Keeping It Mutually Beneficial

Aug 1, 2004 12:00 PM, By ROBERT J. MARTIN, CPP

Anyone who uses contract guard services knows the challenges and problems that ensue. Annual spending on guard service in the United States is estimated to account for nearly $12 billion of the $34 billion spent annually on overall security measures, services and products. Given this type of expenditure, businesses want the peace of mind that their investment in security guards is actually protecting their assets — personnel, property and information.

END-USER'S PERSPECTIVE

Common and widespread problems can be readily articulated by anyone who uses contract security guard services. Typically, they include: high security officer turnover, which translates into loss of experience and skills, errors and mistakes that could otherwise be avoided, and frustration over too many security complaints; poor response from the guarding company's management; low service quality; exposure to liability; and increasing cost of the guarding program.

A common aphorism among many guarding end-users is that the best quality guarding companies are the same and the best quality they are able to provide is determined by their weakest link — the officers they hire. Since they all draw from the same labor pool, the service quality is limited.

This idea, albeit cynical, contains elements of truth.

PROVIDER'S PERSPECTIVE

The provider's perspective will acknowledge the end-users' frustrations, but will also include the following factors:

• The end-user is generally not willing to pay adequate wages to the officers, which partially creates higher turnover and low service levels;

• Generally, the end-user's representative, whose primary area of expertise is not security, is challenged in making the right security decisions, which in turn jeopardizes the integrity of the security program; and

• More and more security-related investment and spending decisions are being made by the end-user's procurement people — based solely on budgetary requirements. This leaves little room for ensuring adequate security because the provider is squeezed between the end-user's high expectations of the guard program and an inability to provide quality service for the rates they are being paid.

It is easy to see how these perceptions and experiences can evolve into a vicious circle of finger-pointing and ever-increasing frustration for both the end-user and the provider. The guarding provider becomes cornered into accepting the perpetual cycle of “low wage equals high officer turnover, which equates to high customer loss;” while continual frustration by the end-user typically results in a high turnover of guard companies.

SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE “RELATIONSHIP ISSUE”

It is a common theme within the guard industry to focus on building a “relationship” with the client. Ironically, most guard companies say they can build the relationship by being “responsive” to their clients; however, many end-users complain that the guard company is not responsive to their needs. There are two different perspectives that do not seem to meet on common ground.

The focus of guard companies to respond to the end-user's needs minimizes the reality that the relationship is best built and solidified by staying proactive.

Yet being proactive is not a strategy confined to the provider; it is critical for the end-user as well. Since the end-user is most interested in receiving quality guard service with the least frustration possible (note that their primary priority is not in getting a response), the more proactive the end-user is in regard to the relationship with the provider, the more confidence they both gain that things are moving in the right direction. Proactively managing the relationship is a critical key to resolving many of the problems and to bridging the two sets of perspectives.

SEEING THE “BIG PICTURE”

Peeling away both parties' perspective of the problems and looking deeper at the nature of the relationship, one can begin to see where the weaknesses are and where potential solutions can begin to arise. This peeling away quickly reveals a symbiotic relationship that must exist between the guarding end-user and the guard provider — a relationship of mutual benefit and dependence or need. The entire premise of the relationship rests upon three obvious, yet often overlooked points:

First, the relationship exists based upon a mutual need — a need for people and businesses to be protected; and a need to provide protection as a profession and as a business.

Secondly, there is supposed to be mutual benefit. The recipe is fairly simple; a need is filled and a business thrives due to filling a need, while another business thrives because it can operate more freely from the fear of internal and external criminal activity. Both benefit, yet in different ways. Success on either party's part is not exclusive of the other — they both win, by having each of their needs met.

Thirdly, because it is a symbiotic relationship, neither end-user nor provider can escape the indisputable truth that what affects one ultimately affects the other, either positively or negatively. Many of the common issues, obstacles and problems that are felt by the end-user are caused by the issues, obstacles and problems the provider faces; and vice versa.

Keeping these elements in mind, end-users and providers can begin more easily to formulate exactly what ingredients are required to actually balance the “need” factors so that a mutually beneficial relationship has the opportunity to survive.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Robert J. Martin, CPP, is senior consultant and president of Martin Protective Group Inc., a security consulting firm based in Atlanta. The firm specializes in helping businesses improve their return on investment in existing security measures through vulnerability assessments, strategic planning and implementation. It also works with guarding companies to develop and implement organizational “Best Practices” designed to improve service delivery, client retention and develop management talent/skills.

SHARE YOUR STORY…

Every month, we are offering information about managing guard services and leading in-house staff. Among other things, this page offers an opportunity for readers to share the management lessons they have learned and to provide other helpful information to their peers in the industry. To offer suggestions, or to contribute to this page, contact Jennifer Pero at (770) 618-0135 or e-mailjpero@primediabusiness.com

9 STEPS TO A COMMON GROUND

Working with and being exposed to successful end-user and provider relationships reveals that there are generally nine minimum ingredients necessary to ensure an empowering, long-term and mutually beneficial relationship. These are:

1. Adequate pay rates and benefits must be in place to attract and retain experienced, skilled officers. Both sides must work toward the best reasonable rate structure, empowerment tools and recognition methods.

2. Policies, procedures and practices must be in place, all of which are relevant and achievable. These must be reviewed and refined at least annually.

3. Minimum training standards and an ongoing curriculum must be used to sharpen officers' skills and enhance performance.

4. Reasonable expectations must be established which create the “knowing, feeling and perception” that both parties understand how to meet each other's needs.

5. The provider must employ methods to improve the service in the eyes of the end-user; suggest strategies that can mitigate threats or risks; and make the security program cost-effective for end-user budget requirements.

6. The provider must consistently deliver relevant threat and incident data to inform the end-user of emerging trends and issues.

7. The end-user must acknowledge the officers are employed by the supplier and manage his/her activities accordingly, in order to neutralize liability by being perceived as a “co-employer.”

8. The end-user must recognize and communicate both good and bad performance. He or she should motivate the provider by acknowledging successes and accepting equal responsibility for weaknesses and setbacks.

9. Conduct joint monthly or quarterly reviews of progress and performance. This is the safety valve to allow each party to air concerns, to plan for continuing improvement and to offer appreciation for the relationship.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Opening Up About Door Closers
• An Enterprise Approach
• The Framework For Open Systems
• On A Higher Plane
• More from April's issue