The change is overdue, according to Brian Robertson, president of Diligent Security Training and Consulting Inc. Robertson spoke Tuesday at a Canadian Security magazine panel discussion called “Succession Planning: A Blueprint for Supervisors.” The event was held downtown Toronto in conjunction with the Toronto chapter of ASIS and sponsored by AFI International Group Ltd.

Sixteen years ago, before he started his consulting business, Robertson was promoted from the position of security guard to security supervisor — but not necessarily for his own merits. Robertson was the only guard who wasn’t “a complete idiot,” according to the supervisor he was replacing.

That type of thinking is still pervasive in the security industry, says Robertson and has led to the widespread practice of the “Peter Principle” — people rise to a position that’s slightly beyond their capabilities and stay there for the bulk of their career.

Building management company Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd. recently re-evaluated its security infrastructure in order to correct and improve some of its staffing inconsistencies, says David Hyde, the company’s director of national security.

Cadillac Fairview operates 45 property groups with 600 front line security personnel — a 50/50 mix of in-house and contract. Staff management and organization had been haphazard, says Hyde. Job descriptions were inconsistent, titles had no meaning, and there was duplication of roles and effort.

“We clearly had a catalyst for change,” says Hyde. The company changed its approach to employee management by standardizing titles and job functions, offering small pay increases where appropriate and introducing a rigorous evaluation process. The company lost five out of 40 people through the process but “you have to be prepared for hard decisions,” says Hyde.

“What we found was, when we rolled this out, it was the first time (staff) knew what was expected of them.”

The company also made sure there were in-house supervisors at every location, which helped to unify operational issues between in-house and contract front line staff.

“If they have a contract security patch or an in-house security patch, it doesn’t make a jot of difference,” says Hyde. “They’re still representing your company.”

Tim Pritchard, director at Commissionaires Training Academy, says his company now espouses a philosophy of culture-building, which can be difficult when you’re dealing with contract security personnel. The key, he says, is to encourage senior personnel to act as mentors for junior people.

“The purpose of getting them ready (to eventually become managers) starts the day they come in the door,” he says. “By having this support, our employees become engaged. We allow them to make decisions.”