Maladjusted employee who may be emotionally unstable, erratic in behavior,
◾
and unpredictable; or one who was well adjusted but who then becomes unsta-ble, abusive, sarcastic, sullen, or withdrawn without any immediate apparent or known cause.
Apparent signs of an employee living beyond his or her means, including
◾
expensive clothes, new cars, new home, infidelity, excessive alimony or child support, garnishment, bragging about his or her lifestyle.
Accusing another coworker of suspicious behavior or theft.
◾
The security officer or undercover operator who becomes aware of problems such as these or any leading indicator of wrongdoing among employees should consider close observation, the gathering of evidence, and ultimately management involvement.
Any change in deportment or work habits could be a sign of potential vulnerability.
Controls could include the routine testing by honesty shoppers, methodical checking of employees’ packages upon leaving the business facility, but most of all, an active interest, conducted surreptitiously, should be directed to any employee who appears to fall into the above categories. We must consider that most employees are honest, and that only some will affect the company’s shrinkage and losses and other security problems. Accordingly, each case or incident must be based on its own merits.
The Dishonest Security Officer
Bear in mind that one of the most important subjects in any business venture is that of the security or loss prevention officer who is dishonest. Here we have an employee who has been given particular confidence, responsibility, and trust over and above general company personnel, operating with less internal controls than management and their subordinates, and the ability to access all confines and spaces, including protected and secluded areas of the company.
This is an area in which any business enterprise must appreciate that personnel hired to protect the security and safety of the company, its employees, customers, and visitors, should be of the highest caliber and above reproach. Although infre-quent, a security officer will succumb as a victim to his or her own weaknesses. In these cases, an investigative agency may be called upon.
Actions by a deceitful security officer might include monetary exchange for favor-able actions and releases of persons arrested for a crime. This may include shoplifters, and minor thieves within the company. Moreover, other dishonest employees, who may or may not be in managerial or administrative positions once discovered by the officer, use blackmail against these employees to realize a financial gain.
Preemployment Inquiry and Job Satisfaction
How does one secure the services of an honest security officer? And once hired, how can we maintain that honesty and integrity at the highest level possible? The
most generally accepted answer would be the application of intense preemployment investigation prior to hiring any security officer. This may include multiple inter-views; criminal history; driving record; credit, financial, and personal reference checks; drug screening; and work and education verification. The ability or prereq-uisite of certification as a bonded employee would also involve an investigation by other individuals. Because of the nature of the position that the applicant is apply-ing for and the responsibilities that will be expected of him or her, the hirapply-ing and application process should be considered more intense than that for any other job seeker. Consider also that a decent wage with promotional opportunities, appropri-ate salary raises, and suitable accolades should be additional indicators toward job satisfaction.
Integrity Testing
Following that, close supervision and the possible use of routine integrity testing of the individual officer may be considered. Although some businesses and police departments conduct ongoing testing of this type, it may be considered one of the most distinct factors in the development of low employee morale. No one wishes to be questioned or examined in any way as to his or her character, integ-rity, or veracity after they have been employed for a period of time. Procedural testing of this type can cause a debilitating consequence on a group of security officers where cohesiveness, camaraderie, and productivity can be affected. This will be particularly so for the long-time employee who is or has been considered an excellent officer in all ways. Once an employee has been surreptitiously tested and then finds out that he or she was the subject of such a test, the attitude and loyalty of that employee toward the company may be completely destroyed. No matter how the process is handled by management, the erosion of that loyalty may occur immediately, or for the group over a period of time if the process becomes a standard practice.
But make no mistake about it, morale will decline sooner or later. This may be considered the reason most loss prevention and security managers will not become involved in testing the honesty of their subordinates unless they have substantial reason to do so.
Nevertheless, it would be unwise to believe that a security officer or any employee would never commit a dishonest act. Depending on circumstances, the use of some type of testing may have to be considered in order to determine the guilt or inno-cence of the person under scrutiny.
Be mindful, however, if integrity testing is to be conducted within a business establishment, legal counsel should be obtained in order to determine that the rea-son and type of test might be considered judicious and legal.
There are some that question the use of integrity testing in that it may be con-sidered a form of entrapment.
Hiring and Supervising the Security Officer
In a study that included 69 law enforcement departments across the United States, it was shown that the use of personality tests commonly used in the hiring and application process has some validity in identifying those important relationships that may or are linked to corruption.2
In addition to the identification of personality traits, there are some factors or indicators that should be considered during the hiring process. These would include the following3:
Tolerance of or toward others
◾
Willing and able to maintain long-term relationships
◾
Achievement oriented
◾
Willing to accept responsibility and blame
◾
More likely to be controlled by guilt or remorse
◾
A business relies on its security force to be its eyes and ears in all aspects of security and safety, and expects officers employed by them to be above reproach.
Therefore, there can be no doubt that such close inquiry of police candidates can be related to the same type of investigation for security officer applicants. Personality testing, along with close attention to an applicant’s personal background and work history, would increase the probability of hiring an honest officer. How intense and essential the process may be would depend on the level of security expected and the requisite credentials of the applicant.
Once hired, there should be a probationary period that will include exposure to the company’s policies and procedures, asset control policies, and necessary training for the position. Within this period, in particular, the officers’ immediate supervi-sor must offer ongoing adequate and effective training and close supervision.
Entrapment
Simply put, entrapment may be defined as when the method used to obtain evidence was such to create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it, but that the subject was induced or encouraged to engage in such an act that would place him or her in jeopardy. The inducement or encouragement must be active in nature. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. In other words, setting a trap to catch a criminal in the act may be said to be proper. However, inducing or encouraging someone to commit the act is illegal.
Whether during the probationary period of the security officer or subsequently thereafter, the supervisor must be cognizant of the following4:
On-the-job misconduct (found to be the number one predictor of corruption).
◾
This would include violations of company policy, fraud, misappropriation of property, unlawful confiscation, pilferage, extortion, sexual misconduct, favoritism or preferential treatment, to name a few. No matter how trivial the transgression, a supervisor must be constantly observant and react immedi-ately to any misbehavior by a subordinate.
Difficulty getting along with others.
◾
Indications of immaturity, irresponsibility, and unreliability.
◾
The question will arise that once the security officer has been hired and accepted as an honest and viable candidate in protecting the assets of the company, how do we maintain the same attributes we originally observed in the officer? The answer is simply—effective supervision.
A good supervisor must be constantly aware of the conduct and work habits of his subordinates. Their level of expertise, levelheadedness, honest reasoning, attitude, tenacity, leadership ability, and demeanor with others is important.
But so, too, is the officer’s complete acceptance of his department’s mission, ability to work with little or no supervision when necessary, and aptitude for the required compilation and maintenance of records. Values such as these may be considered good characteristics of professionalism, competence, and confidence.
But the supervisor must also have the necessary attributes to receive a faithful and reliable reaction from his or her subordinate. He must have leadership quali-ties, be truthful, act with fairness in all dealings, promote excellence, praise good conduct and work, be able to admonish when necessary, seek innovation, and most importantly, possess high ethical standards.
However, there may come a time when a security officer commits an act of dishonesty. If so, and a determination of guilt is made, termination of employment must be the accepted norm. In other words, “zero tolerance” and, depending on the seriousness of the offense and company policy, arrest and prosecution may be man-datory. Other than that, if suspicion of unauthorized or illegal activity becomes known, the possibility of an integrity test or a sting operation may be required to resolve the question. If such an activity is warranted and authorized by upper management, the company may wish to hire an investigative agency that has some experience in this type of covert investigation.
Notwithstanding a valid suspicion or determination of a dishonest officer, the use of integrity testing as a routine policy within a loss prevention/security department should be avoided so as not to diminish or destroy the morale of the group.