Successful Security Management - Research Paper Example

Security SUCCESS IS SECURITY MANAGEMENT Introduction The relationship between the financial health of an organization and its levels of security can never be overemphasized. In a nutshell, security is a collection of various processes and procedures put in place within an organization to ensure that the overall objectives and operations of the company run smoothly. The smooth running of the organization’s processes has a strong impact on the amount of revenue generated through the sales of the products and services produced through the service (Gill, 2006). And this, in turn, enhances the financial viability of the organization. The various area of security that needs attention include: Production processes Employee social security Information security Warehouse and storage security Transportation and supplies Legal security Corporate Security’s Historical Roots Dalton (2003) traces the roots of contemporary corporate security back to the role of the night watchman prior to the 1960s. In this guise the job of security personnel within businesses entailed little more than acting as a lookout with a primary role of early warning in case of incidents such as fire. Throughout the 1960s and into the latter half of the 20th century this limited early role began to expand and fire watches began to take on more classical security duties including controlling access and egress from properties, patrolling and maintaining perimeter fences and general guarding duties (Gill, 2006). Dalton terms this the ‘Green Shack Era’ as activities were typically based out of such shacks located by the main gate (Gill, 2006). While security management progressed at varying speeds within industries different and between individual organizations a growing role for security departments within the corporate world was apparent. For the most part it moved out of the so-called green shacks and into offices embarking on what Dalton describes as the ‘Physical Security Era’ (Gill, 2006). With the arrival of the physical security era corporate security continued to perform duties such as security patrols but in addition took on responsibilities for responding to medical emergencies, controlling traffic, monitoring equipment, escorting employees and staffing front desks (Gill, 2006). This entirely defensive approach to corporate security could be considered the trademark of the physical security era and to an extent it remains the ethos behind security departments in many large businesses today (Gill, 2006). One of the effects of globalization has been a proliferation in the number of threats which face large organizations with exposure to operational risks all over the world. This in turn has made the job of protecting businesses much more complicated and means the number of skills required to do so effectively are more numerous. Despite these changes in the size and complexity of the security mangers work in most contemporary businesses the rationale behind it, while it may now be couched in slightly more sophisticated terms, remains the defensive, protective one observed by Kingsbury & Post (Gill, 2006). When asked why security existed in their organizations the majority of security managers responded defensively by giving statements such as statements “…our main function is to protect company assets, our people, our property, our brand and our customers.” (Security Director, Retail) Contemporary Drivers for Corporate Security The fact that this defensive mindset has continued to dominate among corporate security managers does not mean that the function has stood still. Since the study of corporate security conducted by Hearnden (1989) the most successful security managers have made their departments integral parts of their respective businesses attracting a wider more challenging range of roles entailing greater responsibility and resulting in improved visibility with their peers and the senior management tiers of the business. Most security managers reveal that their work involved a whole raft of tasks which it would previously have been impossible to imagine being delegated to the security manager depicted by Post & Kingsbury (Gill, 2006). Contemporary roles include: the protection of intellectual property; auditing responsibilities; responsibility for ethical policies; export control compliance; oversight of the divestiture of businesses; and due diligence. Within the businesses where security has taken on these expanded roles there has often been a parallel process whereby the more mundane aspects of the work traditionally associated with security, the so-called ‘guards and gates’ work, have become the responsibility of other functions such as facilities or health and safety. Attitude of the Management Upstream influences play an important part in ensuring success or otherwise of the security function within an organization. Most obviously, the board represents the decision making authority within their respective organizations and as a result it is most often at board level where the roles and responsibilities of the security function will be defined and where the resources to fulfill those roles will be allocated. Less obviously the influence and patronage of the board are crucial to the security department’s ability to align its strategies to that of the business as a whole which in turn is a measure of the worth of the security function (Hooten 2005). Hooten notes that without the encouragement of board level figures within the business security managers will not be able to enter the strategic planning cycle at a sufficiently influential moment and thus the interests and input of the security department will be under-represented in the plans of the business (ibid). Accordingly the status of security managers and the security function within the business is impacted significantly by the attitude of the board towards the discipline. Without board level interest and activity the security department will inevitably lose its power, authority and status within the organization to other better represented departments (ibid). Significantly differing impressions of their board’s attitude to the security function could be found among the security managers interviewed. In keeping with the findings of CBI research on the subject none of our security managers reported that the board’s interest in security had declined in recent years. Whether they felt the attitude of the board had not changed, had changed temporarily or that the board had demonstrated a sustained change of heart almost all of the security managers used the events of 9/11 or the July London bombings as a frame of reference for examining the attitude of the board to corporate security in recent years. Among a small number of the security managers the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in New York USA and the security upheaval which followed appeared to make minimal impact on the running of security within their organization or the attitude of their board toward security. This appeared to be the case in organizations which had already countenanced attacks of that nature and had the appropriate resilience provisions already in place. Finally, a number of the security managers interviewed whose departments previously existed well away from the mainstream activity of their businesses have simply been further frustrated by the ‘yoyo’ attitudes of their boards. They find themselves temporarily given a status and allocated a level of resource which they would prefer to enjoy permanently only to find that the urgency and attentiveness of the board quickly subsides as the memory of the crisis fades and the security function has ultimately gained nothing. The Perception among Security Managers When asked about the status they held within the business relative to the status given to managers from other functions significantly different experiences could again be found among the security managers. A select number of the managers were confident of the fact that they were considered on a complete par with the managers operating at their level from other areas of the business. Elsewhere, the security managers felt that their department lagged behind the others in the business in terms of the perceived importance of their contribution to the business, their ability to attract resources to the department, to exert authority and influence and to get the buy-in of senior business managers. The managers who felt that they had achieved a state of complete parity with their peers in other areas of the business cited management grading, leadership of cross functional committees, general management duties outside the security function and their contribution to high level planning processes as examples of the value which was attached to their role within their respective organizations (Button, 2008). However, all of the managers who placed themselves in this category noted that this was not a status they had inherited. Most had been responsible for building up their security departments and for some this had been a process that had taken over a decade. For the security managers who had arrived in existing security departments they had often found departments which existed away from the mainstream of the business, undertaking much less ambitious tasks than was now the case and enjoying a fairly lowly status among the management functions of the business: While the majority of security managers favored professionalization of some kind some of the security managers clearly held different perceptions of what the problems facing security management were what professionalization entailed and how it could help address the problems the occupation faced. Not all the security managers subscribed to the general consensus described in the last chapter surrounding the need for a theoretical grounding for security. Among some of the mangers there was a perception that there was little lacking in the substance of security management (Button, 2008). These managers felt that corporate security management met the criteria of a profession and that the status issues they faced stemmed entirely from the disciplines failure to communicate its good work. Accordingly, these security mangers felt that the most important function of professionalizing was to develop mechanisms and structures, which would enable corporate security to broadcast its merits: “I feel that, really, we are professional enough. We just do not get the recognition. I don’t think that what we require is a whole load of navel gazing, we have to get out there and make people realize what our work involves.” (Security Manager, Communications) If corporate security management is to invest the effort and resource associated with a professional project and to achieve the collective action that a professional project strives for, as an occupation it must first test whether it can come to a single agreed analysis of the problems it faces (Gill, 2006). If this can be achieved it must then be decided whether pursuing a professional project is the most appropriate way of advancing the occupation. On this point, despite the challenges to professionals and professional work outlined above, there have been recent compelling defenses of the system of professions: “I have analyzed and then discarded the criticism of professions which has become increasingly common over the past few decades. I do not deny the occasional truth of those criticisms, nor the need to make professional institutions more honest, but the criticisms have failed to deal with the central problem: how else to nurture and control occupations with complex esoteric knowledge and skill, some of which provide us with critical personal services and others with functional knowledge without which much of our standard of living could not exist.” (Friedson 2001: 220) “The institution concerned should comprise members of a unique profession, and should have as members most of the eligible field for membership, without significant overlap with other bodies.” (Privy Council 2006) While much work has been done on how, once organized, an occupation pursues professional status, much less consideration appears to have been given to how a mass of individuals with a variety of interests manage to organize itself into a group coherent enough to undertake a professional project. Berman (2006) has documented the fierce early institutional competition between different factions of medicine. This competition was eventually resolved through the creation of the British Medical Association (BMA), which in turn facilitated medicine’s rise to true professional status. The disagreements between the different medical factions were profound and went to the heart of what it meant to be a doctor (Button, 2008). The number of factions competing to be the voice of professional doctors was few but the gulf in thinking and attitude between them was enormous. Corporate security management currently appears to suffer from the opposite problem in that, based at least on the experience of this project, there are no huge ideological issues to be overcome between security managers but, as a discipline, it is balkanized and disparate. As one security manager put it: “Our problem is, we proliferate. If you look on the web there are all sorts of different bodies. All with good intentions but there is a danger in that. Who actually represents the industry? If the government has a question in our field who does it go to get a sensible answer?” (Security Manager, Retail) As discussed in the last chapter, between them our small sample of security managers acknowledged or stated an affiliation with thirteen different groups, associations or institutes with corporate security managers making up part of their membership. Not all the groups sought to be a representative voice of security managers, some had much broader security ‘industry’ focus and a few were by invitation only (Button, 2008). However, the existence of all these groups, vying for the time and contributions of security managers, inevitably inhibits the chances of corporate security engaging credibly or successfully in the occupational negotiation which is crucial to a professional project (Shaw & Green 1999). The role played by security managers in securing the financial viability of an organization is quite enormous. The more secure an organization is, the easier it will be for it to achieve its financial objective and goals. Optimum security will mean that raw materials make it to the production plant in time. Loss of raw material within the company is an issue of concern because it increases the overall cost of production (Button, 2008). It will also ensure the integrity of the production process by ensuring that there is no interference with the process from unintended quarters. Upon completion of the product, there is need to ensure that it reaches the market in good condition. This is very important in securing the trust and loyalty of the end user of the product (Shaw & Green 1999). It’s equally imperative to secure the product even as the product is transported to the market for wholesaling and final retail. When the product reaches the end use in its pure and secure form it in turn encourages the client to pay the optimum prices for the product. When this happens, the revenue realized per volume of goods sold increases thus increasing the profit margin. With higher profits the financial viability of the organization is secure because there shall always be loyal clients out there waiting to pay generously for its products and services (Button, 2008). It’s therefore important to have a new approach towards security issues in the co prate arena. A lot more focus should be made towards securing the whole process from production to the market place. References Gill, M (2006) The Hand Book Of Security, Perpetuity Press, London. Button, M. (2008) Doing Security; Critical Reflections and an Agenda for Change, Palgrave Macmillan, London. Scase R (1999) Britain towards 2010: The Changing Business Environment. Economic and Social Research Council, London. Shaw M. & Green H. (1999) ‘Continuous professional development: emerging trends in the UK’ Quality Assurance in Education 7 (3):169. Simonsen S (1996) ‘The Case For: Security Managers as Professionals’ International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention Vol. 1(3) 1996: 123 Skills Task Force (2000) Skills for all: Research Report from the National Skills Task Force. Department for Education and Employment, London. SMT Forum (2004) ‘Should Security Management Continue to Remain as a Separate Discipline?’ SMT Magazine, November. Tyson S (1985) ‘Is this the very Model of a Modern Personnel Manager?’ Personnel Management. Vol. 26:35-39 Welsh L & Woodward P (1989) Continuing Professional Development: Towards a National Strategy. Further Education Unit, London WERS (2004) 5th Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Economic and Social Research Council, London Wilensky H L (1964) ‘The Professionalization of everyone?’ American Journal of Sociology 70: 137-158. Williams C (2006) Interview with Christine Williams FCIPD, Membership Manager of the CIPD. Conducted May 2006 at CIPD Headquarters, London. Wilson & Slater (1990) Practical Security in Commerce and Industry. Gower Publishing, London. Wyllie, B. The Millennium Security Manager: Preparing for the Future (Cranfield University) 1998 Yin R K (2003) Case Study Research: design and Methods. Sage Publications, London. Read More