Loss prevention skills required of security managers

¶ … Management Skills Required of a Security Manager

Loss Prevention Skills

Security managers' main responsibility is protecting corporate assets, including premises, finance, plant and personnel. Accidents are costly affairs -- damage occurs to property (premises and plant) as well as people (personnel). Further, the organization has to pay a worker who takes time off for recuperating from sickness or injury. Some injured employees might quit the job and their replacement requires funds as well (i.e., recruitment and training of new employees). Injuries bring negative publicity for the company, which also has to typically pay a large compensation for work-related injury. Another area of concern for security managers is loss of money or property to robbery or some other violent crime (Pepper 2006). Security managers also need to concern themselves with the impact violence has on the workforce. Violence at the workplace has positively attracted labor unions' attention in the hospitality and retail sectors. Employers have been warned that they would face prosecution if they fail to safeguard employees from witnessing and being subject to violence. Workplace violence only constitutes one element of safety and health legislation impacting security managers. With the legislation affecting a significant number of corporate activities today, companies might face serious consequences if they fail to comply with its obligations. Having a safe and secure workplace environment, in any case, represents a great management practice and makes economic sense. Security managers have to consider safety- and health-related matters, as well as risk of injury/harm to workers and possible terrorist or criminal action against the firm (Hughes, McLaughlin and Muncie 2002). Clearly, companies need to understand how much each asset is vulnerable. The belief that a threat existing is itself reason enough to take action, and security managers need not waste time over formal assessments, is a widespread misconception.

Importance

The key responsibility of security managers is preventing burglaries, letting security department personnel know of any suspicious activity occurring on premises, maintaining a safe and secure corporate environment, and offering sound customer service -- all of the above tasks aim chiefly at preventing property loss. Therefore, loss prevention ability is clearly the most vital skill for security managers (ASIS 2003; Hughes et al. 2002). The above management skill encompasses specialization in minimizing burglaries. Security managers are most commonly employed in stores, shopping malls, homes, and corporations for merchandise protection. Loss prevention by a security manager entails detaining any person caught trying to steal items or contact local law enforcement authorities in the event one witnesses such activity. Additionally, they need to keep an eye out for inappropriate or suspicious behavior, or theft, by workers.

A number of commentators contend that the task of providing security services has normally been considered the domain of retired armed forces members or police officers. The rationale behind this opinion is that these individuals are best equipped owing to their on-field 'experience', as against mere academic/theoretical knowledge on asset protection. The former's experience will likely be deemed as being relevant for the simple reason that they definitely and unavoidably possess security-related knowledge (Pepper 2006; Crawford 1998). Isn't this, after all, something the military and police forces handle on a daily basis? Moreover, concerned individuals would probably have held a certain rank previously, which helped them acquire 'leadership' or 'management' experience. The above views don't essentially mean that the security manager population has proven inefficient and not up to expectations. Rather, it might be an indication of the fact that companies have typically had poor expectations when it comes to their security manager's abilities (Broder 2006). Therefore, one must conclude that there has been quite a poor view of the security management profession in general, and this might be due to issues like knowledge and context.

Importance

Risk identification in as broad a context as possible is a trait that can be developed by professional experience. In a certain level of detail, it is covered with respect to many fairly specific areas of senior qualification processes. But the overall depth and breadth of subjects (generic or core) included in case of acquisition of recognized professional qualification are accessible by applying for and studying each assessment's/exam's syllabus, generally operative in module form. Relevant professional organizations' offices normally provide requisite details (Crawford 1998).

In the consideration of personnel for attending an external training function, instead of merely instructing specialists of given levels to be present, concerned authorities need to ensure the persons chosen for attendance are actually in a position to appreciate and understand the presentation's finer points and not be out of their depth in the program setting (Gill 1994). Carefully reviewing event program in addition to other indicators of targeted attendee appropriateness is important. The recognition of the business need for the security sector, together with demands by enterprises on individual security personnel, has been considered in legislation for controlling, regulating, and to a certain extent, training and professionalizing the security manager profession (Holmes, 2002).

iii. Leadership Skills

Generally, much of management function entails observing, sensing, and reading other people's behavior. A security manager, in a way, does what anybody would do in a social setting. However, their behavior is done with a fixed purpose and via complex networks of relationships amid highly varied role sets (for example, balancing the typically differing expectations of superiors, workforce, and customers). Using ideas of self and personal experiences, a security manager attempts to deduce what is happening in another's mind. Security managers participate in a sort of 'inner dialogue' for determining the best course of action. The above function is, in some sense, 'role taking'; i.e., it necessitates social empathy wherein an individual considerately and imaginatively places oneself into another's mind, predicting their responses to event flows. Through accurate modeling of other people's behavior, as well as proper attribution of intent, one will be in a good position to act suitably and thoughtfully (Mullins, 2001). Senior security executives who enact their entrepreneurial role, for instance, need a change manager's facilitation and communication skills. In other words, they need to work with groups, explain plan abstractions' meaning with regard to practical action, motivate individuals to mull over their normal script, and realize what their limitations are and strive to conquer them (Rollinson, 2002). Furthermore, it means playing the role of catalyst, aiding people in finding confidence to view things from a fresh perspective and try new behaviors. A number of social skills are involved here, namely, posing wise questions, 'playing the devil's advocate', summarizing, ventilating fears, developing understandings, inspiring, convincing, and creating 'negotiated order' with regard to new behavior; these have to be exercised subtly. This, ultimately, necessitates situation definition by the manager in terms that drive the widest consensus possible.

Importance

While a security manager was not always a leader and a number of security functions didn't necessitate superior leadership ability, successful strategic and senior security executives have always had to possess this ability. For a long time, management circles have known that a superior manager has to be able to inspire, convince, and build efficient work units for developing strong cultures and mobilizing power via networks. All this necessitates advanced sociopolitical abilities and informal process utilization, which goes way beyond formal authority's exercise. These skills boiled down to a role as leader for a security manager, which was crucial for flat 21st century organizations (Rollinson, 2002).

Yukl (2002) commences this topic by putting forward the idea that successful senior level managers usually have two leadership roles to perform. One entails formal leadership that arises from their status in the company. But a successful manager has another broader leadership function to carry out, which utilizes informal bases of authority and establishes their persuasive influence over a far wider scope of subjects than a non-managerial leader is ever required to consider. The author is of the view that the above two leadership functions are reciprocally supportive. Formal power legitimizes informal leadership, whilst the latter (such as developing a reputation and networking) strengthens the former role (for instance, greater leverage with the rest of the managers).

This new shift in thinking aims at redressing an apparent false relegation of the security management function to a leadership role. Revisionists assert that management and leadership are complementary and equal and not the extremities of a continuum. Every manager, particularly a top-level manager, must possess both qualities. In the absence of good leadership, a security department will likely focus on doing what it currently does better, but will not build a future that probably necessitates a whole new approach (for instance, continuing to get better at elementary gate management, while neglecting the present-day threats of cybercrime and terrorism) (Rollinson 2002). Likewise, in the absence of sound management, security leaders will be unable to effectively provide routine direction.