There has been an effort over the past several years to
change the titles of persons who perform security functions within an
organization: I have seen such persons in various industries called “asset
protection specialists,” “loss prevention associates,” “protection officers,” “doormen,” “ushers,”
even “ambassadors.” But
regardless of a company’s job title nomenclature, these persons all perform, to
some degree, the function of
security: namely, protecting the assets
of that company. And the function is
more important than the title.
Perhaps companies believe that the word “security” has
somehow taken on a negative connotation, that the presence of “security”
somehow implies an admission that problems exist (the PR department’s
nightmare). But in reality – especially
in our post-9-11 world – the very concept of “security” should be embraced as a
comfort. So maybe the root problem is
that there is a misperception and misunderstanding of what “security” really
is.
I think that most people’s primary exposure to and
perception of what “security” is comes from the uniformed guards that they see
wherever they go (it’s getting to be the Holiday Season, so perhaps the armed
guards at the front door of Toys-R-Us will be back!). And because the guards in uniform look like police officers in
uniform – whose primary job (people think) is patrolling and responding to problems
– they equate the two types of personnel to that similar job function. But just as there is so much more to law
enforcement work than the visible patrol officer, so too is there much more to
“security” than observe and respond (which is amazingly ironic, since a good
percentage of security personnel are only supposed to observe-and-report as
opposed to observe-and-respond). And to
compound the confusion, since police officers are usually seen in the aftermath
of a crime that has already been committed, that ascription of similar function
makes people believe that “security = problems.” But those in our profession know that the opposite is really the
truth – that the foundation and raison d’etre of security is finding ways to
identify and prevent (or at least mitigate) problems before they occur. The underlying principle of security should
be to create a safe, inviting environment for all the persons who visit a
company and have dealings with it.
So for those companies that have tried to be politically
correct by re-branding the persons who try to keep them safe and to try to
convey the impression that problems do not exist, that is certainly your
choice. But I for one am comforted
whenever I visit a place that proudly announces that it has good and strong
“security.”
Posts
