Sold on guarding?

In reality there is very little robust research available on what factors render security officers effective in the workplace. What clients really need to know is not just whether or not their current security service is ‘cutting the mustard’, but rather why it is (or isn’t, as the case may be).

It was against this very backdrop that a study of the subject was recently conducted by Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International (PRCI). Initiated by the British Retail Consortium and sponsored by both major retailers and security companies*, the study – entitled ‘Uniformed Retail Security Officers: What Makes Them Effective’ – focuses solely on the retail sector.

In all, 368 self-completed questionnaires were returned by security officers and 280 received from store managers. In addition, a range of other experts and managers were questioned, with group discussions generating further essential feedback.

The study’s key findings

In general, retail managers were well disposed towards the officers they dealt with. Around two-thirds of store managers rate uniformed security officers’ performance at delivering the two most important objectives – deterrence of customer theft and of violence and intimidation – as ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’.

Those managers questioned also valued the contribution officers made in other ways. In providing a visible presence they both act as a deterrent and help to reassure staff. Officers are also there, of course, to assist those in trouble. Interestingly, nine in every ten officers questioned believed they were meeting the expectations placed upon them.

However, store managers also expressed reservations about the work of officers, lamenting the poor standards set by some and their unreliability (in fact, certain store managers sought to limit officers’ involvement in store because of this). Store managers wanted to see better ways of assessing officers’ performance and a greater consistency of service. In direct contrast, several officers were critical of store managers, citing a lack of support from the management team. It is perhaps telling that the most frequently mentioned improvement security officers would make to their role is to help create a situation where their work is better supported by management.

It’s clear, then, that the survey highlighted both positive and negative findings (see panel ‘Security in the retail arena: are officers making the grade?’).

At a strategic level, retailers and security officers often had a jaundiced view of each other. On an extreme level, some retailers criticised their contractor(s) for shoddy work, providing poor quality staff (whose lack of command of the English language was cited in evidence) and for failing to deliver on promises made at the tendering stage.

Conversely, several contractors complained that retailers attached a low priority to the security function and never properly understood it (evidenced by the fact that too many buyers are driven by price, not quality).

In addition, several store managers were not adequately prepared to use officers effectively. Consequently, officers are often not judged fairly.

Continuing that thread, what became clear to us from this research was that both suppliers and their clients felt that improvements were possible. There were very few who felt that everything was 100% right.

That being the case, we need to identify the issues that are crucial to the effective deployment of officers and highlight them… Or, just as importantly, pinpoint those issues that stand in the way of effective deployment and respond to them accordingly.

An underlying strategy

The findings derived from the study suggest that any strategy would be most effectively grounded in the answers to nine specific questions, each of which are discussed in turn in the following section.

(1) What is the problem faced in store, and what is the rationale for believing security officers offer the best solution?

More often than not, a thorough risk assessment – which is vital – had not been carried out to determine why security officers were perceived to be the right solution for a given site, and little or no assessment made of the problems they would be dealing with.

This is a weak basis for deploying any security measure, and complicates later judgements concerning effectiveness. In truth, officers must ALWAYS be set clear objectives.

(2) In what ways will uniformed security officers help or hinder the effectiveness of other security measures?

Inadequate thought is given as to how various security measures may work together to maximise the impact of security in-store. While it has long been recognised that a package of measures works better than individual initiatives, combining them needs much thought (often not a priority for the respondents of this survey).

Specify how security officers will work alongside other security measures, and to what precise end. Officers are sometimes expected to work with CCTV and radio link schemes, as well as respond to alarms, so careful planning is needed.

(3) Does the guarding contract reflect the rationale for deploying uniformed security officers?

A common lament was that security contracts did not reflect reality. Sometimes, the process of agreeing the contract becomes detached from shop floor realities.

According to some officers we questioned, the pressure from store managers to help out with non-security tasks was considerable. “The store manager can literally make your life Hell if you don’t do as asked. They can have you standing still by the front door all day long, and kick up a real fuss if you budge an inch. then when shop theft increases it’s us that takes the blame” (a comment from a uniformed officer attending one of our discussion groups).

The danger is that this leads to inconsistent service. Some companies lamented that their officers were being asked to carry out tasks that positively undermine the security function. It’s therefore hugely important to ensure that the agreed security role is clearly communicated to all parties. It is essential that there is an overall ‘owner’ of the communication process, and that complementary messages are sent (where appropriate) and circulated among suppliers and retailers alike.

(4) What is the Return on Investment from deploying security officers?

Never an easy question to answer since attributing any direct success to security officers is clouded by the existence of ‘confounding factors’ (that is, other factors that can explain positive results such as changes in product protection or reduced display quantities).

Moreover, there are no easy ways of measuring ‘reassurance’, although it has been suggested that – for example – turnover rates of frontline staff may be a possibility.

PRCI is working on a methodology for this. It is important for any company to consider what it receives in return for any investment it makes. Always more difficult in service sectors, but some measures are possible.

(5) Are security officers and store managers adequately prepared to fulfil their security responsibilities?

While the SIA will set minimum standards of competency, extra training will be added to prepare officers for life in the retail sector.

For their part, store managers need help with making the most of security officers. This should be emphasised in management training programmes. The role of security officers can require a wide range of competencies, including ‘people' skills, practical and legal acumen (ie knowing when it is appropriate to make an arrest). It’s also essential that they learn site-specific skills as each retail setting can vary.

(6) Do KPIs exist for security officers and contractors, and are they consistent with the reasons why you require them?

In practice, many performance indicators related to ‘administrative’ rather than operational issues: hours worked, absences, the number of door checks made, etc. While these are necessary, linking performance measurement to the original reasons for deploying security officers was not always evident in this study.

Transparent performance measures can help ensure a level playing field during the tendering and specification phase. Retailers can better assess cost-effectiveness, and provide objective feedback to officers about their performance.

What’s required are some effective schemes for judging the work of officers. The method(s) chosen must be fair, and enjoy the appropriate levels of buy-in from all parties involved.

(7) Is the supervision and tasking of security officers consistent?

Store management is prone to change. Personality clashes and other factors can result in the inconsistent supervision of security officers. Sometimes, there is also a lack of clarity about who should task security officers, the duties they should undertake and how they should perform them.

The tasking of security officers needs to be managed at the store level, yet this must be within the parameters of a documented corporate policy framework. Sadly, there are sometimes no common standards respecting such key tasks as how to prevent violence towards shoppers and members of staff, or how to deter shop thieves.

(8) Are retail security officers integrated into retail teams, and is every effort being made to encourage their personal commitment?

The research suggests that security officers’ integration within – and overall commitment to – the retailer varies considerably. Some retailers reported that they had managed to increase levels of integration and commitment by ensuring that officers perceived themselves as part of a larger family.

(9) Are there procedures in place for learning from Best Practice?

Learning in an area where there is still much to be learned is crucial. This maxim is true both within organisations and right across the retail and security sectors.

Developing Best Practice is never easy. When it is done well it inevitably means challenging long-held assumptions about how things should be done, and being prepared to fully engage with new ideas.