Building on the X-Factor

By the exact same token, many security managers from these backgrounds have tended to stress their policing or military achievements and experience as a fundamental qualification for appointment.

Even where other qualifications have been obtained, up to and including University degrees on the subject of security, they tend to be built upon this services-based foundation. Should such a foundation be absent, then even with a degree the edifice often appears somewhat wobbly to the potential employer.

The reason for this police and services orientation is not so much that the qualifications for the role are interchangeable. They are not. Nor is it because the roles are necessarily always compatible in nature.

The real reason is that private sector security hasn't yet furnished itself with a portfolio of clear and progressive qualifications sufficient to allow employers either to express their expectations or to judge the calibre of a prospective employee.

In such a situation, employers have exercised the only sensible option and concentrated on the proximate experiences and qualifications offered by a policing or military background. Here at least is a yardstick by which to assess calibre and potential performance, not to mention a degree of employment vetting.

Similarly, few security managers undertake the same degree of career development training as do managers in other posts. The absence of such programmes is directly attributable to the absence of a career development structure that would warrant them. As security managers are predominantly drawn from other professions, and often appointed at or near the level at which they'll remain, there seems little need for them.

Driving change in training
The advent of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and the establishment of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) signals a major change to the above scenario. Both regulation and qualification will extend well beyond the confines of operatives to embrace both security managers and directors.

How this will actually pan out in practice remains to be seen, yet it appears certain the adoption of recognised standards and qualifications will mean that both employers and security managers have a recognised standard against which to assess and demonstrate professionalism – and that, in turn, this will necessitate both recognised training courses and qualifications.

All of which should prove an interesting development given that security management doesn't have a career route in the traditional sense. There are, for example, no clear educational or training pathways in security. There aren't any GCSE's or A Levels in security management, and no first degree courses. Nor, indeed, is there an expectation that you can join a company as a junior security manager and work your way up, obtaining the necessary qualifications as you go.

Such a progression is possible, but very rare compared with the services route.

In due course, the SIA's provision – in whatever form – of regulated qualifications will accelerate opportunities for individuals to pursue a career which begins and ends in the private security sector. However, that time is some way off. More realistically, what the sector is looking at in the short term is the provision of accredited training courses for existing managers. In other words, the training and qualifications will need to be 'backwards compatible' as well as future orientated.

A great many security managers have a wealth of management experience but, as previously mentioned, it's not always gained in the field of commercial security. What existing managers require – and managers of tomorrow will need to obtain – is access to two specific kinds of training and qualifications.

In the first instance, there's a real need for general management training which is contextualised for the security manager. Training courses in the basic management components of planning, organising, leading and controlling are widely available to managers in a host of other professions, but less so for security managers.

Where security doesn't sit comfortably or work effectively within an organisation, it's because the security department and others don't have a shared management experience. The respective managers simply don't have a clear understanding of each others' roles, or a common management framework of understanding and language that allows them to communicate effectively.

Every security manager out there requires a bedrock of basic management knowledge and skills, sufficient to cope with their role and to integrate the security function within the culture, structure and objectives of their organisation

The content of these courses doesn't need to be widely different dependent on profession or role. Indeed they should be very similar, but it does help if the issues examined, the techniques taught and the examples used relate directly to the trainee's chosen profession and its broader role within a commercial structure.

The second area where there's a real need for management level security training is in specific security skills. There's no longer any expectation that a single security manager can cover every aspect of commercial security. There is now widespread specialisation.

Security professionals need access to specialist or 'specific to role' security courses that will allow them to develop their skills within their current and/or chosen post. The ability to build on skills and add to them over time is also an essential part of moving towards the concept of a career security manager.

Pressing forward on qualifications
If the training needs are comparatively clear, what's less obvious is the type of qualification the training should carry. As stated, the SIA will be determining standards and qualification levels for security managers. The question is whether it's wise to wait until these are determined, or to go ahead and attend courses and acquire qualifications in advance of the Authority's deliberations.

The answer is that managers must press forward and acquire the training courses they need and, for the time being at least, put to one side the issue of the SIA. There are a number of reasons for that. First, managers need access to training now, and shouldn't put off acquiring essential skills through 'future gazing'. Second, it's the presence of training and the demonstration of professional development that's important at this stage rather than a particular provider or awarding body. The third point to make here is that reputable training providers and qualifications as they stand now are very likely to remain reputable after the SIA has put controls in place. A good qualification will always remain a good qualification.

This, of course, begs the question: what constitutes a good qualification? To answer that, security managers need to consider three things when choosing a training course. First, the nature of the course content and the quality of the instructor. Second, the reputation of the training company and, third, what organisations – if any – are underwriting, validating and/or endorsing the award or qualification that comes with the course.

While it's difficult to predict the future, when the SIA shapes to determine qualifications and standards for providers it will probably be asking very similar questions to the above. This will mean that, once again, backward compatibility – in this case the recognition of existent qualifications issued by quality providers – is a very real prospect.

Routes to professional development
With a move to formal training and qualifications desirable at this stage, and mandatory in the future, one might begin to wonder where this will leave the traditional services 'qualification'. Given the calibre of individual recruited through this route, it would be somewhat detrimental to the profession if there was a failure to continue with affording due recognition to the qualifications gained in the military or police services.

In the same way that existing management and security qualifications should achieve SIA recognition where they meet the determined standards, so should military and police qualifications. The onus here must rest with the military and police to look at the qualifications they offer their personnel and, where it's both possible and appropriate, link them in with the training objectives specified by the SIA.

In truth, this should be seen as a positive step in the career development of staff rather than a digression or distraction. The fact that so many military and police personnel seek a second career in security following a period of service indicates that this would be a sensible and valuable step to build-in to the resettlement process. Police and military personnel will need to acquire commercial management and security courses, but they'd be adding these to an existing portfolio rather than starting from scratch.

Such an approach wouldn't encourage personnel to leave the services – rather, it would equip them with the qualifications to pursue that second career when the time comes. In itself, such a provision might well prove an attractive recruitment incentive.

Diversity assumes prominence
The fact that security management is becoming an increasingly diverse job with specialist roles lends itself to a modular approach to training and qualification. There's room out there for a great many courses and providers, assuming that they meet a criteria determined, assessed and badged by the SIA as the private sector's regulatory body.

Different entry routes into the security profession would be maintained, but with the knowledge that training in core management skills has been obtained and that specialist training has (or can be) acquired as needed.

Whatever the eventual outcome, the need for management level security training has a new emphasis. While it has been largely overlooked in the past, this isn't an option for the future. Security management training must now come of age.