Each One Teach One:Training at the beginning of career in Industrial Security

That men of uniform do not automatically become qualified for industrial security career is well settled issue after decades of raging debates! The men of uniform need to unlearn many things first to be able to learn new skills and aptitude needed for security management is amply supported by those who came to this career after successful career in armed forces!

Why they have to unlearn first? There are very different sets of skills, aptitude and attitude required to perform in the work culture which prevails only in armed forces coupled with the regimental discipline and camaraderie. Also the expertise developed and experience earned during the exercises or operations undertaken for combat related activities are of no use in industrial security. The tactics and strategies of war-fares of great importance in armed forces are different but are unrelated to industrial security. These cannot be applied even in homeland security what to talk about industrial security! The conduct and approach developed by men of uniform is acceptable in those organizations alone and are not acceptable and appreciated in industrial organizations. More than anything, the ego and conceit needs to be controlled in the industrial organizations which otherwise can cause serious and adverse industrial security relations. This has been the cause of downfall of many highly decorated men of uniform in their second career in industrial security management. Accustomed to pomp and ceremonies, habitual of rank based importance and used to unquestioned loyalty and impeccable execution of their orders, such are the conduct and expectations of these man of uniform that they are soon found misfit in the environ of industries where leadership traits and needs are different, where their subordinates have yet to accept them as their leaders and where seniors’ and juniors’ support and cooperation cannot be taken for granted. The assimilation of ideas, openness for suggestions, democratic decision making and diplomatic give-and-take in strategic matters are few traits which need to be learnt to be successful and progressive in their second career in industrial security management.

I have often wondered what special training and education senior armed forces officers undergo which qualifies them to be ‘Chief of Security’ in some industries. My own cousin was appointed as CSO in one of nationalize bank second day of his superannuation from Army. I asked him as to what made him qualified for this job and title and what book he read or course he undertook to qualify for security profession? He retorted by saying that I was asking the wrong guy and I should be asking this from his recruiter. He was right! What are the QRs (Qualities \ Qualifications Required) fixed for this job of by the banks? I have seen some of the advertisements in the newspaper for the post of CSO in the bank. Even while there are elaborate job descriptions, the QRs are considered to be inbuilt in the rank of the prospective candidate which may be Brigadiers or equal in armed force. This means that such positions are identified akin to the job responsibilities so far undertaken by these candidates. Is it not farcical and immature on the part of the recruiters? Such CSO are unable to make specifications of elementary security systems and gadgets. They are unable to make security related SOPs and they are also unable to draft the HR policies impacting security management functions. Their knowledge about laws related to workmen, contract labours, crimes and private defence is very elementary or sometimes much defected. Such security professional I have known to complete their uninspiring careers without reading something new, without teaching something new!

In recently held seminar during IFSEC 2014 at Delhi, GB Singh was making almost similar point underlining the need for men from armed forces to acquire new skills and knowledge before setting out for second career in industrial security. In the audience one ex-brigadier and two ex-colonel tool offence of this statement giving the impression that since they were high ranking officers from army they were already pre-eminently qualified for top-slot in the industrial security hierarchy. They also accused him to nurse strong bias against army officers and tried to engage in further arguments.

Now those who know GB Singh would also know that some of his best friends are from armed forces. Anyone with decent experience in industrial security would vouch him for his astute knowledge in the field and the sagacity of his in-depth articles on wide range of subjects in the field of industrial security management. He is known domain expert and Thought Leader known and acknowledged not only in India but abroad also. As editor of Security Today he has always maintained impartial and unbiased approach. Therefore such wild allegations rankled me no limits and made me to wonder if those officers' raw-nerves were touched unwittingly and they took the comments made by GB Singh as aimed personally towards them! If this be the case, then provable everything said by GB Singh and also stated above is true in essence.

Unlike European countries, the regulations in India are at very nascent stage. The Private Security Agency Regulation Act still leaves many gaps unplugged. Whereas gateman, bouncer or personal security officer in European countries need licence to start the profession and also regularly revalidate the licenses and undergo refresher course, there is no such requirements in India and that is the real reason that employers do not have elaborate QRs for security professionals nor are there any professional certification courses prescribed for prospective candidates embarking upon the career in the field of industrial security management!

At our own peril we will learn the need and start catering to the same. Amen!