Security professional: do you "know thyself"?

ANCIENT GREEK MYthology contains the story of the Oracle of Delphi. The oracle was a woman who, as the legend goes, sat on an ornate pedestal dispensing advice to people from all walks of life, but mostly to those who could afford it. Carved into the shelf of the pedestal were the words "Know thyself." I suspect this was the only free advice the oracle gave, but sage advice it was nonetheless.

What does a story about an ancient Greek soothsayer have to do with you? The answer lies in the words "Know thyself." In the security field today, there seem to be many perceptions of exactly who and what we are and what exactly we do. Those perceptions are held not only by those at the top of the security pyramid but also by those who serve at the various levels below. The confusion is also shared by the people and companies we serve.

Although we are usually sure about what our goals and mission are, we are occasionally perplexed at how to carry them out. Often we hesitate to speak and act like security professionals because we fear our actions may be perceived as overreactive or police-like. The security officers who carry out the day-to-day functions of the security unit, including enforcement of corporate rules and policies, are sometimes confused as to what their mission is and to how to fulfill it.

Security operating procedures are sometimes so vague that they ring of a play it by ear" mentality. Hiring methods, including shabby or nonexistent interviews and background checks, result in personnel who represent your company in the field but don't know who they are or what they are doing. This lack of understanding usually results in incompetent performance, poor public relations, and lost accounts.

Training classes, both initial and recurring, are often perfunctory and provide little explanation as to what is expected of security officers when they are assigned to their new posts. Usually no real discussion is held to explain the company's policies and procedures or teach the new security officers exactly who they are and where they fit into the scheme of things.

Granted, substantial improvements have been made over the last several years to reduce those shortcomings. The result is that the image of the security officer as an integral part of business life has become more widespread.

Then why all the confusion? Maybe the focus should be on who we are not, rather than who we are. We are not the following:

* the FBI

* the CIA 

* state or local police or any other law enforcement agency 

* doctors

* lawyers

* sociologists

* day-care professionals

* Superman, Captain America, Rambo, or any other fictional character

Who then are we? We are men and women who have chosen a career that is based on one basic premise-service. As security professionals, we must ensure that the people we hire, train, and send out to the field understand this basic concept of our profession.

Former police officers often enter the security field. These men and women in most cases have spent years pursuing, arresting, and dealing with criminals at all levels of society. Early on, they are frustrated by the limitations placed on them in an in-house or contract security unit. Because of their inability to adapt to a new set of priorities, few such persons remain. With them goes a valuable resource that could have been saved by an in-house transitional program geared toward law enforcement personnel seeking a career change to security. Seeking out and enrolling high-potential police officers for membership in local ASIS chapters should be a priority and a good start.

Law enforcement officers from all levels bring valuable expertise. People from the military police, security, or intelligence bring with them a strong background in policy and procedure formulation that is invaluable in organizing and developing security programs.

A vast portion of security policy, training, and program development has come to us through the military over the last 20 years due to the nature of defense security requirements. In addition, most personnel involved in military security are required to be recertified annually in their positions because of constantly changing priorities. They are excellent candidates for membership.

While we must ensure that new security personnel are trained to understand their service and caretaker role, we must also be extremely cautious and weed out those who misunderstand the role of the security officer. I am referring to those who view the position or uniform of a security officer as a substitute for a police uniform or as a license to steal or abuse the trust placed in them.

Strict background checking, including preemployment drug screening, is a must. Inevitably the cost of the service has to be absorbed by someone. Would you rather pay now and be safe, or pay later as the result of litigation, which can also cost new business, your operating license, or your job?

We are in a position to recruit people today who are better educated, more sophisticated, and more adaptable to a variety of situations than ever before. They are more responsive to training and should be able to understand basic first aid and life-support techniques as well as interpersonal communication skills. In most facility emergencies, a security officer is the first responder to the scene. A working knowledge of firstresponder skills should be mandatory for all security officers and should be incorporated into training programs, whether private or at the college level.

The ability to communicate with people, especially those in distress, is another important facet of our job. The emphasis should not always be on restraint or arrest but on the resolution of problems through reasonable means.

As proprietary and contract security organizations take on a greater role in protecting people and assets, we must review how we manage our businesses and our resources. Serious thought should be given to setting basic guidelines for the selection, hiring, and training of new security officers. If those guidelines have to be accomplished through legislation, so be it. But wouldn't it be easier to do it ourselves?

Security agencies, both public and private, could support local colleges and private training schools through ASIS or some other way to encourage security officers to seek training at the introductory and advanced levels. Compensating security officers for books or a percentage of course fees would be an important step in improving officer education levels.

Of course, in the contract sector, competition based on price is an important factor, but if in a given local area or state companies could agree on minimum standards, competition could continue and the product would improve without outside interference. I would like to see ASIS become more involved in the development of entrylevel programs to encourage such standardization.

As security professionals, we need not be concerned about suffering an identity crisis when we ponder who we are and what we do. However, we must be absolutely sure that the people we select, train, and send out to their tasks know who they are and what is expected of them.

Although we are not law enforcement officials or military security specialists, we share many of their concerns and require the same level of professionalism. It is not unreasonable for our employers to expect the same high degree of performance. However, it is up to us to adjust and temper that performance to our particular circumstances. By adapting police and military techniques and procedures to our particular needs, we can react properly, provide the service required, and demonstrate our own unique identity.