|
Supervisors need mentors and a clear career path |
|
|
|
|
| Written by Neil Sutton, on Tue-June-2009 |
Page 1 of 2
 Security professionals are taking a more business-based approach to staffing and succession-planning, according to a panel of experts; one that values mentoring and management skills.
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.”
|
