Tweet
One of the problems we have in our industry is that clients do not differentiate (or have a hard time differentiating) the different types of security positions and skill levels required to fill those positions. And, it seems, few if any security companies are educating their clients on the differences, either.
Basically, many clients have a tendency to see all security officers as doormen, "greeters", valets and low-skill people who stand or sit around on their duffs doing little or nothing even to justify paying them minimum wage.
...and, to be fair, there are just such positions and just such people in our industry, so the image is not completely fictional. We've had folks on this very forum who have honestly admitted that they love their jobs precisely because they have very little to do and get paid for watching TV (and I don't mean CCTV). Without commenting on whether such positions might not in some cases be perfectly legitimate, the point I'm making is that there are many other positions that require a very high level of skill and training, but clients and the public typically make no such distinction.
We see what happens in critical infrastructure industries where the recruitment and training standards for security are high, either because of government mandates - such as nuclear power plants, or because of well-known high levels of risk that organizations simply cannot ignore - such as inner city medical centers.
In such cases:
1. Security programs tend to be better-developed.
2. Security chiefs tend to be better-qualified.
3. Executive management is more supportive, even if grudgingly so.
4. The security budget is, percentage-wise, higher.
5. Officer standards and training requirements are higher.
6. Positions requiring "higher" qualifications are clearly distinguished from those that do not.
6. Wages and benefits for officers in those "higher" positions are better.
In other words, these industries prove to us that higher standards DO usually result in higher wages for officers, and better security programs. And, in such industries, there is usually a much clearer idea of differing levels of security personnel, and matching different positions to those different levels.
You might see, in such industries:
Security Officer - Basic
Security Officer - Advanced
...or
Security Officer I
Security Officer II
Security Officer III
rather than just "security guard". Such differentiation usually means:
a. Standards for each level, and...
b. Pathways for upward mobility, which are...
c. Reflected in both increasing levels of responsibility and compensation.
Unfortunately, there are many clients whose risk profile is such that high security standards are just as appropriate for them as for those mentioned above. Yet, because their industries and their security programs are unregulated, and because executives are ignorant of the value of proper security programs to their businesses, they get away with hiring low-level personnel (who often themselves become victims of perfectly foreseeable crimes).
One of our problems, believe it or not, is in the words we ourselves use to describe security personnel. We have no standard terms or definitions to refer to a doorman or a "greeter" versus a high-level, armed antiterror interventionist. We ourselves will call them both "security officers" or "guards", or what-have-you.
The question is: How can WE standardize the terms by which we clearly mean different levels of officer skill and training so that clients (and security contracts) are, in turn, forced to evaluate and specify security positions in terms of matching a particular level of skill required for that position in terms of security staff?
Words mean something, but only if someone gives the words meaning. And, words are very powerful things. Titles - when everyone knows what they mean - are very powerful things. Words and titles have both real definitions, and implied definitions. If you doubt the power of terminology, consider these terms, all of which refer to attorneys:
1. Corporate counsel.
2. Ambulance-chaser.
3. Prosecutor.
4. Mouthpiece.
5. Defense counsel.
6. Shark.
I could do exactly the same thing with doctors, detectives or accountants.
WE NEED STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS FOR DIFFERING LEVELS OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, and we need to propagate those definitions throughout the world of security - both among security clients and security vendors.
Basically, many clients have a tendency to see all security officers as doormen, "greeters", valets and low-skill people who stand or sit around on their duffs doing little or nothing even to justify paying them minimum wage.
...and, to be fair, there are just such positions and just such people in our industry, so the image is not completely fictional. We've had folks on this very forum who have honestly admitted that they love their jobs precisely because they have very little to do and get paid for watching TV (and I don't mean CCTV). Without commenting on whether such positions might not in some cases be perfectly legitimate, the point I'm making is that there are many other positions that require a very high level of skill and training, but clients and the public typically make no such distinction.
We see what happens in critical infrastructure industries where the recruitment and training standards for security are high, either because of government mandates - such as nuclear power plants, or because of well-known high levels of risk that organizations simply cannot ignore - such as inner city medical centers.
In such cases:
1. Security programs tend to be better-developed.
2. Security chiefs tend to be better-qualified.
3. Executive management is more supportive, even if grudgingly so.
4. The security budget is, percentage-wise, higher.
5. Officer standards and training requirements are higher.
6. Positions requiring "higher" qualifications are clearly distinguished from those that do not.
6. Wages and benefits for officers in those "higher" positions are better.
In other words, these industries prove to us that higher standards DO usually result in higher wages for officers, and better security programs. And, in such industries, there is usually a much clearer idea of differing levels of security personnel, and matching different positions to those different levels.
You might see, in such industries:
Security Officer - Basic
Security Officer - Advanced
...or
Security Officer I
Security Officer II
Security Officer III
rather than just "security guard". Such differentiation usually means:
a. Standards for each level, and...
b. Pathways for upward mobility, which are...
c. Reflected in both increasing levels of responsibility and compensation.
Unfortunately, there are many clients whose risk profile is such that high security standards are just as appropriate for them as for those mentioned above. Yet, because their industries and their security programs are unregulated, and because executives are ignorant of the value of proper security programs to their businesses, they get away with hiring low-level personnel (who often themselves become victims of perfectly foreseeable crimes).
One of our problems, believe it or not, is in the words we ourselves use to describe security personnel. We have no standard terms or definitions to refer to a doorman or a "greeter" versus a high-level, armed antiterror interventionist. We ourselves will call them both "security officers" or "guards", or what-have-you.
The question is: How can WE standardize the terms by which we clearly mean different levels of officer skill and training so that clients (and security contracts) are, in turn, forced to evaluate and specify security positions in terms of matching a particular level of skill required for that position in terms of security staff?
Words mean something, but only if someone gives the words meaning. And, words are very powerful things. Titles - when everyone knows what they mean - are very powerful things. Words and titles have both real definitions, and implied definitions. If you doubt the power of terminology, consider these terms, all of which refer to attorneys:
1. Corporate counsel.
2. Ambulance-chaser.
3. Prosecutor.
4. Mouthpiece.
5. Defense counsel.
6. Shark.
I could do exactly the same thing with doctors, detectives or accountants.
WE NEED STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS FOR DIFFERING LEVELS OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, and we need to propagate those definitions throughout the world of security - both among security clients and security vendors.
Comment