Throw a couple of bodies against the wall and see what sticks.
This is the traditional way of hiring personnel in the Security Industry. One shift, one body. Guards are interchangeable and there’s no reason for more than generalized training. Companies hold cattle-call job fairs and candidates that don’t make you immediately reach for your gun or check the Registered Sex Offender Registry get hired. Essentially what’s done is the equivalent of hiring a scarecrow to do a man’s job.
I can tell you right now that as a 10-year veteran in the security industry, this method of hiring is prevalent in the industry – everywhere you go, and it sucks. Even the biggest and the most technologically savvy security companies still do it.
If The Practice is Outdated, Why Do They Still Do It?
I’ve witnessed firsthand the challenges and consequences of outdated hiring practices. In an era where flashmob-style security threats evolve at breakneck speed, clinging to traditional recruitment methods is akin to arming ourselves with notepads and broken pencils on a modern-day battlefield.
To “observe and report” doesn’t pass muster anymore. Outdated hiring practices make us our own worst enemies in the world of loss prevention. Security Supervisors have a tougher time getting the job done because the team is only as strong as the weakest link. Unfortunately, that link is often more pathetic than anyone can imagine. And California employment laws make it ridiculously difficult to stand on At-Will employment law.
What’s the difference between a schlemiel and a schlimazel?
There is no difference, they both can get jobs as Security Guards with the right company.
When I was a young boy growing up in Queens, New York, my father worked as an armed Security Guard with ADT. He had a long-nose .38 Special he carried in a leather holster that always smelled like a new suede jacket.
I admired my father as he donned his bomber jacket, gunbelt, and tie. He always smelled like fresh Aqua Velva and talcum powder. One look at him and you knew he was not to be trifled with. He also looked super sharp in his uniform. His slacks were cleaned and pressed, his shirt was starched and his shoes were spit-shined until they looked like Marine Corps-issued Choroframs.
He. Looked. Badass.
But at that time in history being sharp was a necessary part of a security officer’s job.
Then the landscape of security shifted. New technologies emerged, threat vectors evolved, and adversaries became increasingly sophisticated. Many organizations in the security industry started to change to hiring practices that prioritized a nightwatchman-like mentality over hardcore, pound-the-pavement foot patrol hypervigilance.
Nowadays people are hired to secure property by sitting in a room and watching TV screens from a distance. Others are hired to lounge in a shack and check parking permits. Everyone wants a desk job in arms reach of a microwave, a coffeemaker, and a time clock to punch.
No one wants to walk. Everyone hates being in the field. Everything is done at arm’s length or further. We’ve lost the ability to engage socially; this means guards can claim to suffer social anxiety and still be assigned to work crowd control at an event. It’s laughable.
And, as long as they’re not engaging, why bother to be in uniform? Who cares if a guard wears white gym socks with my black shoes? And why shouldn’t he adapt his uniform and wear his trousers hanging low like popular streetwear?
Sagging, soggy pants? Got it. Belt? Who needs it? And, what’s the point of wearing a reflective “security “ emblem emblazoned on my jacket for easy recognition at night?
If my superiors don’t complain and allow this behavior, why should anyone be expected to change?
I was a driver for Dunbar Armored for a short time. During training, the main point the instructor sought to convey was for all Guards to “look like someone no one wants to screw with.” From your uniform to your duty belt and weapon, we all aspired to look professional, trained, and ready.
Why does this mindset not transfer to traditional security?
We don’t hire people who display adaptability, innovation, and readiness. We hire the same scarecrows who have hopped from one security company to the next, who fly under the radar trying to do as little as possible, and who care more about when they get a rest break than the client’s security concerns.
I have sent more than my fair share of people home for coming in dressed like they weren’t sure if they were on duty or going to hang out at 7-11. I honestly don’t see why this should be a problem. A uniform is worn to show you adhere to the team’s requirements, not your own. Why are we trying to dress it up by wearing flashy belts, undoing too many buttons at the collar, or allowing our pants to sag so our Calvin Klein’s are exposed?
Each time I’ve sent someone home I’ve been asked the same two questions: Is it that serious? Does it Matter? The answer is yes. It matters because first impressions count. You’ll never see a beat cop walking around in red and black Air Jordans. When you wear a uniform you’re part of a team, so whatever anyone thinks of you, they will think the same of me, and I don’t like it.
One of the other glaring issues with traditional hiring practices is the overemphasis on profit margins. In many organizations, particularly those driven by short-term financial goals, hiring decisions are often influenced more by budget constraints than by the long-term strategic needs of the security department.
This shortsighted approach often leads to, not only compromises in talent acquisition but an outright bottom-of-the-barrel approach to filling open positions. Even short-sighted clients often opt for cheaper, more readily available candidates over those who possess the skills and expertise necessary to effectively safeguard their hard assets. As a result, critical security needs may remain unfilled or understaffed, leaving organizations vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated coordinated threats or attacks.
This narrow focus on cost savings not only undermines the integrity of Security but also jeopardizes the overall viability of the security organization in an increasingly hostile landscape. If security is expected to identify and thwart coordinated attacks, counter-surveillance, and flash mob smash & grabs, hiring a ‘body’ or scarecrow is undoubtedly the least effective way to shield the property.
Furthermore, the reliance on rigid job descriptions only serves to perpetuate the problem. In today’s odd people economy, employees seek to minimize their responsibilities. Companies with narrowly defined skill sets open themselves up for classic, “that’s not my job” scenarios. However, the responsibility of a security supervisor changes with the landscape and whatever the current threat happens to be.
I’ve worked with far too many people who, on day one of training, will tell me what is and isn’t their job. They cleverly try to set the stage for what I will and won’t ask them to do, as Post Commander.
Meanwhile, I’ve always considered my diverse skills a part of the concierge-level security services I provide. The services begin not with a specifically itemized task list but with a random general request or inquiry that requires thought, planning, research, and execution.
I look for the same ability in others.
But it’s more than just having a random person tick off checkboxes on a list of specific requirements or job description keywords. Maintaining staff should involve recruiting individuals with diverse backgrounds and unconventional skill sets who could bring fresh perspectives and potentially innovative solutions to the table. We don’t need robots, yes men or folks who dodge work.
I always tell my managers that it’s easier to work with someone whose energy must be reeled in rather than someone you have to pump life into. In a field as dynamic as security, adaptability, unpredictability and the ability to think outside the box are invaluable intangible assets that cannot be guaranteed by a checklist of qualifications.
But here’s a one-off – maybe.
Some say that a consequence of outdated hiring practices is the perpetuation of homogeneity within the industry. This depends on what side your bread is buttered. I firmly believe that recruited team members must buy into the culture established by the existing security team – at the site level – particularly if that culture is effective and welcomed by the client. By prioritizing candidates who fit the cultural profile you may see unexpected leaps in diversity of thought and unstifled creativity.
The Security Industry will benefit from a massive mindset shift in the way hiring and maintaining staff is approached. This must be done if we hope to shake off the stereotypes of the past.
We rarely say it but Security Work is a form of Law Enforcement. The work we do is serious and affects the global economy. The name “security” shouldn’t be a punchline and stigma. Security shouldn’t be synonymous with “someone who couldn’t find a real job.” Security professionals should be revered as stolid, steadfast, impressive, and respected.
Instead of clinging to outdated assembly line practices rooted in profit margins and laziness, we can foster innovation without sacrificing the presence that signals the arrival of a journeyman Security Professional. We do this by setting our standards high, and not changing them for the sake of meeting hiring quotas.
In conclusion, as a 10-year security professional, former Patrol Driver, ex-armored vehicle Driver Guard, Site Supervisor, and Post Commander, I urge my colleagues, coworkers, and industry peers to recognize the critical importance of modernizing our hiring practices and establishing high standards for personnel. By breaking free from the lazy tradition of throwing bodies at a problem, we can still embrace diversity, creativity, and adaptability.
Doing so, we can reposition ourselves not as our own worst enemy, but as formidable guardians against the ever-evolving landscape of Security threats. The time for change is now, and our future depends on it.