- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Audience: General Security Management * Security Personnel Management * Operational Management.
"This excellent book is another reminder of Chuck's top-shelf standing among security professionals." ~John J. Fay, author of Contemporary Security Management and owner-operator of learningshopusa.com
"You can’t be in the security industry and consider yourself a professional without being in utter awe of Chuck Sennewald’s remarkable career and accomplishments. The most difficult textbook to write is one that is grounded in common sense and written in a simple and to-the-point style. The fifth edition of his classic, Effective Security Management, is that kind of book. The economy of words-saying all that needs to be said, but not a word more-is elegant. Revised and updated, this book should be in everyone’s professional library-whether student or practitioner." ~John J. Strauchs, co-author of Private Security Trends 1970-2000: The Hallcrest Report II
"Of the five books authored or co-authored by Charles Sennewald that I have read, the fifth edition of Effective Security Management is simply the best. Chuck hit the bulls-eye on this, as its all-encompassing nature ensures that there is something in the book for security practitioners of every level." ~Leslie Cole, Sr., CPP, CST, Member of the Board - IAPSC, Council Vice President - ASIS International
"The fifth edition of this comprehensive work on security management for corporations and institutions presents the fundamentals of effective security practices updated to address the latest trends and contemporary challenges in the field. Rather than focusing on particular types of businesses or narrow aspects of security such as site security or data protection, this volume teaches best practices for establishing a solid security regime across all aspects of an entity's internal and external processes. The work is divided into five sections covering general security management, security personnel management, operational management, public relations and the perils of mismanagement. Individual chapters address such topics as the role of security and the security director in organizational structures, hiring and training security personnel, contracting, planning and budgeting, administrative tasks, policy and procedure development and implementation, building an internal security culture, and relationships with law enforcement and the community. Individual chapters include illustrations, tables, summaries and review exercises. Sennewald is a security consultant and a former security director for retail firms."--Book News, Reference & Research
"The intent of this most recent edition of Effective Security Management is to focus on one goal-providing security managers with a base of knowledge, attitudes, and practices similar to that of other management professions. The author has certainly achieved his goal. This well-structured book can be used as a security professional’s template for setting up and organizing effective security operations in virtually any setting."--Security Management
The structural framework of an organization is a vehicle for accomplishing the purposes for which a company or a department is established. That skeleton, the organizational structure itself, does not think, has no initiative, and cannot act or react. However, it is absolutely essential in the work environment. A sound organizational framework facilitates the accomplishment of tasks by members of the organization — people working under the supervision of responsible managers.
A hospital, for example, is organized for the purpose of providing health care services. A subunit of that master organization, the Security Department, is organized for the purpose of protecting that health care environment. Organization, then, is the arrangement of people with a common objective or purpose (in a manner to make possible the performance of related tasks grouped for the purpose of assignment) and the establishment of areas of responsibility with clearly defined channels of communication and authority.
In the design of a sound organizational framework there are six widely accepted principles:
1. The work should be divided according to some logical plan.
2. Lines of authority and responsibility should be made as clear and direct as possible.
3. One supervisor can effectively control only a limited number of people, and that limit should not be exceeded. (This principle is called span of control.)
4. There should be "unity of command" in the organization.
5. Responsibility cannot be given without delegating commensurate authority, and there must be accountability for the use of that authority.
6. All efforts of subunits and personnel must be coordinated into the harmonious achievement of the organization's objectives.
Because each of these principles has a meaningful application within a security organization, it is helpful to elaborate on them.
Logical Division of Work
The necessity for the division of work becomes apparent as soon as you have more than one person on the job. How the work is divided can have a significant impact on the results at the end of the day. The manner and extent of the division of work influence the product or performance qualitatively as well as quantitatively. The logical division of work, therefore, deserves close attention.
There are five primary ways in which work can be divided:
2. Process or method
It is most common for work to be divided according to purpose. The Security Department could be organized into two divisions: a Loss Control or Loss Prevention division (its purpose is to prevent losses) and a Detection division (its purpose is to apprehend those who defeated the efforts of the prevention unit).
Process or Method
A process unit is organized according to the method of work; all similar processes are in the same unit. An example in security might be the alarm room operators and dispatchers or the credit card investigators unit of the general investigative section.
Work may also be divided according to the clientele served or worked with. Examples here would be the background screening personnel, who deal only with prospective and new employees; store detectives, who concentrate on shoplifters; or general retail investigators, who become involved with dishonest employees, forgers, and other criminal offenders.
Division of work by purpose, process, or clientele is really a division based on the nature of the work and consequently is referred to as "functional." In other words, the grouping of security personnel to perform work divided by its nature (purpose, process, or clientele) is called functional organization.
For many organizations, the functional organization constitutes the full division of work. Security, however, like police and fire services in the public sector, usually has around-the-clock protective responsibilities. In addition, unlike its cousins in the public sector, it may have protective responsibilities spread over a wide geographic area.
At first glance, the 24-hour coverage of a given facility may appear relatively simple. It might be natural to assume there should be three, 8-hour shifts with fixed posts, patrol, and the communication and alarm center all changing at midnight, 8:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. However, a number of interesting problems surface when a department begins organizing by time:
How many security people are necessary on the first shift? If a minimum security staff takes over at midnight and the facility commences its business day at 7:00 a.m., can you operate for 1 hour with the minimum staff or must you increase coverage prior to 7:00 a.m. and overlap shifts? (There are hundreds of variables to just this type of problem.)
If you have two or more functional units, with some personnel assigned to patrol and others assigned to the communications and alarm center (in another organizational pyramid altogether), who is in command at 3:00 a.m.? The question of staff supervision confuses many people. (See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of staff supervision.)
How much supervision is necessary during facility downtime? If the question is not how much, then how is any supervision exercised at 3:00 a.m.?
If there are five posts, each critical and necessary, and five persons are scheduled and one fails to show, how do you handle the situation? Should you schedule six persons for just that contingency?
These and other problems do arise and are resolved regularly in facilities of every kind. Organizing by time, a way of life for security operations, does create special problems that demand consideration, especially if this approach to the division of work is a new undertaking for a company.
Whenever a Security Department is obliged to serve a location removed from the headquarters facility, and one or more security personnel are assigned to the outlying location, there is one major issue that must be resolved: To whom does the security personnel report — to security management back at headquarters or to site management (which is nonsecurity)?
The real issue is should nonsecurity management have direct supervision over a security employee who has technical or semitechnical skills that are beyond the competence or understanding of nonsecurity management personnel?
In defining the type of authority an executive or supervisor exercises, a distinction is generally made between line and staff authority. Although these terms have many meanings, in its primary sense, line authority implies a direct (or single line) relationship between a supervisor and his or her subordinate; the staff function is service or advisory in nature.
Security personnel should only be directly supervised by security management. Site management may provide staff supervision, providing suggestions and assistance, but these should be restricted to such matters as attention to duty, promptness in reporting, and compliance with general rules. Detailed security activities fall outside the jurisdiction of site management.
Nonsecurity management should not have line authority (direct supervision) over security, not only because of the issue of professional competency but also because site management should not be beyond the "reach" of security. Site management would indeed be out of reach if the only internal control, security, was subject to its command. Site management would be free to engage in any form of mischief, malpractice, or dishonesty without fear of security's reporting the activities to company headquarters.
Clear Lines of Authority and Responsibility
Once the work has been properly divided, the organization takes on the appearance of a pyramid-like structure, within which are smaller pyramids, as illustrated in Figure 1–1. Each part of each pyramid defines, with exactness, a function or responsibility and to whom that function is responsible. One can easily trace the solid line upward to the Security Manager or Security Director who is ultimately responsible for every function within the security organization.
Not only is it important to have this organizational pyramid documented, normally in the form of an organizational chart, it is also essential that security employees have access to the chart so they can see exactly where they fit into the organization pattern, to whom they are responsible, to whom their supervisor is responsible, and so on right up to the top. Failure to so inform employees causes unnecessary confusion, and confusion is a major contributor to ineffective job performance.
In addition, the organizational chart is a subtle motivator. People can see themselves moving up in the boxes; for goal-setting to be successful, one must be able to envision oneself already in possession of one's goal.
Finally, the apparent rigidity of boxes and lines in the organizational chart must not freeze communication. Employees at the lowest layer of the pyramid must feel free to communicate directly with the Security Manager without obtaining permission from all of the intervening levels of supervision.
Span of Control
There is a limit to the number of subordinates who can be supervised effectively by one person, and that limit should not be exceeded. The limit ranges from a maximum of five at the highest level in the organization to a maximum of twelve at the lowest level. The greater the degree of sophistication of the interactions between supervisors and subordinates, the narrower the optimal span of control. However, this very important principle is in jeopardy as we have entered into the twenty-first century because of the growing trend of "flattening" the organizational pyramid; that is, having fewer supervisors and/ or supervisors with expanded responsibilities. This trend increasingly presents an operational dilemma that must be addressed by each organization.
Exceeding the limits of span of control is really no different from spreading oneself too thin in some nonwork environment, such as school. If a student carries a full academic load of core subjects, becomes involved in student government, goes out for varsity football, is engaged to be married, belongs to the military reserve, and works 20 hours a week in a convenience store, it is likely that some of these activities will not receive the attention they deserve and few, if any, will be done with excellence.
Slipshod, undisciplined, and poorly executed security work is an almost inevitable consequence of violating the organizational principle of span of control.
Unity of Command
The fourth principle, that of unity of command, means that an employee should be under the direct control of one and only one immediate superior (Figure 1–2). This principle also dictates that a task or function requiring the action of two or more people must also be under the direct control of one supervisor.
Excerpted from Effective Security Management by Charles A. Sennewald Copyright © 2011 by Elsevier Inc.. Excerpted by permission of Butterworth-Heinemann. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Posted July 27, 2009
No text was provided for this review.