## 7 Discussion
Regarding the hypotheses (H8-H14) that were proposed to test the relationship between all seven independent variables (IVs) and cybersecurity leadership (CL) as the mediation variable, the empirical findings in this study indicated that significant relationships exist between all the proposed hypotheses and cybersecurity leadership (CL), except H8 (PS \(\rightarrow\) CL). This is because the result for testing perceived severity (PS) in relation with cybersecurity leadership (CL) indicated that the related \(p\)-value for (PS \(\rightarrow\) CP) was 0.721, which was more than the threshold value of \(p>\) 0.05. This result provides sufficient empirical evidence to reject hypothesis H8. H9: Perceived vulnerability (PV) has a positive, significant relationship with cybersecurity leadership (CL). The result shows that the path coefficient value between PV \(\rightarrow\) CL is 0.090. As the t-value is 2.016, higher than the critical value of 1.96 as well as the \(p\)-value of 0.044, which is smaller than the threshold of 0.05, the results show that the path coefficient is significant. Hence, there is a significant positive relationship between PV and CL. This result provides sufficient empirical evidence to accept hypothesis H9. Although the result appears to be consistent with both theoretical predictions and the results of each individual. This result provides sufficient empirical evidence to accept hypothesis H10. Although the result appears to be consistent with both theoretical predictions and the results of several other investigations [61; 68; 69] from various contexts, it is in line with findings from earlier research that has shown similar findings [69], where the organizations must increase their self-efficacy in online security behaviors to develop training and policy materials that work. H11: Response efficacy (RE) has a positive, significant relationship with cybersecurity leadership (CL). The result shows that the path coefficient value between RE and CL is 0.241. As the t-value is 3.713, higher than the critical value of 1.96, as well as the \(p\)-value of 0.000, which is smaller than the threshold of 0.05, the results show that the path coefficient is significant. Hence, there is a significant positive relationship between RC and CP. This result provides sufficient empirical evidence to accept hypothesis H12. Althoughthe result appears to be consistent with both theoretical predictions and the results of several other investigations [61; 64; 72] from various contexts, it is in line with findings from earlier research that has shown similar findings [72], where the response cost represents an important element to promote secure transactions and organization safe performance in the presence of an effective cybersecurity leadership. H13: Organization frequent training (OFT) has a positive, significant relationship with cybersecurity leadership (CL). The result shows that the value of the path coefficient between OFT and CP is 0.156. As the t-value is 2.586, higher than the critical value of 1.96 as well as the \(p\)-value of 0.001, which is smaller than the threshold of 0.05, the results show that the path coefficient is significant. Hence, there is a significant positive relationship between OFT and CP. This result provides sufficient empirical evidence to accept hypothesis H13. The result appears to be consistent with both theoretical predictions and the results of several other investigations [73; 74; 75] from various contexts, and is in line with findings from earlier research that has shown similar findings, where the organization frequently trains staff to secure digital assets because cybercriminals continue to prosper in their operations, and now target both business and organizations as well as individual computer users [75]. H14: Government frequent alerting (GF) has a positive, significant relationship with cybersecurity leadership (CL). This study found that the path coefficient between GF and CP is 0.202, with a t-value of 3.470 and a \(p\)-value of 0.001.