Who’s Really Flying Your Security Plane?

That’s the central challenge for buyers. Organisational accreditations, management systems and business approvals matter greatly, but they do not, on their own, guarantee that the owner-manager, CEO or director leading the company has the competence, judgement and ethical grounding required for the seriousness of the work to be transacted. 

My own career shapes how I view this issue. I spent more than 25 years as an operational lead in security before pursuing formal professional recognition, carrying responsibility for real sites, incidents, teams and client risk long before it was time to hold any post-nominals.

Those were my ‘flight hours’. Later, I chose to submit that experience to external scrutiny by applying to become a Chartered Security Professional and a Fellow of The Security Institute. Chartered Security Professionals must demonstrate competence across defined professional domains and complete annual Continuing Professional Development (CPD). The wider professional framework of The Security Institute recognises experience, qualifications, ethics and continuing development in a structured way.

That journey convinced me that the industry should not have to choose between qualifications and time served. Buyers should expect both: proven operational experience and recognised professional credentials.

Barrier to entry 

Much of the lower end of the market still suffers from a fundamental structural weakness: there’s no meaningful barrier to entry for those seeking to lead a security business. A company can be formed quickly, licensed operatives can be employed and contracts can be pursued, even in a scenario where leadership competence has never been tested in any serious professional sense.

This matters. Why? Many recurring problems in the sector are leadership problems in disguise. Weak supervision, poor welfare, poor compliance, inadequate incident handling and exploitative practices often reflect the judgement and capability of those at the top rather than the conduct of front line personnel. In essence, then, the industry has become better at regulating the aircraft than the pilot. 

The SIA’s direction of travel on business licensing and the proposed Business Approval Scheme are both necessary and welcome. They signal a shift from a purely compliance-driven model towards one more focused on quality of service, intelligence-led oversight and risk-based scrutiny.

That’s a major step forward, but it still primarily regulates the organisation. It tells buyers more about the quality of the plane than about the qualifications and experience of the pilot. If reform stops at business licensing, the industry may improve its systems, while still leaving a major gap in leadership assurance.

Practical benchmark 

The advantage is that the sector doesn’t need to develop a leadership standard from scratch. The Security Institute already operates a structured professional framework that could underpin a proportionate entry benchmark for owner-managers, CEOs and directors.

In particular, the Member (ie MSyI) grade could serve as the minimum threshold for leadership recognition as it already reflects validated experience, relevant qualifications or training, so too professional commitment via an established route. Fellowship and Chartered Security Professional status could then serve as higher tiers of assurance for those leading more complex, higher-risk or otherwise strategically significant services.

This would be both practical and credible. It would rely on an existing sector-owned framework rather than imposing an entirely new cost structure on the industry, while still requiring individuals to invest in their professional standing. 

Any meaningful leadership standard must also be a living standard. One of the strongest features of the Chartered Security Professional framework is that competence is not treated as a one-off achievement: annual CPD is required and must be maintained in order to retain professional standing.

That principle should be applied more widely. If membership of The Security Institute is to serve as an entry benchmark for leaders, annual CPD should become mandatory for all who use it as the basis for approval to lead security businesses. This would reinforce a simple, but clearly important principle: approval should not be a lifetime entitlement, but instead an annually maintained mark of competence, ethics and professional relevance. 

What this means for buyers 

From a buyer’s perspective, this is not an abstract professional debate. It’s about assurance. When a client selects a security provider to protect high-value assets, critical operations or vulnerable individuals, it should not be enough to know that the company has systems, policies and certifications in place.

Buyers should also be asking several key questions:

*what technical and professional qualifications does the director hold?

*what operational ‘flight hours’ do they have?

*are they independently recognised against an established professional standard?

*are they maintaining that competence annually through CPD?

If the answers to those questions are unclear, buyers may be relying too heavily on marketing language and too lightly on leadership assurance.

Some commentators will argue that stronger leadership standards would make it harder for smaller firms to enter the market. That concern deserves respect, but it should not be overstated. The real issue is not whether there should be barriers to entry. It’s whether or not there should be meaningful barriers to entry for those seeking to lead companies in a sector where failure can have serious public, financial and reputational consequences.

A benchmark such as The Security Institute’s Member grade would not close the door on good smaller businesses. It would simply ensure that those entering the market to lead them have demonstrated a minimum level of competence, experience and commitment to professional standards. That would make it easier for credible smaller firms to stand out, while also making it far harder for poorly prepared operators to compete on rhetoric alone.

Pilots matter 

The private security industry has spent years improving the sector through licensing, accreditation and auditing. That work matters and should continue. The next phase of reform should recognise that the quality of the aircraft is only half of the story.

If the asset being protected is valuable, sensitive or safety-critical, buyers and regulators alike should care about the pilot’s qualifications, judgement and experience as much as the condition of the plane.

The future of regulation should not stop with business licensing. Rather, it should move towards a model in which the standards expected of the business are matched by proportionate standards for those at the controls.

David Ward MBE CSyP FSyI is CEO of MS Webb and Chair of the City Security Council (www.mswebb.co.uk)