We all know the private security
business is very competitive – therefore, it is with great urgency as well as a
deeply embedded curiosity that compelled me to write about an anonymous
observation on how to avoid losing a multi-million-dollar contract to
substandard performance or poor performers within what appears to be a very
successful organization. Why would a multi-million-dollar top-notch security
contractor risk losing contracts when the flaw or performance deficiency is so
easy to detect and see from the inside and the outside?
This writing is only an opinion but
it could apply across the board wherever you may find a system in place that
places poorly skilled and trained security officers in a very possibly valuable
or highly potential job site protecting assets and that is made more complex
and convoluted with the fact that first line field supervisors are failing to
perform and do their jobs as required by their own management standards. My
biggest fear is that central office does not know of those who will cause their
demise and lose revenue because of a lack of will to do the job right.
First, most of you don’t know me. To
the best of my knowledge we have never communicated before on this matter.
However, I wish to express something I observed and became involved in while in
a position as a security guard that offered me full-time employment. At the
risk of being somewhat forward and perhaps sarcastic, critical and most
certainly very controversial, I hope you take this in the spirit that promotes
open and transparent communication and not confrontation as I enjoy my work and
job assignment with this fine firm.
I don't intend to provoke or point
the blame at anyone particular. That's not the purpose of this article or
opinion - it is merely an open expression of what is a reality in many
workplaces throughout the private security industry. In the past few months, I
have corresponded and spoken to members of senior management status including
the president of this company, and as a matter of fact to follow up on my
initial comments, I was referred to one of his senior team member in the LA
regional office. I spoke via cell phone and although I was asked for specifics
and names, I responded to them in general nonspecific terms without the listed
below. I don’t believe that giving names would have solved the problem. It may
replace the person but the problem is a deep rooted and cultural one.
In addition, I have shared my
concerns with fellow staff [first-line employees and supervisors] through
constructive dialogues and conversation and have verified that many have
experienced or observed the same deficiencies listed herein. However, for some
reason, they felt powerless to change things and decidedly remained silent. I
fear this silence may cause disruptions down the road as the information
gathered is not as accurate as it should be with open and honest
communications. I also get the feeling that the workplace is not a safe
workplace where you can air your grievances out loud or written without
retaliation of some kind.
I hope you understand that this was
an opportunity to glean some vital information about the company I work for and
I sought to enlighten myself as well as my fellow workers on specific issues,
not so much any certain names or individuals as well as analyzing or assessing
the workplace and culture. I wanted to be sure, it didn’t come across as a
whining session or a vendetta against anyone.
I have met with two field
supervisors this past week and neither offered guidance or mentorship into the
role of my job assignment. I did meet a very qualified field supervisor about a
month ago and he was very helpful so it really depends on who you talk to in
order to get a legitimate answer or response. Not sure that having a lead field
supervisor and two field supervisors actually get the work done because I don’t
see them communicating effectively with each other and every item, issue or
concern brought up is met with either ignorance, total surprise or no sense of
urgency. All very counterproductive in
nature.
The lead field supervisor appeared
to be too busy and preoccupied with more global matters than those at hand at
this field site. The other field supervisor was always in a hurry and never
took notes on anything said. His interpersonal communication skills were zero.
In fact, when he conducted a disciplinary hearing with associated ‘indefinite
suspension’ paperwork filled out and handed to another employee in front of me
that I believe should have been handled more confidentially and private rather
than out in the open. I know the employee was embarrassed as was I for being
there during such an awkward moment.
The lead supervisor was
argumentative when he came to visit me at the job site and was very hostile
when he exited his car. It was the first time we had ever met. It wasn’t until
he realized it wasn’t my words or complaint that brought an issue to light. In
fact, whatever transpired between him and other employees was done without my
knowledge but it seemed I was being blamed for something along the lines of
‘whining’ about the truck not having A/C when the temperatures hit 103 and 108
Fahrenheit. Frankly, he accused me of lying as he said the truck was working
'fine' and there was nothing wrong with the A/C.
Oddly, the client got a hold of the
A/C problem in the company truck and called the office manager why we were
using a vehicle that was operating under sub-standard conditions. What he had
accused me of was brought to the central office attention by someone else. He
assumed it was me because it came from the same post. A very wrongful
assumption and a very hostile moment until we straightened that out.
Such encounters shut down
communication or at the very least, their body language does not offer any
openness to talking with them about anything related to the job or post. I can
see why employees hesitate to ask questions and refuse to be drawn into dramatic encounters when in fact, most just
want to do their tour of duty with the support of their co-workers and
supervisors.
When it comes to offering feedback
or assistance, phone calls to any of them [no names necessary] are often not
answered or promptly answered and when you text them, an answer is likely to
take you a couple of hours or the next day but what is worse is the nature of
the response which is often -very brief, short and with a tone that is not
disconcerting and filled with assumptions that you know what to do under any
circumstances that you may have never experienced before or not adequately
trained for at the time. In all my years in security, I have yet to learn
anything from a reply that starts and ends with an "okay" and nothing
else.
When they reply it could be more
specific and instructional, time permitting. No supervisor should never be too
busy to answer questions either face to face, on the phone or electronically.
There are too many liabilities involved. In the past six months, I have actually
had four face to face meetings with my supervisors. Something that leaves me in
awe that they can run an organization like that and not stay in contact with
all their employees or assets.
There are times when I am left
scratching my head after reading or seeing about major multi dollar businesses
and how they operate with what can best be said to be such deficient
performance standards and risk losing a large share of their exclusive
multi-million dollar business contracts that are awarded to the best performers
and demonstrate good management principles of their logistical and human
resources. I also feel that if the client is dissatisfied with the way the
company does business and treats its employees, the risk is heightened that a
renewal might be in jeopardy. This is overall, the most serious pitfall of
working security contracts. The client must be satisfied or the contract is in
peril.
I expect the competition in the
Inland Empire is very fierce and volatile at times. Being one of the four
largest private security companies nationwide must carry with it some business
savvy that includes the “What ifs… when delivering your services. I would love
to hear about any contingency plans on the contract to show how this kind of
service oriented task and challenge is or has been prepared and discussed to
fulfill their contractual duties in case the role expands.
As the contract site evolves very
rapidly, so do the future predictions and expectations for security demands and
services. The potential is endless if the supervisors don’t screw it up for the
contractor as the client is very aware of security’s presence or when absent.
Sadly, with this evolution of duties, there are no post orders written or
provided and there are no checkpoints on the job site to show the client how
well their assets are covered and how often. In fact, there are no
environmental or site inspections to rely on and that’s troubling.
Hopefully, one would think, this
kind of strategy is set as a second nature in habit and planning. On the other
hand, it sometimes appeared that the contingency plan is often quite the
opposite, unplanned, fragmented and sometimes totally ignored because the big
picture has been missed by key elements of the management team and they only
see what is right there in front of them and not tomorrow. Yet the most common
flaw observed is the lack of ‘follow up’ on minor issues that eventually turn
into critical issues if not corrected before the client sees the deficiency.
In the case of this contract
with this anonymous client it was fairly easy to protect the assets every week
to protect and preserve their dirt lot that is now under construction. However,
that is changing quickly. What used to be an empty dirt lot with tons of gravel
mounds has become a busy and well-developed construction site that stores
presently more than 20 pieces of heavy equipment day and night. Certainly, in
machinery value alone, the ante has gone up. Theft of equipment and accessories
has always been a priority when it comes to loss
control strategies for clients.
I suspect that within a very brief
time, about a month or so, a second shift will come to fruition and cover the
entire complex 24 hours a day. Unfortunately, the management style for this
dirt lot is anything but innovative or even reasonably accounted in my opinion,
for it appears to act as a decentralized function from the office and has been
largely ignored for assorted reasons.
There appears to be very little
accountability and feedback on this work site by supervisors and the assigned
security officers. It is literally an island on its own and in order to cover
it properly, the officers assigned must adapt and improvise and then notify
their supervisor of the changes. This appears backward
of the training received but the answer is always late or never received.
Sadly, they don’t seem to care. Perhaps it is just because it is just a dirt
lot with no real value attached to it except for future growth and contractual
expansion etc.
After all, if all goes well enough
to allow renegotiation of the contract. On the other hand, it may be a
systematic flaw that exists in other places as well and that is a question only
they can answer. I suspect the latter. Here is a potential client of untapped
proportions of funds with the potential rhythmic sounds of millions of dollars
to staff and operate the security functions or systems of an upcoming sprawling
600,000 square foot logistics facility located across the street from an Amazon
distribution center and certainly in the heart of the industrial complexes in
the Inland Empire.
A service contract that may meet or
exceed a contract like the one with Amazon has today but with different
priorities and post orders from a security vendor perspective. It leaves me
puzzled because somebody doesn’t care enough to ensure the contract is
protected, preserved and carried out to the best of their abilities and good
faith to ensure there are no issues to complain about by the client yesterday,
today or tomorrow. Management appears to be a remote-control style and based on
the flawed feedback of their field supervisors. although there may be one
person who appears to care, the overall effort is weak to support field
personnel.
For example, why let a good contract
go sideways if you don’t invest your resources, [human and logistics] to show
the client they are a priority and important enough to warrant your best
equipment. Taking away good operable equipment and replacing them with
second-hand undependable tools or vehicles is a prime example. The truck used
to start the site project was more than adequate for the task assigned. Yet, it
was taken and replaced by an older truck that has faulty equipment, lights, AC
and other safety equipment. It was arbitrarily replaced for a much older model.
In my opinion, hand-me-downs skew
many perceptions, most of them negative. Perception is and always has been a
valuable selling approach and if the goods look good, the perception is the
company is good or so it appears to be. Why allow your supervisors to be inattentive
to the needs of that simple not so important contract and disconnect themselves
to what they perceive to be more prominent issues or concern elsewhere?
Certainly, they realize the potential for growth in this client’s mind and
carefully planned timetable to construct and build a vast trucking docking
complex that would eventually demand further or expanded security services
twenty-four hours seven days a week. A lucrative contract indeed. Or do they? I
don't think they have even thought about the future of this job site. It
doesn't appear to be the case right now.
In the past couple of months,
personnel has been used to temporarily fill the tour of duty with people who
weren’t familiar with the post orders. For some, they winged it and others they
were questioned by the client. From the very beginning, supervision has been
diminished. Mainly because there were no serious issues to report but therein
lies the problem-just because of its working, there is no need to pay attention
to detail? I think you know that doesn’t work well for future business deals.
Every discrepancy has been listed in
the digitally created DAR [daily activity report] but nothing was said or done
but it was mentioned again last week. Failing to pay attention to the smaller
details brings to the forefront questions that must be asked. Again,
complacency is a major pitfall of security coverage.
What difference does it make if the
AC on the truck doesn’t work in 108-degree weather? What does heat exhaustion
or heat stroke to the person and how does
this impact security coverage? Why does it take more than five hours to repair
a tire on the truck as the entire procedure was ignored as soon as the
supervisor was notified and nothing was done for five hours to fix it as the
procedure to use or call roadside assistance program is of little knowledge by
those in the field and all you got to get it started was a picture? Why are restroom
breaks such a big deal when the facilities are rarely made available and the officer
has to go off-site to take a break?
What about making sure the patrol
vehicle has fuel especially on weekends, and if there is a gas card for the
vehicle, does that operator have a fuel ID number to refuel it without
interruptions? Why should an employee who makes $10.00 an hour put in two hours
of pay to keep the contract running for a day and a half over the weekend? The
answer is simple – to keep the client happy but it puts an unfair burden on the
employee who gets little support or guidance from some supervisors and then an
attitude that they just don't care.
How does that attitude reflect
future relationships with employees and the client? Whose responsibility is it
to follow up and make sure that all post orders and shift requirements are in
order and in place as many aren’t written and issued [verbally] as well as
understood? Certainly, the client expects to have work done for the amount
billed and paid for? In reality, when the client observes the security officer
conducting security rounds in his or her own private vehicle, there is a high
matter of concern. It is a direct reflection of the company they hired and may
cause questions that can be difficult to answer.
Why not track your employees’
attendance more frequently and conduct inspection rounds to make sure they are
in uniform or personal hygiene or wearing the right kind of boots or work
shoes? How important is compliance and showing up or leaving on time? The P3
electronic software is an excellent tracking tool that can do more than
analyzing when downloaded. It shows a lot more than is currently used as daily
feedback by the organization and although it has analytical value for the
corporations, it does nothing locally to keep things in order. On the other
hand, the client sees us in the field and determines on his or her own clock
whether we are on duty on time and visible. That’s the nature of the job.
Perhaps the client monitors these
activities closer than the contractor and therefore at times, an unexpected
phone call is made to inquire about the purpose or status of some questionable
observation or comment? There have been numerous occasions where a
representative of the client comes by and makes a courtesy stop and asked
relevant questions. Perhaps, their interest is peaked when they come by and see
the security officer making his or her rounds and challenge them with questions
on their post duties. responsibilities and get poorly selected answers because
of doubt or uncertainties? Many can relate to such incidents or events. Clients
do check up on their security contractors.
What about remedial training or
offer them safety courses that may apply as the site develops and safety
becomes a primary duty on the work site? Why is there no fire extinguisher or
other safety equipment in the truck available in an emergency? Since the
construction has begun, why wouldn’t it be appropriate to issue hard hats and
new instructions [preferably written] so that if the need arises, the Security
Officer can enter without violating safety rules. Often, there are heavy
equipment operators out there working by themselves and with mixed [confusing]
post orders to enter or not enter the premises, it poses a safety issue that
must be cleared up. For that fact, why does the security officer have to ask
the job site superintendent for the lock code to ensure the gates are locked
once all the workers are gone? Isn’t that a supervisory role or duty?
Written post orders would solve this
partially but additional training could be done via the internet Security Stars
program and given credit when completed. It gives the employee a chance to be
better informed and feel like he or she has someone taking an interest in their
training needs. On the other hand, it may not be the branch manager, operations
manager or office manager who is at fault because of a lack of communication
between the field and the central office staff.
We already admit that the threat of
becoming decentralized often accompanies poor communications or in many cases,
performance or the lack of because it has been evolving as time created new
dynamics on the property but this kind of business enthusiasm must be possessed
by/with their mid-level supervisors.
It is obvious during the past six
months this security post assignment has been very challenging in relationship
to weather conditions, equipment malfunctions, staffing, etc. and the business
climate changes as new tasks are assigned in a rapidly evolving fashion. In
short, there will be a major change coming soon when the contract comes to
defining the process for renegotiating the security responsibilities and
liabilities for the future or if the client is unsatisfied, walks away from the
contract.
Let’s face it – there is nothing
more dynamic than a contract and a cancellation can happen to businesses of any
size. As a client seeks services, they look for reliability, dependability,
flexibility and most of all, a standard of efficiency to keep the terms of the
contract up to predictable and sometimes rigid standards. Expectations that
must be kept and committed to without any exceptions.
Thus, they negotiate contracts that
provide the flexibility to adjust as needed. A contract with protection +
flexibility is the ideal situation or set up. As the potential to expand the
existing contract grows, eventually, there will be a meeting to keep the
contract going. When the time comes for re-negotiation it is always hoped the
existing contractor sits in a favorable position to be awarded a new contract
or extended version of the original negotiated from the start.
That is the expected goal – retain
the contract and expand it to make it more profitable while delivering better
services. A renegotiation clause provides an opportunity for the parties to
have the tough talks that come along in any relationship. Performance issues,
communication issues, even discussions on whether both of their business
visions and strategies are still aligned can be brought up during these
re-visits to the contract.
One thoughtful consideration of
extending or renewing the contract is previous performance and fulfillment of
their vision, strategies, and commitment. A low commitment or mediocre
performance draws a good chance that the contract will not be renewed.
Before such talks take place, you
must ask yourself – what opportunities did we miss to make our commitment to
this contract stand out or demonstrate excellence? Going back to the ‘what ifs’
we must evaluate the basics first as Security 101 is not making a passing grade
at times and without Security 101 being solid and in place, the ‘what ifs’ are
really irrelevant to a certain extent or degree.
Based on past performance, what
qualifies us as the best reason to renew or extend the current contract? What
qualifies us as the best reason for renegotiation? What happens if the
renegotiation cannot be resolved due to past problems or routine issues
during the tour of duty that takes us back to a status quo with the option to
terminate?
A short and sweet paragraph in a
contract can set the stage for you re-opening discussions on rate, timeline or
deliverables so that you don’t end up at a loss because of the project’s
expansion. However, if the paragraph contains errors or dropped visions or
values or and expectations, how do you justify continuing the conversation to
accept a new deal?
If the client lacks confidence in
the contract or contractor. will they terminate for convenience because they
don’t trust you any more or they feel that they aren’t getting the value of the
contract when negotiated? Let’s face it – some people and businesses and
fickle. One minute you’re their favorite security contractor and the next,
they’ve found some other company to replace you with. Sometimes, all they need
is an excuse.
I hope I gave you something to think
about. Your culture is being challenged within your realm of management and
supervision. How you see the future is how you will vision your role in the
expansion of your position and responsibilities and that of the organization we
all work for. I assure you that everything I have said can be verified through
company documents and electronic digital data submitted through your P3 network
interface. I invite you to read my DARs and see how they reflect what I wrote
and suggest or recommend that the supervisors get more involved in their field
duties and not focus on global matters but instead focus on the people who
really matter if you want to renew that contract soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment