Professional development lacking in Australian Security Managers
We invited readers of our print edition ASM to have their say about the need for professional development and education for security managers. The following is a letter from security risk consultant John Pettit:
Thanks for the email. I was chuffed to find that my comment “management recognition that police and military backgrounds are vocations, not qualifications” (albeit not being directly attributed to me) was quoted in the ASM Security Management Survey.
I for one would like to see more of these types of surveys. These surveys serve to inform, enlighten, and highlight important issues, and shortcomings within the security profession. Perhaps future survey topics might be solicited from readers.
I would be interested in one specifically on the qualifications currently held by security professionals. I believe more needs to be done to raise the professionalism of Security Managers.
It is a sad truth, but it seems that most security management positions are held by ex-police, or ex-military types who are just looking for a cushy job until retirement. These people have little interest in upgrading their skills sets, being happy to rest on their laurels.
The lack of commitment to ongoing professional development by security professionals is the single most critical factor for the lack of professionalism in the industry today.
For those security professionals who have sought to gain certification through ASIS by obtaining such designations as CPP and PSP, while I support their efforts, such designations fall far short of a three-year security-related degree offered by Australian universities.
As Australians we need to support Australian security qualification offered under our own tertiary and ATQF systems. If we don’t support them, Australian universities and vocational training organisations will be loath to develop and run security training courses.
Further, we should not allow non-Australian qualifications to become a de facto qualification standard, nor should we allow Australian organisations to consider them superior to Australian tertiary and vocational qualifications.
To date Australian security professionals have enjoyed a security environment relatively free of danger. In contrast, their international contemporaries have been called upon on a daily bases to manage such threats as terrorism, organised crime, piracy, major fraud, workplace violence, industrial espionage, and extortion.
Australian security professionals should be mindful not to become over confident with their past successes, and their abilities to manage these emerging threats in the unfolding Australian security environment.
After all, it is easy to successfully manage a security risk when one is not really present. It is little wonder why corporate Australia pays so little interest or attention to important and pressing security issues in comparison to overseas companies, when those who are charged with championing the security cause have so little true knowledge or understanding of the current security environment, its relevance to the ongoing profitability of the company or its potential impacts on the organisation.
For too long it’s been a case of ‘she’ll be right, mate’. Lip service will continue to be given to security management in Australia until such time as the security professionals step up to the mark, and learn to communicate the true state of affairs of security risk to upper management.
It is time for security professionals to walk the walk and talk the talk. Corporate Australia stands to pay a high price if it chooses to continue accepting poor advice provided by substandard security professionals.
Australian organisations deserve better, and they need to start demanding more from their security advisors. Unfortunately, many security professionals and organisations still base their security strategies on conformance rather than performance: a sensor here, a guard there.
Little consideration is given to how effective or efficient these measures will be at preventing, controlling, or minimising losses in the wake of a security incident.
On the other hand, performance-based assessment criteria judges security precautions based upon their ability to detect, delay and respond to security events. Performance-based assessment is a more reliable and superior assessment criteria.
Further, judging the effectiveness of security precautions based purely on the absence of adverse events is poor practice, ill-advised, and ultimately invites losses by allowing latent vulnerabilities, limitations and deficiencies, to exist.
At best, such assessments only serve to indicate that no one to date has attempted test the security measures.
I agree whole heartedly with Jeff Corkill’s comments regarding the need for security managers to have an educational-based skills set rather than a craft-based skills set.
Currently in Australia there is a large void in the security knowledge base of security professionals. Clearly, Australia does not currently have the capacity necessary to meet the need for qualified security professionals in the event of a heightened security environment.
In such an environment qualified security professionals will be in high demand by Australian organisations, especially those who operate critical infrastructure.
On a personal note, after 20 years operating my own security & investigation firm, and having performed services for such notable clients like the Bank of Queensland, Boral, Caltex, Leighton Contractors, and Walters Construction, I found myself with plenty of practical hands-on security experience, but seriously lacking in formal educational-based skills. In recognition of this I embarked on a path of educational enlightenment by first obtaining Diplomas in Security and Risk Management & Government Investigation, and later enrolling in the Bachelor of Science (Security) degree offered by Edith Cowan University.
Since enrolling in the Bachelor of Science (Security) I have not looked back. I would encourage anyone who is seriously considering a career in security management, or anyone wishing to advance their professional security career to enrol in one of Edith Cowan’s security courses.
I would also like to take this opportunity to comment generally on the quality of security related articles published in Australia. It is disappointing to find so many security articles leaving you deflated and none the wiser. I applaud your efforts to bring relevant and informative newsworthy articles to your readers.
As part of the continuing development of the security sector we desperately need to encourage more security professionals to submit quality articles. By encouraging greater participation by security professionals in the submission of relevant stories hopefully we will see an improvement in what is currently on offer.
Having spent the past two and a half years at university I sympathise with the difficulties of writing truly good articles, and I applaud those who make the effort. We need to encourage more security professionals to submit articles that are controversial, thought-provoking, informative, educational, and above all entertaining. We need to move away from the run of the mill, mediocre articles.
In closing I would like to offer my congratulations to you and your staff on producing an impressive security industry magazine. Well done, keep up the great work. You can be assured of my continued patronage.
Regards
John W. Pettit
Security Risk Consultant
Dip. Security & Risk Management
Dip. Government Investigation Cert IV in Training & Assessment Eight Mile Plains Qld 4113