Opportunities? Review of Research in Education, 18, 299-333, American Educational
Research Association, Stable URL:
Pinto, M., Fernandez-Pascual, R., & Sales, D. (2018). Communication of information in the
digital age among social sciences students: Uncovering a synthetic indicator of performance.
Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(4), 326-343.
Poulter, A. J., Ossont, S. J., & Cox, S. J. (2020). Enabling the secure use of dynamic identity for
the internet of Things—Using the secure remote update protocol (SRUP). Future Internet,
12(8), 138. doi:
129 | Page
Požega, Ž., Crnković, B., & Maðarić, K. K. (2020). Influence of training programme design on
employee education. Ekonomski Vjesnik, 33(2), 351-360.
Public Health Emergency. (2017). Technical volume 2: Cybersecurity practices for medium and
large health care organizations. Author. Technical Volume 2: Cybersecurity Practices for
Medium and Large Health Care Organizations (
Public-Private Analytic Exchange Program U.S. (2019). Commodification of cyber capabilities:
A grand cyber arms bazaar. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Washington, DC
Radziwill, N. M. (2018). Cybersecurity leadership. The Quality Management Journal, 25(2),
109. doi:
Ramesh, K., Fungai, J., Samiksha, N., & de, J. Q. (2021). A study on intelligent grinding systems
with industrial perspective. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 115(11-12), 3811-3827. doi:
Rohman, A.; Eliyana, A.; Purwana, D.; Hamidah, H. 2020. Individual and organizational factors'
effect on knowledge sharing behavior. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 8(1): 38-
Roohparvor, R. (2019). Elements of cybersecurity. Infoguard Cyber Security.
Rooksby, J. H., & Hayter, C. S. (2017). Copyrights in higher education: Motivating a research
agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer.
Russell, S. (2019). Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control;
Penguin Press.
Sallos, M. P., Garcia-Perez, A., Bedford, D., & Orlando, B. (2019). Strategy and organisational
cybersecurity: A knowledge-problem perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(4), 581-
597. doi:
Saunders, L., & Wong, M. A. (2020). Learning theories: Understanding how people learn. In
Instruction in Libraries and Information Centers. Windsor & Downs Press.
Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Currency Books.
Sezer, B. K., & Caliyurt, K. (2018). Cyber security assurance process from the internal audit
perspective. Managerial Auditing Journal, 33(4), 360-376.
130 | Page
Shakya, B., Schneider, F., Yang, Y., Sharma, E., (2019). A Multiscale Transdisciplinary
Framework for Advancing the Sustainability Agenda of Mountain Agricultural Systems.
Mountain Research and Development Journal, 39(3).
Smith, J. (2021). 7 skills for a successful management career. Prospects.
Stratford Group Ltd. (2021). Knowledge is power. Leadership is greatness. raises concerns over healthcare
cybersecurity training. (2019). Briefings on HIPAA,19(11), 4-6.
Simon, J. P. (2019). Artificial intelligence: Scope, players, markets and geography. Digital
Policy, Regulation and Governance, 21(3), 208-237. doi:
Taylor, C., & Burton, S. L. (2018). Taylor, C., & Burton, S.L. (2018). Advanced certified
telemedicine/telehealth professional (A-CTTP). Lulu Publications.
Taylor, B., & Kroth, M. (2009). Andragogy's transition into the future: Meta-analysis of
andragogy and its search for a measurable instrument. Journal of Adult Education, 38, 1-11.
Tessian Webinar. (2020, February 11). Discussion human layer security with Arm CISO, Tim
Fitzgerald. Author.
The Futures School. (2021). Foresight: The most important leadership skill of the 21st century.
Tsado, L. K. (2016). Analysis of cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities: Skills gap challenges
and professional development (Order No. 10252893). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global. (1906329159).
Tuckson, R. V., Edmunds, M., and Hodgkins, M. L. (2017). Telehealth: Special report. The New
England Journal of Medicine.
Tulgar, A. T. (2019). In between reality and virtuality: Augmented reality in teaching English to
young learners. Selcuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 41, 356-364.
131 | Page
University of New South Wales Sydney. (2021). Primary and secondary sources. Author.
Vandavasi, R.K.K., McConville, D.C., Uen, J.F., Yepuru, P. (2020). Knowledge sharing, shared
leadership and innovative behaviour: A cross-level analysis. International Journal of
Manpower. 41, 1221–1233. https://
Waltner-Toews, D. (2017). Zoonoses, one health and complexity: Wicked problems and
constructive conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 372: 20160171.
Wang, J., Aenis, T., & Siew, T. F. (2019). Communication processes in intercultural
transdisciplinary research: Framework from a group perspective. Sustainability
Science, 14(6), 1673-1684. doi:
Welch, J. & Welch, S. (2005). Winning. Harper Business Publishing.
Wetsman, N. (2021, February 5). Patient names and colonoscopy results from U.S. hospitals
posted by hackers to the dark web. The Verge.
White, S. K. (2020). 10 IT leadership development programs to help you level up. Cio.
Yang, L., Cao, X., Li, J. (2016). A new cyber security risk evaluation method for oil and gas
SCADA based on factor state space. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 89, 203-209.
Yeo, S. (2020). Access now, but for whom and at what cost? Information, Communication &
Society, 23(4), 588-604. doi:
Zuopeng (Justin) Zhang, Wu, H., Li, W., & Abdous, M. (2021). Cybersecurity awareness
training programs: A cost–benefit analysis framework. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 121(3), 613-636. doi:
ProQuest Number:
The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.
Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( ).
Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.
This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,
United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.
Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization
of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA
... Still, the weaker opponent could embrace an unforeseen cyberattack crafted to prolong and draw out the attack and thus diminish the apparent stronger opponent. As with other capabilities, for asymmetric warfare, grander-prepared leadership is fundamental for success (Burton, 2022). ...
... There is an opportunity for all industries to improve to guard against cyberattacks. An educated workforce at all levels with more than an annual training is necessary (Burton, 2022). Prompt system updates are essential instead of waiting months and experiencing ransomware attacks. ...
Full-text available
While cybercrime continues to challenge governments, businesses, and people, cybercriminals are harvesting massive payoffs by engaging in malicious operations. A significant impediment to countering cybercrime is the lack of a standardized definition of cybercrime that transcends international boundaries and hegemonic societies. The extensive taxing on law enforcement organizations to pursue cybercrime across international borders contributes to normalizing cybercrime as a sustained business. As cybercrime evolves and challenges traditional defenses, new types of cybercrime are engineered as digitalization and internet-based activity increase. Unfortunately, policies, policing, legal authorities, and prosecution of cybercrime trail the escalating cybercriminal activity. Cybercriminals are mimicking traditional business models to offer nefarious services such as cybercrime-as-a-service and customer service support. Until progressive action with legal authorization is manifested by international and national organizations, cybercrime will be a sustained business for cybercriminals.
... Fifth,ensurethatallworkersareeducatedandre-educatedtoremainabreastofcurrentinformation and changes (Burton, 2022). Because people work in this ubiquitous technology epoch, cyber educationmustincludeNIST,FISMA,andPlanofActionandMilestones(POA&M).Understanding prioritizationissignificantforstrategyandhowtoconnectworkactivitiesandlearnthestrategy. ...
Full-text available
Strategy development and application continue to shift. Evolving leadership with well-informed judgment relating to generating sound strategy within the realm of cybersecurity strengthening methods remains perplexing in this COVID-19 pandemic epoch. Investigated in this paper is the shaping of this context regarding the leadership position to study spats, procedures, and the way that this data clarifies the organization and outcomes of cybersecurity awareness, proficiency, know-how, practice, actions, purposes, harmonization, in addition to know-how immersion. This investigation's documentation is geared toward the expansion of the context and semi-structured purposive sampling interview outcomes as this context is rationalized via the proper instrument for examining the manner in that varied contexts might be understood to merge novel wisdom and the epoch of the COVID-19 pandemic into improved awareness, expertise, and capabilities. This research increases the body of knowledge involving strategy comprehension expansion for academics, practitioners, and business students.
COVID-19 shed light on mental health as a significant public health problem. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the mental health of individuals around the world. As such, mental health practitioners must be prepared to respond effectively to the changing needs of their patients. Adaptive leadership and change management are two essential tools that can be used to assist patients with mental health issues post-COVID-19. By combining these two approaches, mental health practitioners can ensure that their services are effective and meet the needs of their patients in the post-COVID-19 world. This chapter uses intervention action research (I.A.R.) to help organizational leaders address workplace challenges and enhance their profession by engaging organizational stakeholders in creating, executing, and assessing interventions in a problem-solving, assessment, and reflection cycle.
Full-text available
Leadership growth is a contemporaneous approach to learning. Developing healthcare leadership and decision-making concerning protecting U.S. critical infrastructure from a framework of sound cybersecurity protection approaches in the age of COVID-19 is the latest development for cybersecurity healthcare leaders. Examined is the creation of this framework from the leadership viewpoint to investigate arguments, practices, and how this information explains the assembly and effects of cybersecurity consciousness, skill, experience, behaviors, aims, agreement, and knowledge absorption. This examination concentrates on the development of the framework and focus group results as this framework is reasoned the suitable tool to expose how diverse backgrounds can be realized to blend new knowledge, the age of COVID-19, U.S. critical infrastructure, protection, variation, and diversity into enhanced knowledge, skill, and abilities. This data adds to the body of knowledge regarding cybersecurity leadership knowledge development for academics, practitioners, and learners.
Full-text available
Cyber-attacks have become commonplace in the world of the Internet. The nature of cyber-attacks is gradually changing. Early cyber-attacks were usually conducted by curious personal hackers who used simple techniques to hack homepages and steal personal information. Lately, cyber attackers have started using sophisticated cyber-attack techniques that enable them to retrieve national confidential information beyond the theft of personal information or defacing websites. These sophisticated and advanced cyber-attacks can disrupt the critical infrastructures of a nation. Much research regarding cyber-attacks has been conducted; however, there has been a lack of research related to measuring cyber-attacks from the perspective of offensive cybersecurity. This motivated us to propose a methodology for quantifying cyber-attacks such that they are measurable rather than abstract. For this purpose, we identified each element of offensive cybersecurity used in cyber-attacks. We also investigated the extent to which the detailed techniques identified in the offensive cyber-security framework were used, by analyzing cyber-attacks. Based on these investigations, the complexity and intensity of cyber-attacks can be measured and quantified. We evaluated advanced persistent threats (APT) and fileless cyber-attacks that occurred between 2010 and 2020 based on the methodology we developed. Based on our research methodology, we expect that researchers will be able to measure future cyber-attacks.
Full-text available
The digitization thrust on high-value manufacturing and services opens up new opportunities for ensuring total system uptime, reliability, and efficiency particularly for mission-critical high-value assets. The digitization process evolves intelligent manufacturing systems (IMS) which transforms maintenance into predictive reliability for achieving consistent quality throughout manufacturing process. This article unveils the intelligent grinding systems (IGS) for challenging grinding applications. In order to provide a better chance for value addition, previous work has been scrutinized extensively in the following aspects: grinding models, process design algorithms, and process monitoring. This then leads into an analysis of various previously designed IGS. The main focus, especially in the early 2000s, was mainly database development and parameter selection, which then shifted to process monitoring and control as particular technology advances were made. In the various goals that were investigated, it was evident that researchers were aiming for an online real-time system. This notion was driven by the advances in artificial intelligence and improved monitoring sensors, for example, acoustic emission sensors and even other unusual sensors like microphones for more economical and improved data collection and analysis. Although tremendous strides have been made, a substantial amount of work is still required in achieving a full-fledged real-time intelligent grinding system. The comprehensive findings on IGS system concludes that the real-time process update has been improved from few hours to milliseconds.
Full-text available
Nowadays budget and schedule constraints have forced organizations to select six sigma projects based on pre-defined success criteria. Also, progressive approaches based on green and lean paradigm are vital for companies to enhance their social and environmental performance. Then, Green Lean Six Sigma (GLS) projects play the main role in improving the performance of an organization while augmenting its sustainability. Accordingly in this paper, past studies were reviewed, and GLS projects’ indicators and performance evaluation criteria were identified. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) was employed for the appropriate selection of GLS projects. Next, the ranking and performance weight of each project were investigated, and also the projects were categorized based on the technology readiness level (TRL). Additionally, an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) method was applied for the successful prediction of selected GLS projects. Twenty-eight inputs and 9 outputs for the first project category (with TRL 9) and 28 inputs and 6 outputs for the second project category (with TRL 8) were entered into the model. The statistical assessment measures such as Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), root mean squared of error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and R² were employed for capability appraisal of ANFIS model. Results of NSE and R² indicators for both project categories were 1.00 that proved the efficiency of the ANFIS model for success prediction of GLS projects. Also, RMSE and MAE indicators for category 1 were 0.01 and 0.02 respectively. Similarly, these measures for category 2 were 0.02 and 0.02. The results advocate a proper approximation for observed values by the ANFIS model. Also, the results indicated that TRL as an important enabler of the GLS project has a meaningful role in the performance of GLS projects. Graphical abstract
Full-text available
Purpose Given the important role of frugal innovation for firms in the developing and emerging countries, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of transformational leadership (TL) on frugal innovation through the mediating roles of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Design/methodology/approach The paper used a quantitative research method and structural equation modeling to test the relationship among the latent factors based on a sample of 339 participants from 120 Vietnamese firms. Findings Findings reveal the significant impacts of TL on aspects of frugal innovation, namely, frugal functionality, frugal cost and frugal ecosystem. Moreover, the paper highlights the mediating roles of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing (KS) in the relationship between TL and frugal innovation in terms of frugal functionality and frugal cost. Research limitations/implications To bring a deeper understanding of the benefits and important role of knowledge resources, future research should investigate the potential mediating mechanisms of knowledge management processes in the relationship between specific leadership styles and frugal innovation. Practical implications The paper provides a valuable understanding and novel approach for managers and directors of firms in developing and emerging countries to improve their firms’ frugal innovation capability through leadership practice and knowledge resources. Originality/value This study contributes to bridging research gaps in the literature and advances the insights of how TL directly and indirectly fosters frugal innovation via mediating roles of tacit and explicit KS.
Full-text available
This paper aims to examine a theoretical framework of digital society and the ramifications of the digital revolution. The paper proposes that more attention has to be paid to cultural studies as a means for the understanding of digital society. The approach is based on the idea that the digital revolution’s essence is fully manifested in the cultural changes that take place in society. Cultural changes are discussed in connection with the digital society’s transformations, such as blurring the distinction between reality and virtuality and among people, nature, and artifacts, and the reversal from informational scarcity to abundance. The presented study develops a general model of culture. This model describes the spiritual, social, and technological facets of culture. Such new phenomena as individualization, transparisation, and so-called cognification (intellectualization of the surrounding environment) are suggested as the prominent trends characterizing the above cultural facets.
Full-text available
Background: The workforce shortage of health professionals is a matter of global concern. Among possible causative factors in this shortage are the incompatibility of health professionals' work with their private life, which may lead to increased stress and burnout symptoms, job dissatisfaction and a higher intention to leave the profession prematurely. Also, poor leadership qualities among direct line managers (e.g. clinic directors, leading physicians, ward managers, team leaders) have been associated with health professionals' job dissatisfaction and intention to leave in previous studies. This study therefore aimed to identify key factors associated with health professionals' work-private life conflicts and their managers' leadership quality. Methods: The study is based on a cross-sectional survey in 26 Swiss acute and rehabilitation hospitals, consisting of 3398 health professionals from various disciplines. For data analysis, multilevel models (with hospitals as the second level variable) were performed for 'work-private life conflict' and 'quality of leadership', considering significant main effects (using AIC) and significant interactions (using BIC) of potential explanatory variables. Results: The main findings reveal that the compatibility of health professionals' work and private life is associated with how much they can influence shift planning (possibility of exchanging shifts, B = -2.87, p < 0.01), the extent to which their individual preferences are considered (e.g. working on one specific shift only, B = 6.31, p < 0.01), number of work shifts per weekend (B = 1.38, p < 0.01) and working hours per week (B = 0.13, p < 0.01). In addition, the factors high quantitative demands (B = 0.25, p < 0.01), being required to hide their emotions (B = 0.16, p < 0.01) and poor social community support at work (B = -0.12, p < 0.01) were related to severe work-private life conflicts among health professionals. Regarding managerial leadership, health professionals perceived the leadership qualities of their direct line manager as being better if they received more social support (B = 0.61, p < 0.01) and rewards (B = 0.41, p < 0.01) at work. Conclusions: The results show key components of improving the compatibility of work and private life for health professionals as well as managerial leadership qualities, and may help leaders working in acute or rehabilitation hospitals to develop appropriate interventions.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In 2017 Executive Order 13800 was enacted for all federal entities to use the NIST Cybersecurity Framework to report on FISMA compliance. According to GAO-19-545 report sixteen agencies were identified as failing to successfully implement FISMA regulations rooted in information security policies (ISPs). This paper will introduce the link between information assurance awareness with the prescribed actions and its direct influence on information security policies. While organizations are conscious of the federal rules and regulations, most continue to fail to successfully implement and comply with the guidelines due to a sincere lack of information assurance and awareness, which ties directly into human behavior. A discussion on the intersection of information security awareness and behavior will be presented. The UTAUT theory measures and informs the researcher on factors that influence the end-user. Conclusively, recommendations will be offered on why organizations need to invest in a mechanism that measures these factors, which increases information awareness to change behavior, thus achieving better compliance with their organizational ISPs.
Following the analysis given by Alan Turing in 1951, one must expect that AI capabilities will eventually exceed those of humans across a wide range of real-world-decision making scenarios. Should this be a cause for concern, as Turing, Hawking, and others have suggested? And, if so, what can we do about it? While some in the mainstream AI community dismiss the issue, I will argue that the problem is real: we have to work out how to design AI systems that are far more powerful than ourselves while ensuring that they never have power over us. I believe the technical aspects of this problem are solvable. Whereas the standard model of AI proposes to build machines that optimize known, exogenously specified objectives, a preferable approach would be to build machines that are of provable benefit to humans. I introduce assistance games as a formal class of problems whose solution, under certain assumptions, has the desired property.
Purpose In the field of business, digital transformation is the integration of digital technology into all areas of business, from generating to deliver value to customers. This concept is essential for sustainable growth of a company and its overall economy. Based on this fact, this authentic and informative research is conducted whose major aim is to examine the importance of digital transformation within a business through big data, the Internet of things and blockchain-based capabilities for overall strategic performance within the telecom sector in China. Design/methodology/approach For that aim, data quality and technology competence are considered as independent variables, strategic performance as dependent variable and big data analytics capabilities, Internet of things capabilities and blockchain capabilities routinization acted as mediators within this paper. In its data collection mechanism, an online survey was conducted in which questionnaires are randomly distributed to the telecom sector's professionals in which only 343 of them gave their valid outcomes. After collecting primary data, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM)–based statistical outcomes have been generated. Findings Results indicate that there is a significant relationship between data quality and strategic performance and between technological competence and strategic performance. Also, the big data analytics and Internet of Things capabilities acted as significant mediating role between both independent and dependent variables. But blockchain capabilities routinization is that variable that acts as an insignificant mediator between independent and dependent variables' relationship. Originality/value Overall, this study is an informative and attractive source for the Chinese government, its telecom industry, administrative body and related ones to understand the importance of such IT capabilities' implications within their operating activities for their strategic performance management. Also, related field scholars can utilize its reliable data in their research analysis. Its major limitations are (1) lack of qualitative/ mixed method of research and (2) lack of comparative analysis that may impact the acceptability factor of this paper, and this weakness can be overcome by upcoming scholars in their research.