‘FLexicurity’. What does it mean? Don’t become too excited. The Brussels mandarins haven’t suddenly placed security professionals at the heart of Europe. What they have done, though, is put employment securely at the heart of the labour market, which necessarily presents some interesting challenges for Human Resources managers in the security sector (and any industry that’s labour-reliant).
According to the European Union (EU) commissioners, we can all benefit from better work organisation, and through the upward mobility that results from increased skills and investment in training that will pay off for enterprises while helping workers adapt to and accept change.
The civil servants suggest we can maximise benefits from this high level change by drawing on experience and analytical evidence across four ‘policy areas’, as follows:
Social dialogue on ‘flexicurity’
The new drive does not stop there. The document suggests that “social partners are best placed to address the needs of employers and workers, and detect synergies between them” (which presumably means that external bodies will soon dictate to employers what training to provide and what organisational policies to adopt!).
In fairness, the commissioners do state that it is “up to the relevant Stakeholders, as autonomous organisations, to decide for themselves how to participate in social dialogue on flexicurity policies”. However, in reality this is likely to be down to choosing which external body – for example the British Security Industry Association, the Confederation of British Industry, Skills for Security or the NQA – is to guide you on what your policies and practices can say.
Despite the UK Government’s opt-out from some EU legislation, many larger companies not to mention a few of the smaller ones have unknowingly been working towards ‘flexicurity’ for many years. In fact, some working practices have been causing Human Resources professionals serious excitement (and a few minor headaches). Reading the fine print, it would appear matters are only going to worsen, so what should employers be doing?
From the EU commissioners’ perspective, the first barrier identified is the contractual arrangement between employer and worker. Currently, it’s commonplace for security companies to use their contractual powers in placing a monetary charge over the worker so that, if they leave within a defined period, the employee has to pay back the cost of any training. This works well in those sectors where margins can be eroded by initial training costs (in the security guarding sector, for example).
In other areas, skills training is more about providing specific skills for a specific environment. It’s not for the need of the worker. That being the case, the employee should not be required to repay this training cost. Here, better management skills are best applied. For example, if the employee in question is performing below par, then either re-skill them (if possible), remove them to another role or extricate them from the organisation altogether.
Committing to social cohesion
Under the new regime, employers will have a duty to train workers as part of their commitment to social cohesion. An example of this in action at a technical level here in the UK can be found in the Security Industry Authority licence (which has already introduced an entry level standard for licensed security officers). Although not particularly onerous, the new standards have established a benchmark for the workforce, with employers then grafting on their own variability to this (for example, the so-called ‘added benefits’).
Thus far, security management has escaped this kind of regulation and development. Already, personnel managers can compare the skills levels of someone leaving the Armed Forces with, say, a person vacating a regional management role at a large corporation. This has been achieved by mapping the key skills in both organisations, attaching a value to them and enabling ranking. The Security Institute has embarked on this process on a far broader scale. More recently, the Chartered Institute of Management has announced its comparisons (this time comparing the rank of Royal Navy personnel with its own standards).
Some security industry ‘insiders’ predict that, within five years, all managers will be required to meet new educational standards (perhaps by way of post-graduate level education, or by attaining an NVQ at Level 4).
Another standard practice that will need to change is employers using behavioural interviewing questions to determine the ’employability’ of staff. The known problems with these interviews are that they tend to favour the candidate whose personality best suits the interviewer(s). This is evident when you apply a psychological measurement which shows that the chosen candidate’s score often correlates very closely with the strongest influence in the hiring team.
Faced with challenging discrimination laws, many employers have now modernised their interviewing techniques, introducing a more legally acceptable, competency-based style (in other words, where the employee is more precisely matched against the defined skills or competencies required). However, these are not easy to produce.
Advocating Assessment Centres
We have always been an advocate of Assessment Centres. They reliably predict the ability of potential candidates by having them demonstrate their skills at the point of selection. The adoption of Assessment Centres has been slow within the service sector (only 13% of employers use them at all levels).
As competency-based interviewing and Assessment Centre adoption becomes more widespread, so too does the quality of hiring. Data suggests that making the right hiring decision has a tangible impact on staff attrition. When employees do not want to leave their current role, how will employers attract new staff? By raising the benefits, offering higher wages and increased flexibility?
One obvious solution that fits with the ‘flexicurity’ ideal is for employers to take a lead in attracting migrant workers. The UK claims to have led the way in becoming a multi-cultural society, but the United Kingdom as a whole has not. We have much to do to address the needs of migrant and indigenous workers.
Regarding social integration and cohesion, there’s not much of a lead for employers here, either. Whenever politicians raise the always thorny subject of racial integration, the national press shouts: “Racists!” and all heads go down. So, who’s taking the lead on this subject? Certainly not the Human Resources professional bodies, all of whom are quite mute on the subject.
That means Human Resources managers are left alone to face up to the challenges. Fortunately, many of them are very highly motivated and well-trained. The ideas emerging are practicable and often networked. However, a more structured lead is required, or a high turnover within the migrant workforce will disguise the benefits of this approach.
Striking the right balance
‘Flexicurity’ implies a balance between the rights and responsibilities for employers, workers and job seekers. At the recent BSIA Security Officer Awards (‘Best Security Officers and Teams honoured in 2007 BSIA Awards’, News Special, SMT, August 2007, pp10-11), it was clear that many firms have already embraced the social concepts, and are working towards bringing their organisations closer to the Stakeholders.
Employers are now making great strides to support home working, flexible working hours and job sharing schemes, but what of the other party involved – the workers? Here, the tide is beginning to turn away from employees, with Employment Appeals Tribunals being able to issue civil restraining orders designed to curb vexatious litigants. However, if they are to be truly effective, any Employment Tribunal changes will need to go much further if the balance is to be redressed.
One tenet of the proposals is that this is about security work. It’s not a job for life. In other words, the potential to dismiss staff will be made easier. Change isn’t always seen as a good thing. Neither is it ever simple. Under the current documentation, ‘flexicurity’ should reduce the divide between insiders and outsiders in the labour market. Current insiders will need support to be prepared for – and protected during – job-to-job transitions (a euphemism for redundancies). For their part, however, outsiders will need so-called “easy entry points to work”.
To many, this means increasing the range of flexible employment options. While employers have been keen to embrace that desire where there’s economic advantage, the security industry which often places ease of taking references before skills will struggle here.
Harmonisation of standards
If temporary workers are to become more acceptable in certain quarters such as the alarm installation sector then some harmonisation of standards in relation to vetting procedures is most certainly needed.
Such a drive can be insurance-led. Who, though, should take a lead in engaging the insurance companies? It’s encouraging to note that Human Resources practitioners in general sectors are arguing in favour of a less proscriptive attitude to ex-offenders (for example, recognising that stealing from shops at the age of 14 doesn’t make a person a criminal for life). Without support from senior management, such ideas are moribund.
The EU proposals do suggest a pathway towards ‘flexicurity’, arguing that the implementation requires the establishment of carefully planned and negotiated “combinations and sequences” of policies and measures. In doing so, the proposals recognise that Member States like employers vary considerably in their socio-economic, cultural and institutional composition, so the specific combinations and sequences will also vary.
The document argues that ‘flexicurity’ is about strategy and Best Practice from throughout the EU, providing good opportunities for Member States to learn from each other at all times.
Management professionals have two major advantages when it comes to ‘flexicurity’. First, W Edwards Demming has argued that 95% of a worker’s performance is governed by the systems they work to. Management professionals spend a significant amount of time attempting to understand systems and processes. As such, they only spend 5% of their time on business areas that can make a difference to overall performance.
Second, in his book ‘Freedom from Command and Control’, Professor John Seddon argues that in systems thinking, management’s role should be defined not by what has been achieved, but by how failures have been identified (prevented and corrected). A similar mindset to that of many security professionals reporting on loss, then.
Such a head start bodes very well for the profession of security.
