Jon Smith writes on having been involved in the UK Private Security Industry (PSI) for more than 20 years at a myriad of levels and in a number of roles.
I finally decided to ‘grasp the nettle’ by buttressing my experiential knowledge with academic knowledge. To this end I enrolled in the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies BSc (Hons) Risk and Security Management course at the University of Portsmouth in September 2006. Quite a daunting step for someone who last sat an exam in June 1985 at GCE O Level in an Army Apprentice College but fortune favours the bold so they say, so sign up I did (once bitten twice shy or déjà vu, you decide). In July 2011 I graduated with an upper second BSc (Hons) degree and a huge sigh of relief; so what have I learned and how does it reflect on the industry I have chosen to work in?
Possible answers to this may be found in the findings from the primary research element of my dissertation as well as looking at some of my conclusions and suggestions for future research. Although my dissertation concentrated on professionalism within a narrow spectrum of the PSI, which covered the private armed sector that I designated as the Non Governmental Armed Security Sector (NGASS), the findings from my research carry over into the wider UK PSI since I selected two control groups alongside my target group. These groups were:
•PSI (Internal Control Group)
•Other Professions (External Control Group)
For the purpose of this article it is the comparisons between these two groups that are of most interest as it gives us an insight into both the appetite for professionalism and the current levels of professionalism within the PSI compared to other professions.
Working definition
I decided to adopt a definition of professionalism that Kinsinger (2005) proposed:
“…service through the use of specialized knowledge, skills, and experience; holding oneself to the highest standards of thought, word, and deed.”
The reason for my selection is that this definition appears to embrace the criteria of ethics, standards and specialised knowledge that are typically associated with a professional practice.
From my literature review three criteria were stipulated as a measure of an individual’s professionalism:
•Membership of a professional association or body;
•Involvement in a monitored continual professional development program; and
•Vocational training and / or further education.
On the company level the three criteria were slightly different but can be seen to be interlinked to those of the individual:
•Runs / supports a Continuing Professional Development CPD programme;
•Encourages membership of a recognised industry / trade association; and
•Operates a recognised Quality Management System QMS.
Findings
If we look at these criteria in order then first we should consider the value afforded to CPD programmes. Overall the results of the survey were that 84% of respondents agreed that a CPD programme is essential to both maintain quality of knowledge and that skills are kept current. Of those from the PSI sector this actually came in at 88% which was the highest of the three groups; additionally 0% disagreed with this statement compared to 13% in the Other Professions group.
This support was further backed up by the findings based on to the statement that ‘CPD is an essential part of being a professional’
All groups in this study viewed CPD and professionalism as intertwined. Unfortunately these figures are not in reflected in the responses recorded when trying to establish the current levels of professionalism and standards of practice within the PSI, in line with the criteria for a company as stipulated by my literature review findings, when we look at the breakdown as to whether the respondents’ company operated a CPD programme. Many did not; especially few in the non-government sector. This is a significant reversal and came as a disappointment following such positive results from the individual respondents view on CPD.
If we next turn to the question of membership of recognised associations / bodies; it was very positive, if unexpected, that my research found a 56 per cent positive response from respondents in the PSI group when asked if membership of an industry association or body was essential to being a professional. When the reasons for a negative response were examined this appeared to be due to a perception that unless it was a Chartered Institute such bodies were viewed more as fee paying networking clubs. The overall positive message from this finding was backed up by a 2:1 ratio in the figures of those who said their companies actively encouraged their personnel to be members of a professional body.
Finally we come to the criteria of QMS appetite within the PSI. With a figure of 82 per cent of respondents within the PSI group agreeing that a professional company must operate a QMS and 86pc of respondents stating that their companies operate a QMS, we should feel positive of the direction in which the PSI is going to bring professionalism into the industry.
Conclusion
Whilst those employed within the private security industry are certainly embracing the need for professionalism through CPD, membership of industry bodies and other means there is still some way to go before we can sit back and state the ongoing professionalisation projects that have been started in recent years, such as the Security Institute’s drive for chartered status, have been successful. Those who manage and control companies within our industry must also take onboard this desire to professionalise, not only for the advancement of our industry but also to take it to a more commercially advantageous level. It is only through the achievement of ‘Chartered status’ and acceptance as ‘professionals’ in our own right that the price point for our services can be raised significantly and subsequently the profit margins. Surely we all deserve this?
About the author
Having worked in the private security industry since 1994 after leaving the Army, Jonathan took the plunge in 2006 and started a BSc (Hons) in Risk and Security Management with the University of Portsmouth. He graduated in 2011. He has worked in a range of sectors in this field including parking enforcement, event management and corporate security; and was proud to have been part of the security management infrastructure for the London Olympics.
