Differences between Contract Security and Proprietary Security
Abstract
Security is crucial to the success of any business entity. The role of security is to ensure a business improves by protecting the company’s property, employees, and customers from harm while at the premises. Safety comes in many forms, but a common objective unites all of them. There are two common types of security methods: contract and proprietary/in-house security. On its part, contract security usually involves an organization outsourcing the security function to a contract security company. The security company then assigns security guards that meet the needs of the customer. In addition to this, the contractor also provides other services such as response to alarm calls and other forms of security assistance when requested. Proprietary security, on the other hand, involves the business entity recruiting its own security personnel based on the management’s preferences. Under this method, the organization’s leadership determines the set of policies and protocols for the security officers. Although the two approaches share a common goal, there exist distinct differences in their implementation. However, the most significant differences exist in the cost of execution; the ease of integration of the security workers into organizational protocols, culture and behavior; performance consistency of the respective security officers; and turnover rates and disciplinary power. These differences play a huge role when deciding on which method best fits a particular company and is likely to contribute positively to the growth of the entity. However, it is squarely the responsibility of the organizations to determine which method to implement in their business.
Introduction
Security is an essential aspect of today’s business. Adequately securing the business from physical and cyber threats helps minimize risks arising from thefts and physical violence. Security issues such as corporate espionage, privacy requirements, and workplace violence demand that businesses ensure they are safe all-round. Therefore, companies have the option to choose between contract security and proprietary security. Contract security involves outsourcing the security role to a private security agency. The contracted firm provides substantial security services through security personnel who are hired, trained, and effectively managed by the contracting company (Cohen, 1979). The contract security staff protect the contracting company’s property, their workforce, and customers by utilizing round the clock perimeter protection, video surveillance, and by responding to alarm calls and other requests for security assistance (Bradford, n.d). While cost-saving is the primary benefit of this security arrangement, and even more significant advantage is the vast experience and knowledge the security contractor brings with him to the company, as well as their adherence to up-to-date industry trends and regulatory standards. Proprietary security, on the other hand, is a type of security where the business owner is responsible for security. The business addresses security problems without seeking the assistance of outside companies. This method allows the organization to determine effective policies and procedures to be used by security staff. The success of proprietary security heavily depends on the existence of a rigorous recruiting, training, career-focused department that is committed to organizational safety and the welfare of the security personnel.
While contract and proprietary security strive to achieve the same objective- security, there are distinct differences between the two methods (Cohen, 1979). These implementation differences form the primary considerations when determining the appropriate type of protection for individual businesses. This paper will compare the two methods and outline the significant differences that exist between them based on factors such as cost,
The cost of each security program presents a principal difference between in-house and contract security. Industry experts agree that the price associated with contract guard services is significantly lower than that associated with hiring in-house security personnel. These reductions occur in several areas, including additional staff employment. Proprietary security requires the hiring of full-time security employees. This means additional costs such as holiday pay, vacations, benefits, salary raises (annual or otherwise), overtime pay, and relief for days off (an extra two or three guards for every six security requirements). In addition, the organization will have to cover the recruiting, training, equipment, and sustainment costs. A contract security agency can provide the same services at a lower cost due to economies of scale (Holden, n.d). Another area is employee replacement. Given the vast resources required to train prospective guards in proprietary security, the cost of replacing employees that have left the organization is quite expensive compared to outsourced security. Therefore, in terms of cost, organizations that hire their own security officers are always at a disadvantage.
Still, on the same point, contract security companies have a host of security equipment and systems at their disposal, which they can readily provide to their respective customers to supplement manned guarding. These particular apparatus are advantageous, especially when responding to emergency incidents and offering an evident-backed record of events. These services come as an upfront cost to the security service provider and which the contracting company will pay in installments within a given period. Thus, resulting in cost-saving on the side of the customer (Holden, n.d). However, this is the complete opposite of the in-house security program. Under this approach, the organization has to buy all the costly security equipment and systems – at once. This certitude consequently makes this method expensive to implement.
Another difference between the two methods involves the integration of the security staff with organizational procedures, culture, and behavior. Compared to contract security employees, in-house security staff is more efficaciously integrated into the culture and practice of the business. They are also more conversant with the organization’s core security objectives. Such employees tend as well, to feel more invested and loyal to the company. This is because when a company hires its own security officers as opposed to hiring those perceived to be outsiders, it fosters a good relationship with them.
Consequently, this creates a sense of belonging within this group. Similarly, other employees in the company are more likely to view the security staff as equal players in the organization (Holden, n.d). And as they spend more time working in the company, they become more attached to it. This is nearly impossible within a contract security setting as the security officers are not considered part of the team. Besides, contract guards provide their services in more than one organization, making it challenging to enhance loyalty. Therefore, building organizational loyalty among contract security officers is an uphill task.
Performance consistency is yet another area of difference between in-house security and contract security. It has been consistently observed that security employees hired directly by a company tend to be more reliable. This is mostly because the same hired employees report to work every day; however, when dealing with outsourced security guards, the contractor may decide to assign different guards to the business premises every other day, depending on the requirements of other customers. This can, in turn, result in performance inconsistencies. The new guards are mainly unfamiliar with company protocols, layout, or even other employees – basically, the learning process keeps on being interrupted. Conversely, even if a company hires its own security employees, at a later stage, the management will also have to replace workers that have moved on to other employments. Usually, a majority of these companies do not have an effective readily replacement program to replace guards, whereas security contractors have this capability.
Moreover, there are also apparent differences in terms of turnover rates and disciplinary power, which, in the long run, affect the business. Contract security services are often associated with high employee turnover. This is because the guards are not used to staying in one particular work environment. When this happens, they are often unable to adapt to the culture of the organization, and if not reassigned, they may decide to terminate their employment altogether. Besides, given the contracting company’s power to determine which employees are fired, hired or reassigned to other clients, the turnover rates are usually abnormally high as compared to proprietary security; where security employees integrate into the company’s culture and become part of the team hence rendering their firing almost impossible. Regarding the disciplinary power, contract security services offer the limited ability for businesses to address adverse work performance problems with the responsible officer directly. However, such issues are uncommon in in-house security services, since the company can deal directly with indisciplined and underperforming workers.
Conclusion
As seen, there exist substantial differences between in-house and contract security. These differences are what makes the security methods more plausible than the other. Although we cannot definitively say that one approach is superior to the other, the choice of which is more effective/superior lies with the respective businesses. This effectively means that, while in-house security may seem to work for company A, that does not mean it will work for company B, and vice versa. The trick is to leverage these differences to determine which method is likely to guarantee returns for your company.