Security Technology Executive

SEP-OCT 2017

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 19 of 69

18 SECURIT Y TECHNOLOGY E XECUTIVE • September/October 2017 • www. COVER STORY internal, political, or other functional andorganizational risks that could limit a security practitioner's ability to fulfill the organization's or security function's core mission. These types of risks are typi- cally more damaging, and are relatively unseen and can create a bigger impact to the image of the security function. For instance, the writer has seen executive leadership lose confidence in the entire security program because of poor perfor- mance of a single element that was under the security department. Take the case of an executive driver (chauffeur) who was consistently late and rarely picked up executives on time. Unbeknownst to the security director, a function that was arguably not security related, had indi- rectly created functional brand, image and confidence issues for the security group. Luckily, the security director was tipped off by another executive, which allowed him to address the issue and correct it. The security director was able to turn the negative stigma into a posi- tive message and face time with executive leadership. The learning lesson here is that the C-suite may not directly describe their dissatisfaction until it's too late and visibility across the security function must continually be maintained. The recruitment and retention of mil- lennials and their approach to work envi- ronments is another functional risk that many do not fully comprehend. According to the Harvard Business Review, (Brandon Rigoni, 2016) understanding what moti- vates millennials is key in recruiting and moreover retaining them. While recruit- ment is clearly not difficult, retention is the aspect, which can create significant productivity, retraining costs that can erode budget, and moreover create lead- ership concerns within the organization because of staff attrition. Philosophies around work, disruptive technologies, and human resources processes are challenges for security professionals with a low tol- erance for change and adaptation. This mentality could create broader function- al risks, especially with newer employees that are more apt to vent their frustrations via a variety of digital/verbal mediums. For security leaders that are introspective and adaptive, they will seek other direc- tion through other resources such as MIT Sloane Publications and similar. This pub- lication provides thought leadership on hiring, workforce management, and team- building, leadership strategies that will boost workforce engagement, which is a phrase that many organizations are build- ing into their core mission and should not be overlooked by someone charged with the management of a security function. Model Program Brand and credibility for the security function require a consistent message that is delivered across the organization, and the requirements include a structured team of professionals, chain-of command, leadership and alignment across the orga- nization's mission. The organization of a security program should look something like the graphical presentation below. It begins with the organization's mission and moreover the protection of assets, which can be tangible or intangible and is the top of the structure. Ideally, there will be a head of resilience/security or surety – more on that later. The head of resilience will have two lieutenants, one on the physical side, and one on the Information security side aligning with the Board/CEO's mission. These individuals would be forward thinking looking at the operational risks to the organization and will create related security policies. These policies will be communicated to the remainder of the organization via directors, who will align with other organizational leadership, such as human resources directors, legal, safety, and similar. These directors create and enforce the policies by developing proce- dures, which are directed to the security officers or what the writer describes as brand ambassadors. The officers/brand ambassadors deal with tactical risks, and will be the first to be seen when visitors, public and patrons arrive at the site; and will be measured on multiple perfor- mance metrics. They are in effect, the foundation of the program. Convergence – The Take Over For those in a physical security function, the writer submits that the term "con- vergence" is not dead. It is very much

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Security Technology Executive - SEP-OCT 2017