Better job, PI or Security?

[junkyarddog]

To be very clear, I will not be a PI, I will be working for one. Probably doing allot of what I am doing now, but dealing with more internal issues as well.

To be even more clear- it seems larger companies have some personnel that deal mainly with physical security and external issues. And other personnel that deal mainly with internal issues concerning the employees themselves. These two fall within the same department- corporate security. Maybe it is not the same everywhere, but that is how it is done here.

I am starting to see that security/private investigations (in general) seems to pay more than many other fields with equivalent education and experience.

Thanks for all of advice and info.

[junkyarddog]

I'm curious about this thing working for the PI/Directors other accounts? Is it all on the up & up.

Yes. The director of corporate security of the company, owns a PI firm and the operations of both corporate security and this firm are - as far as I know- integral. In other words, he has one huge customer and some smaller customers. In some places he is listed as Director of Corporate Security, in other places as Consultant and in even others as both. This company is big on using "consultants" to manage operations.

Aside from that, I'm guessing that the "opportunity" to make the higher salary as a PI/exec prot. is greater than as a security manager or director. By that I mean, once you're a skilled licensed PI, there are more opportunities to command that salary. There's only so many managers at the level gcmc referred to, in any given company or area. And reaching is 1/3 politics, 1/3 luck, and 1/3 skill and ability. What I mean is that probably 1 in 3 managers that work their way up in any field, get there strictly cause they deserved over others every step of the way.

So if it were me, I'd do the PI thing.

Man thats great insight for my situation. The bit about 1/3 politics etc. Pretty much cements my decision, which is what I was looking for.

In terms of resume, I'll have a little over a year in almost pure physical security, most aspects: working alarm response, working mobile patrol, working post duty(access control etc), working alarm dispatch, supervising, and training others in all of the above including other supervisors. Also in many different types of fencing, gates, camera systems, alarm systems etc etc. The next logical step is PI/exec protection. I do lack crowd control experience though and don't see doing any strike work in the near future so that will probably be a weak spot.

Ya, this is the way to go. Thanks.

[SecTrainer]

To be very clear, I will not be a PI, I will be working for one. Probably doing allot of what I am doing now, but dealing with more internal issues as well.

To be even more clear- it seems larger companies have some personnel that deal mainly with physical security and external issues. And other personnel that deal mainly with internal issues concerning the employees themselves. These two fall within the same department- corporate security. Maybe it is not the same everywhere, but that is how it is done here.

I am starting to see that security/private investigations (in general) seems to pay more than many other fields with equivalent education and experience.

Thanks for all of advice and info.

If you're saying that corporate security tends to pay better than contract, you're right. However, the "PI as security manager" is completely irrelevant to the question. You're just looking at a corporate security department that happens to have a PI as the manager (and you won't find many, if any, others).

We would hope he also has security qualifications, because the domains are really quite different, with perhaps some slight overlap in narrow areas such as EP. If he does not have such qualifications, it is quite certain that this is a very goofy company that doesn't know what it's doing with respect to security and my Nikes would be burning rubber getting away from them.

A typical PI is not even qualified to conduct internal corporate investigations properly (internal investigations are unique, specialized and very different from most PI investigations)...much less qualified to oversee a corporate security operation. The legal, financial and business issues involved in internal investigations can be very complex and the "sneaking around and gathering evidence" skills that a PI would bring to the table are easily learned (or contracted for) by any security manager or even an HR director - which is why these are the folks who usually direct internal investigations. If a particular internal investigation needs certain specialized PI skills, these are usually contracted for on a case-by-case basis. In fact, an on-staff PI would not be able to do undercover investigations anyway, and would require outside contract PIs just like a corporate security manager who was not a PI would require.

In short, a PI, as such, brings little or nothing to the corporate security table and most companies would never consider that experience as a PI was sufficient (or even relevant) qualification for being a security director.

Incidentally, someone commented about an IT security director being placed in charge of all security operations. This is actually done quite commonly now for many reasons, not the least of which is the increasing integration of physical security systems with IT systems. Another significant reason for this is that for many - perhaps most - companies the protection of information assets and intellectual property is the largest and most significant security responsibility anyway. Information assets can very easily outstrip physical assets in value by a very large magnitude, and are under increasing attack with every passing day.

And, there's no reason that an IT security director can't have someone reporting to him who is expert in the physical systems, guards, etc that we think of as "security". He doesn't need to have such expertise himself. A broad working knowledge will suffice, and this can be acquired. Often, in large companies, the IT security director (upper management) will report to the CIO (executive level), and then a security operations manager (middle management) reports to the IT security director.

CIO at executive level
--IT Security Director at upper management level
--------Security Operations Manager at middle management level

...or something like that, anyway.

[Eric]

Take the new offer & stay part time with your current employer. You can work part time with them I would imagine for extra cash until you see how it all pans out.

Think of your needs and wants towards the future.

[Eric]

Incidentally, someone commented about an IT security director being placed in charge of all security operations. This is actually done quite commonly now for many reasons, not the least of which is the increasing integration of physical security systems with IT systems, but also because there's no reason such an individual can't have someone reporting to him who is expert in the physical systems. He doesn't need to have such expertise himself. A broad working knowledge will suffice and is not difficult to acquire.

Right you are, convergence is happening. In the CISSP certification testing for ex., one of the 10 areas of knowledge covers layered physical defense & site location principals, providing some basics.

[junkyarddog]

If you're saying that corporate security tends to pay better than contract, you're right. However, the "PI as security manager" is completely irrelevant to the question. You're just looking at a corporate security department that happens to have a PI as the manager (and you won't find many, if any, others).

PI as manager is incidental.

We would hope he also has security qualifications, because the domains are really quite different, with perhaps some slight overlap in narrow areas such as EP. If he does not have such qualifications, it is quite certain that this is a very goofy company that doesn't know what it's doing with respect to security and my Nikes would be burning rubber getting away from them.

He has physical security qualifications- years of military combat experience, and years as a chief of police.

A typical PI is not even qualified to conduct internal corporate investigations properly (internal investigations are unique, specialized and very different from most PI investigations)...much less qualified to oversee a corporate security operation. The legal, financial and business issues involved in internal investigations can be very complex and the "sneaking around and gathering evidence" skills that a PI would bring to the table are easily learned (or contracted for) by any security manager or even an HR director - which is why these are the folks who usually direct internal investigations. If a particular internal investigation needs certain specialized PI skills, these are usually contracted for on a case-by-case basis. In fact, an on-staff PI would not be able to do undercover investigations anyway, and would require outside contract PIs just like a corporate security manager who was not a PI would require.

Interesting.

In short, a PI, as such, brings little or nothing to the corporate security table and most companies would never consider that experience as a PI was sufficient (or even relevant) qualification for being a security director.

I guess it helps though if your already well qualified corporate security director also happens to run a PI firm.

Incidentally, someone commented about an IT security director being placed in charge of all security operations. This is actually done quite commonly now for many reasons, not the least of which is the increasing integration of physical security systems with IT systems. Another significant reason for this is that for many - perhaps most - companies the protection of information assets and intellectual property is the largest and most significant security responsibility anyway. Information assets can very easily outstrip physical assets in value by a very large magnitude, and are under increasing attack with every passing day.

And, there's no reason that an IT security director can't have someone reporting to him who is expert in the physical systems, guards, etc that we think of as "security". He doesn't need to have such expertise himself. A broad working knowledge will suffice, and this can be acquired. Often, in large companies, the IT security director (upper management) will report to the CIO (executive level), and then a security operations manager (middle management) reports to the IT security director.

CIO at executive level
--IT Security Director at upper management level
--------Security Operations Manager at middle management level

...or something like that, anyway.

Makes sense.

[junkyarddog]

Right you are, convergence is happening. In the CISSP certification testing for ex., one of the 10 areas of knowledge covers layered physical defense & site location principals, providing some basics.

The part you quoted + response is interesting and I can't honestly say I know how it works exactly in the company I am talking about. The company is a major utility. The heaviest physical security is around the control and operations building of this utility.

But it is a computerized control center. All of the substation control computers (major transmission stations and distribution centers) all have IP addresses. Substation equipment (transformers, breakers, switches etc) can all be accessed from this control center via the computers in the substations. The building is pretty much a maze of narrow concentric concrete hallways, steel doors leading to each next ring (each requiring a different key-card for access) and in the center a downstairs packed with walls of servers and an upstairs that is the actual control room. Was the closest real thing I'd ever seen to the beginning of the old Get Smart tv show. This is where I start to get nervous talking about work, not knowing who is reading etc. Monitoring cleaning people here is a royal pain because not a single one of them can ever be out of line of site, and the key-cards to the central area have to be signed out and back in on an hourly basis. Lots of fun when employees prop doors open with stuff and alarms go off as a result. Rush to the scene and there is some yuppy IT guy in the break room, "Oh, I just was getting coffee, no big deal!".

If they have this much physical security around the computer center, they must have as much if not more virtual security around the actual IT system.

[SecTrainer]

He has physical security qualifications- years of military combat experience, and years as a chief of police.

With respect, although we commonly hire people from LE and the military in our industry, we often overestimate the value of this experience. The fact is, you can have years of experience in either or both of these areas without knowing a blessed thing about managing a security operation, which is a different animal.

[Jedi]

With respect, although we commonly hire people from LE and the military in our industry, we often overestimate the value of this experience. The fact is, you can have years of experience in either or both of these areas without knowing a blessed thing about managing a security operation, which is a different animal.

Hear, Hear!

SecTrainer is, as usual, dead on right about this. Security, while sharing some common goals with Law Enforcement, is a truly different beast. One of the greatest problems I have seen in the security field is that, all too often, experience in a law enforcement or military capacity is some how equal to or even greater than experience in the security world.

[NRM_Oz]

Sec and Jedi - agree with you both whole heartedly and I mean no respect to anyone, as this should be on a per person basis not a general consensus. The experience has to fit the role as someone with MP or SP experience is going to be of more benefit than someone who drove a general around for 10 years.

In my team, I have 2 x PI's who are brilliant as their team mates pass on their LP skills and they in return help with evidence preparation and examination, etc. But the 2 are chalk and cheese and whilst they MAY share some similar aspects are extremely different.

[junkyarddog]

With respect, although we commonly hire people from LE and the military in our industry, we often overestimate the value of this experience. The fact is, you can have years of experience in either or both of these areas without knowing a blessed thing about managing a security operation, which is a different animal.

Likewise with respect, not much thought put into the above statement. The General Schedule defines levels of management experience and ANYONE with a GS 16-18 is more than qualified to manage a security operation, and those with GS 13-15 are at least adequate to the job if not excellent at it.

Here is an idea of what I am talking about:
job-specific GS

An experienced police chief would qualify at GS 9-15.

Of course, if you are a buck private your whole career in the military and then barely make it through the academy to achieve a permanent $9.00/hour part time position in a poorly run police department, you very likely will not be able to run a security operation.

But it is unreasonable to assume that is the kind of person I am talking about.
The assumption being unreasonable, I must then assume that your comments were poorly considered.

[junkyarddog]

Hear, Hear!

SecTrainer is, as usual, dead on right about this. Security, while sharing some common goals with Law Enforcement, is a truly different beast. One of the greatest problems I have seen in the security field is that, all too often, experience in a law enforcement or military capacity is some how equal to or even greater than experience in the security world.

Basic and/or AIT provides an individual with physical security related experience that is equivalent to many years of being a standard observe and report guard. Almost any police academy will likewise give an individual the equivalent of years of experience on the observe and report end of things.

Aside from this fundamental reality of military (physical security) and police (observe, report, investigate) training and experience, my own experience is that people with military and/or police experience make superior security officers. The fresher they are out of either type of training/experience, the better. The best are Military Police.

I could rattle off multiple skill-sets that are crucial to security work which are only trained and experienced to the highest intensity and levels in military and police work. These skill sets are easily adapted to civilian security.

Doesn't mean a military or police person automatically makes an awesome security officer, only means that someone who was good at their former military or police jobs will almost always also make superior security officers.

[Jedi]

The problem is that you are confusing security patrol with security management. I specifically look for people with .mil or LE experience to fill officer positions. They tend to be more detail oriented and dedicated. But, they do not understand developing a security culture, writing policies and procedures to reduce the likelihood of shrinkage, or evaluating financial risks.

There is a great deal more to security management than observe and report.

[junkyarddog]

The problem is that you are confusing security patrol with security management. I specifically look for people with .mil or LE experience to fill officer positions. They tend to be more detail oriented and dedicated. But, they do not understand developing a security culture, writing policies and procedures to reduce the likelihood of shrinkage, or evaluating financial risks.

There is a great deal more to security management than observe and report.

I think where we may agree is that generalizations are not productive. Just because someone has *some military experience* does not make him a bad security manager, and just because someone has *some military experience* does not make him a good security manager.

My experience of security management with contract security is that you have a lower spectrum corporate guy with a business associates degree who thinks filling shifts with anything that vaguely resembles a functional human wearing a uniform, is the beginning and ending of a security operation. He is the account manager. He is a yes man in a suit that is good at making the customer and his own branch manager feel smart and important. He plays a good game of golf and is always handy with tickets to the customers favorite sports team. He is a joke.

This seems to be the definition of security management in the United States. Most account managers seem to fit this profile.

Yes there is more to security management than observe and report. It is something that any police chief or any person responsible for running base security can handle at least as well as the "account manager" type I described above.

[NRM_Oz]

CNA - I think those A/C Mgrs have Aussie cousins here. 1 Xmas Sale I was served the bottom of the barrel with the AM rumoured to have been kidnapped by aliens. We asked for 40 bodies and got 25 and of that only 5 were experienced in LP, spoke English and were in full uniform. 6 had no uniforms and a dozen were brand new to the industry.

We had staff being pinched from my pool to go to another store to balance out staffing issues and those premium bodies were only there for a day as they had been reallocated to another account (I think to make them happy after the scum we were sent). I am all for giving people a go being new to the industry (we all started somewhere) but when you cannot get in contact with the AM for 2 weeks after the event, something is not right.