Nationwide Off Duty Police Officer Security | Athos Group

Nationwide Off Duty Police Officer Security | Athos Group


It was 9 a.m. at work and my desk phone rang. On the other end was an HR business partner who asked: “Jeff, can you have one of your security folks come over to HR?

We are terminating an employee in a few minutes and we are concerned that they may freak out.”

“Who is the employee?” I asked.

To which, unbelievably, they replied, “I can’t tell you.”

The termination was planned by HR for weeks and based on the behavior of the employee, HR’s concern was valid.

My employer thought highly enough of security to ensure paid, experienced security professionals were on site to handle any security concerns that might arise. But for some reason, HR chose not to partner with their Corporate Security in advance and refused to provide basic details, even when they feared for their safety.

An isolated incident, right? Maybe not.

In September I presented at ASIS 2017 on “Conducting a Safe Employee Termination” before about 200 security professionals.

As I shared this story, I saw far too many heads nodding in adamant agreement, so I decided to conduct a spontaneous survey.

I asked anyone who had experienced a similar incident where their HR partners had failed to advise them of a planned, potentially violent encounter, to raise their hands. Almost every hand shot up. Some people even raised both.

This poses a very serious question, "Why would seasoned HR professionals choose not to partner with Corporate Security on encounters that may jeopardize employee safety?".

I suggested that question to both HR professionals and security practitioners, and identified a few possible explanations for the rough relationship.

Haste Prevents Communication

One HR manager I spoke to recalled an employee who, after receiving an email not intended for him, uncovered the plan to terminate him the following day.

Late in the evening, he appeared at the HR manager’s office and confronted her. She admitted that his suspicion was correct and he demanded that his termination occur immediately.

The HR manager conducted the termination by herself, late in the evening, without anyone else knowing. She told me she went ahead with it because she “wanted to get it over with".

Obtaining approval to terminate an employee can and should be a long, well-executed process. And once the approval is received, many HR reps admit they want to do it as quickly as possible, even if that prevents them from conducting it safely.

This could explain a lot of the frustration of the security force because many HR partners see security’s involvement as an unnecessary delay and choose not to involve security.

HR Focuses On Sympathy

The nature of HR professionals’ job is to focus on the needs of people. In my experience, they usually care deeply about the employees they serve.

Once termination is planned, their desire to ensure the employee receives the utmost kindness and dignity, and their belief that security will be overbearing, may cause them to go it alone.

This poses a security risk for HR if the termination doesn't go "smoothly", and, therefore, causes blame to shift upon the security.

Secrecy Hinders Preparation

Personal information should be secured from unauthorized access, yet many HR departments operate in cultures of extreme secrecy where little or no information related to layoffs, terminations, etc., is shared with anyone outside of HR, even when there is a demonstrated need to know.

Many security professionals I spoke to identified this as a primary inhibitor to cooperation. “They don’t want us to know what we need to know to keep them safe.”

While this may not be the intent of HR, it's important to understand that it puts blinders on the security force. This can make it difficult to do their job to the best of their abilities.

Security Loses Its Credibility

Sometimes security providers are their own worst enemies. They often struggle to balance the appropriate planning with the "worst case scenario".

In order to ensure their corporate relevance or enhance their department’s resources, some self-serving security professionals exaggerate minor threats that unintentionally severely erodes their credibility.

Once credibility is lost, HR loses confidence that security will react appropriately to the planned termination and conducts the operation without them.

Denial Of Risk

"If we don’t address workplace violence, it won’t happen.” Many corporate cultures operate in constant denial of what could happen, what is happening elsewhere, and what needs to be done to prevent employee harm.

In these companies, efforts are taken to ensure security doesn’t frighten employees by addressing the issues of violence. The byproduct of this method is that a false sense of security forms within the business which can frustrate the security trying to prepare the company for emergencies.

Once after attempting to begin a conversation on potential workplace violence, a company manager made the statement, “we don’t want you turning our company into an armed camp.”

Unfortunately, the fears of workplace violence fuel the denial that emergencies could happen and prevent taking actions to prevent the possible situation itself.

The Hurricane Factor

Every Summer, as hurricanes bear down on the United States, a select few homeowners are told to “evacuate or perish.”

Some refuse to leave, instead opting to ride out the storm at home. Those who survive, will likely never evacuate again.

Likewise, HR personnel who have conducted dozens of terminations where no violence occurred, despite its likeliness, are likely to “ride out” future events without security assistance.

They don't think it's necessary, and they risk their safety every time they conduct these terminations without the proper security.

Ignorance Of Security's Benefits

To HR partners who have never worked with corporate security professionals, “security” may bring to mind bouncers bent on dragging an employee to the front door.

Even though HR processed your recruitment and hiring, they may be completely unaware of the value and professionalism you bring to their work.

HR may also believe they have all relevant information, even though they often lack details typically provided by corporate security such as an employee’s previous contacts with law enforcement or threatening social media statements.

A few security directors reported close, functional, collaborative relationships with their HR counterparts.

Most explained that this was not always the case and that the relationship had improved dramatically because of security’s efforts, which involved a gradual process of establishing credibility, educating HR on security’s capabilities and value, and building trust.

Moving Forward

Many of us grew up in a world lacking modern safety equipment. We didn’t wear bike, skateboard, motorcycle or ski helmets, we never wore seat belts, and somehow, we survived.

We didn’t worry about getting hurt because we didn’t know what we didn’t know. But as we learned more about what could happen, we changed our behavior and incorporated reasonable safety equipment into our activities.

Eventually, we no longer felt comfortable without helmets and seat belts. It was a gradual process that yielded significant behavior changes.

It’s the same for our HR partners.

In June 2018, I will again present on this topic, this time at SHRM’s Annual Conference. I look forward to gaining additional perspectives from HR professionals and I look forward to continuing the discussion.

Athos logo in a city

Contact Us

Ready to learn more about Athos? Use this form to get in touch with one of our extra duty experts.
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your company.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • This isn't a valid phone number.
    Please enter your phone number.
    You entered an invalid number.
  • Tell us a little bit about your organization.