In last December’s SMT, Group 4 Total Security’s training manager Amanda Moore argued that security companies should pay far more than lip service to employee training. Of course, she’s absolutely right. Better-trained security officers will undoubtedly deliver a much-improved service to the end user.
That said, if the industry is really going to shake off its unflattering image and be viewed as a profession that high calibre new recruits actually want to join, training is just one of many areas that need to be improved upon by the UK’s contract security concerns.
For many years, Empire Security officers have been trained to standards far exceeding the minimum requirements laid down by the industry’s ‘governing bodies’. More recently, we’ve implemented a series of initiatives that we feel could enable us – and, every bit as important, the rest of the industry – to attract larger numbers of higher echelon recruits. Officers that we’re going to need when the 48-hour working week is introduced, and to deliver an improved service to clients.
For too long now this industry has recruited poorly-qualified, poorly-paid people that all-too-often view their security job as a ‘stop gap’. Yet our customers are crying out for tailored contracts manned by highly-trained individuals who are genuinely interested in a career within the security sector.
There is also a tendency to forget about any defined professional development programme. Many security officers don’t even have the ‘luxury’ of a proper job description.
All things considered, then, it’s perhaps not surprising that the very people we want to keep don’t hang around for too long.
Performance reviews in focus
Each employee must be provided with a job description applicable to their contract, in tandem with ongoing performance reviews.
As highlighted in Andrea Kirkby’s article (‘Performance art’, SMT, March 2001, pp40-41), performance reviews and full appraisals are often an overlooked part of the training and development process. That’s not on. Employees need to work to core competencies that can be used to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, and form the basis for future training needs. This is the only way in which individual plans for professional development can be drafted by the management team.
While some security companies fail to conduct any type of review, others will – at best – complete the task on an infrequent and unstructured basis. This needs rectifying. It’s also important that reviews are overseen
at director level. If they’re not, the Board is denied feedback regarding the quality of its staff, the service they provide and knowledge of any practical suggestions as to how the guarding service might be improved.
At Empire, we have implemented several suggestions given to us by our security officers during their reviews. This has enabled us to improve the service we provide, at the same time identifying ways in which we can add value to existing manned guarding contracts. Such feedback from the ‘shop floor’ is invaluable, and we want to make sure that it continues.
Initiative and good performance will need to be rewarded with more than just a pat on the back. All contract security firms should introduce a performance-related pay scheme aimed at rewarding, motivating and retaining their very best staff.
It might sound fanciful to many SMT readers, but we’ve already introduced performance-related pay across a range of contracts and the results have been clear – reductions in staff turnover (isn’t that what we all want?), measurable improvements in officer performance across the board and, importantly, happier clients.
Introducing salaried officers
Issues surrounding pay – traditionally low throughout the contract security industry – also need to be addressed. Hourly rates for officers must be increased so that we can compete effectively with other professions for new recruits. Ideally, salaries ought to be introduced and become the norm throughout the sector.
The introduction of salaries is perhaps the most awkward issue facing manned guarding companies, with many clients reluctant to pay
a higher price for their security officers. In our experience, those end users who do opt to pay that bit more for their contract security team are rarely disappointed with the outcome.
If, as an industry, we can improve training, devise and implement performance appraisal and development programmes, reward and appraise our staff for the input they make to the business with performance review procedures and introduce annual salaries for security officers, there could be real progress made in terms of positioning security as a bona fide profession. If we don’t have the courage to take these steps, the future is far from bright.
