Types of security arrangements at the workplace

Talking security

with Patrick Bhunu IN my last instalment, I promised to look at the types of security arrangements that an organisation can employ, depending on the size and business of that organisation. I highlighted that there is what is called proprietary, contracted and hybrid security arrangements.

Proprietary security is when a company recruits and maintains its own internal security personnel. In some companies, this will be a fully-fledged department with a well-defined rank and file.

Contracted security is when an organisation outsources the security services from registered private security companies. Companies usually go the outsourcing route in order to cut on administrative and operational overheads.

Hybrid security solution is when an organisation decides to have a combination of the proprietary and contract security arrangements. Organisations that go this route usually assign the basic protective services to the contracted service providers while the internal personnel are tasked with the critical policy and procedure as well as investigative functions.

A company that chooses to have proprietary (in-house) security is assured of high loyalty by its security employees. In-house staff feel more loyal and answerable to the organisation than hired staff.

They have that sense of belonging and the fact that they can easily blend with other staff members is motivational in nature. Because there are greater prospects for growth, in-house security personnel perform their duties diligently.

Proprietary security personnel are generally viewed differently from contract security personnel and as a result companies attract highly qualified and experienced personnel who are able to justify their existence in the long run. It is an open secret that once in-house security personnel feel that they are a valuable resource to the organisation, their performance improve as they work towards the attainment or realisation of the global organisational goals.

On the other hand, however, it may be too costly for an organisation to go the proprietary route. Proprietary security arrangements are very expensive. This is because the company is responsible for the paying of salaries and other employee benefits that are in tandem with the qualifications and experience of the security personnel.

In addition, there are also costs associated with leave provisions, social security (NSSA), security uniforms and equipment, sick leave, maternity leave, training and other provisions. For contract security, all these costs are met by the contracted company.

The client company is only responsible for payment of service fees as stated in the contract signed between the two companies.

There are also instances where in-house security personnel would go on leave, be it annual, sick or maternity. It therefore, means that the company would have to find a relief officer until the permanent staffer returns.

This also comes with additional costs. In the case of a contracted security arrangements, it is the responsibility of the hired company to ensure that they provide a top notch service to their client.

They always have personnel on standby to cover such eventualities.

The other reason why companies prefer proprietary security is because there are assurances that the right personnel were recruited.

The company will recruit people who fit into their organisational objective. The company does everything from selecting, vetting and training and in the end the security personnel can easily fit into the organisational culture.

In the case of contracted personnel, the hiring company does not normally have much say as to the calibre of persons that will be deployed to their premises. They do not even know whether the personnel were properly vetted upon recruitment.

And still on the issue of undesired elements within the security personnel, it is much difficult to deal with one who is in-house than an external one.

The company is sometimes forced to make do with an under-performing employee due to the rigours of going through all the disciplinary procedures, which have also to be within the provisions of relevant legislation.

Requiring the employee to resign also comes with additional costs to the organisation. If the ‘‘forced’’ resignation or dismissal is not well managed, it becomes more costly in the form of litigation.

But when the company hires an external service provider, it is much easier to deal with an undesired element. The company simply notifies the employer of the ‘‘ bad apple” and the officer will be gone straight away with no fear of any potential litigation costs.

Perhaps, the most important reason for engaging contract security is liability for losses. I will refer to this as the transfer of risks from the client company to the contracted company.

Any losses that are incurred during the course of duty are compensated by the contracted company through its insurance agent. If, however, a company is using proprietary security, it has to bear liability for all the costs incurred.

For example, if there is a break-in into the company premises guarded by external guards, the contracted company simply compensates for the loss. If the same premise was under the custody of internal security, it then means that the company will be liable for the costs.

It is really not clearly defined as to which security arrangement an organisation can employ. It all depends on the kind of organisation, its size, line of business and objective, among other things.

It is for this reason that some organisations go for a hybrid arrangement where they mix the two, proprietary and contract. They assign the basic functions to the contract security personnel while the internal officers deal with the more complex issues such as strategy formulation, security surveys and audits and making recommendations to the decision makers.

Feedback on patbhunu@yahoo.co.uk/sms on 0716532802.