Train to Excel

That’s because we are all very eager to excel” — These are the last two lines of a poem by a Reliance Security security officer on how he sees his job. With this attitude, why is it that security officers in Great Britain are held with lower esteem compared than in Europe? Why is it they are expected to risk their lives and health for paltry pay?

Over the past two years, more money was spent by commercial organisations on a spurious bug than on security officers defending those organisations against the ills of society. What can be done about it?.

During the last ten years as a corporate security manager, I have been closely involved with two in-house security teams, one of them contracted and one employed in-house, as well as for a short time in business development with a small security company.

The three teams were successful. So far as the security officers themselves are concerned, I found little difference between the quality of the individuals - hard working, conscientious, loyal. Interestingly, only in the contracted security were they frustrated by their management’s performance. But maybe I have been lucky.

What is the operational aim of manned guarding? A definition might be to protect people, information, equipment, facilities and activities against avoidable death, injury, loss unauthorised disclosure, damage to reputation, and loss. This does not apply to all officers and depends where they are employed.

Visible Defence

How is this done? By protecting people, equipment and buildings with mobile and foot patrols, incident analysis, support to staff and emergency response to events such as robbery, fire, bombs and pressure group activities. Security officers very rarely operate in isolation but are a feature of a series of defensive mechanisms, arranged in depth, to defend the organisation. They are the visible defence, exposed to verbal and physical assault and frequently vulnerable to criticisms. Security officers are also representatives of their parent organisation.

The role of security officers is far more varied than most police officers but with the same social responsibilities as the citizen largely because Government have stated that commercial organisations must look after themselves within the law of the land. Regulation about the role of security officer is endlessly debated without resolution.

So how can we help these loyal, hardworking, conscientious and loyal men and women who risk their lives and limbs for usually pitifully low wages and wavering support.

Terminology

Get rid of the term ‘manned guarding’. It is an awful phrase and should be replaced with something more symptomatic with their role -‘security company’ and ‘security officers’ is a suggestion. Guarding implies being static. There are now many security officers who are mobile by vehicle or on foot. It will also give them the respect many of them deserve.

With the disappearance of heavy engineering, agriculture, construction, the Merchant Navy and the Armed Forces, security is a sector which attracts enthusiastic and fit young men and women. Most can expect to be vetted.

The vexed question of employing individuals with criminal records always raises hackles. I suspect the disinclination to do so is associated more with the well known police view ‘Once a criminal, always a criminal’.

The trouble is that many who pass through the judicial system learn from the experience and never return. Two principles of our system is, technically, the completion of a sentence allows a new start and rehabilitation. And yet, because of a misdemeanor, many could be vetted out of employment in security. If we accept risks are worth taking, we should then be sympathetic to those who have learnt from the judicial experience but selectively. A persistent thief is not worth the risk - the temptation is too great - but there are others who are probably worth examining. Rejecting those with criminal records should be re-examined.

Security officers are a feature of everyday life and they look after vast areas and responsibilities of this country. They deserve respect for the job that they do and support to develop. Without them, security companies are tootless tigers.

Convincing the client is a factor but, as someone closely involved with the judicial system I have been pleasantly surprised at the number of employees prepared to take convicted criminals on to their books and have been enthusiastic about their commitment and loyalty.

Retention

The key to retaining security officers is the quality of management. Once a security company has won a contract, the role of its management in supporting their contract is critical. Most fail. It is a fact of life that if one is detached from the parent organisation to a client, loyalty will veer toward the client, who expects a professional service but I regularly hear ‘The security officers are fine. It’s their management that is the problem 0 failure to get the pay right, I never see them, they expect me to train their people and are full of excuses’. Sadly, I cannot disagree.

Half the problem is the security associations, such as the BSIA and IPSA, are failing to follow up issuing accreditation with quality controls. The Security Watchdog fills the gap and particularly discussing contracts with clients, and it is no wonder that some security companies are now shaking in their boots.

Too often corporate security manager, such as myself, have to deal with security company managers clueless about the management of organisational security and therefore unable to contribute to the development of their security officers, except to transfer that responsibility of the client. Management must realise it is they who ultimately make or break contracts and expose their employees to unemployment. Whether we like it or not, security officers are a uniformed organisation and therefore ought to run as such with a formal structure and discipline. Those that cannot take instructions are no good in security.

The selection of the site manager is also crucial. The qualities o leadership, motivation, life’s experience and business acumen are essential.

I have been lucky. Twice I recruited mature and high quality Armed Forces warrant officers, both leaders and I felt sufficiently confident to transfer the responsibility of running the Security Team to them. Both introduced the attributes of the Armed Forces - timekeeping , pride in appearance, the ‘regimental spirit’ and support, and soon the Security Teams became a respected component of the corporate organisation. Their ‘can and will do’ approach filtered into the organisations and security awareness was enhanced as staff felt confident communicating with the Team.

Development

A key issue to retaining security officers is their development. Security officers are frequently committed to contracts with a basic two day general course but no specialist training for that particular contract. The inference must be that management is more concerned about winning the business that ensuring that the risk to the lives and health of their employees is as low as possible. This is inexcusable. Security officers should know the risks they face before they are committed. In healthcare, not one security company offers specialist training in a sector most definitely not immune from the ills of society.

The content of most induction courses need to include explaining what protective security entails and how it is applied. If we want professional security officer, then security companies need to employ security professionals with a thorough knowledge of the principles of security and its application.

So far as career progression is concerned, some security officers of today, given the opportunity, are the security managers of tomorrow. If we want a respected security culture in Great Britain, we need to reject the idea that only formed police and Armed Forces who can provide that expertise. In fact, few have the expertise. There is some anecdotal evidence, albeit not scientifically examined, that the business environment is now expecting more than just crime prevention from its security management. Those who have climbed the ladder are now well placed. But how many security organisations offer their employees progressive security courses to management level?

In conversation with the managing director of a well-known security company, I mentioned that some of his security officers wanted to complete a correspondence course in security management but could not afford to do so. Although not really my business, because they were his employees, would he consider sponsorship? The college offered a decent course although, to be honest, it is too crime orientated. I was somewhat taken aback when my host said that, as a member of a security association in disagreement with the college, he could not support the individual. Interestingly, my host was relatively new to security, which speaks volumes on the quality of some security executives. He was unable to offer an alternative and his company could not offer an alternative course. Career development of his employees was clearly less important than scoring points in pointless, political disagreements.

If the ridiculous disagreements between the various security associations are going to impact on the careers of young people keen to develop themselves, what chance does the security sector stand to be recognised as a professional? Unless, of course, there is a ‘hidden strategy’ to keep it open to second careerers from the Armed Forces of the police and a barrier to those who have a sound practical knowledge of security - the security officer.

Security officers are a feature of everyday life and they look after vast areas and responsibilities of this country. They deserve respect for the job that they do and support to develop. Without them, security companies are toothless tigers.