How to Ethically Handle a Bad Security Situation

Over a period of time there has been a large rise in the amount of robberies and crimes committed outside of the hotel. It has come to securities attention that something needs to be done before these situations get out of control and more serious or violent crimes are allowed on the hotel's property. This would not only be bad for the community and those involved, but the hotel's reputation would greatly be tarnished and could cause a major slow-down in business. Something has to be done to stop these events before they get worse.

The main resistance to creating a new security plan is that the company president is more worried about crime inside the hotel and her money than the security of her guests and the surrounding community members. The main idea of security is to make sure that the hotel's assets as a whole are protected. The security managers supervised by the executive supervisor are against taking personnel away from the hotel interior because there will be less security presence to protect inner hotel assets that are more important to their areas of interest and that of the company president. All other hotel managers are against the change also.

After the changes have occurred, community leaders and the media are trying to find out why the changes were needed around the hotel. The company president did not allow police to be notified of the increase in criminal activity. Her stance was that any inquiries pertaining to whether there has been an increase in crime in the hotel must be denied, so it confuses the public as to why all of a sudden the African- American community members that have had a great relationship with the hotel are being hassled and treated as suspects.

Making the Decision of What to Do

With any executive job, especially ones entrusted in keeping people safe, there is going to be an added amount of risk and liability to your job. Most of these risks are driven by the desire to be able to do the best for your company and customers (Berman and West 1998: 345). As a security executive, it should be your job to make sure all of your entrusted assets are secure. For this hotel, you are entrusted with the security of the money and of the customers that pay for your protection. Professional training requires that you carry out this job in an ethical way.

Berman and West state that, "ethical action is inspired and pro-active in being concerned with honesty, responsiveness, accountability, and the well being of others (346)." The company president is trying to have these ethical principals broken and it will take a substantial risk to go against her to get the problem solved in a way that makes everyone happy. You legally are entrusted with protecting all aspects of the hotel and if a murder or other violent crime occurs on the hotel property, you will be directly accountable for the incident and not the company president unless you are able to prove her negligence by not allowing changes to the security plans.

As an executive, a plan should be made and the correct decision of moving personal to proactive positions to combat the immediate threat of the robberies should be the number one priority of the security team for the time being. If the restaurants start having more crime or there is a threat against any other part of the hotel, then security personnel can be moved to those areas quickly. The main areas of risk need to be addressed before areas with no current problems get a say in how security should be run.

The other managers and supervisors from the hotel should be able to have input into the plan and should be consulted before a decision is made. Not all managers from different areas of the hotel have expertise on other areas of the hotel but they may be able to provide you insight into how to better protect their areas. The final decision on changes should be left to the executive that has direct accountability for the consequences, good or bad, that come from decision making on the final security plans.

I do believe that the right choice was made in the movement of inside security to the outside grounds to show a strong presence of crime prevention in the area for the short term. The greatest area of threat should receive the most attention. The safety of everyone should be the security executive's main concern and this shows good decision making to prevent future crimes. For long term plans, there should always been a larger amount of security presence on the outside of the hotel to prevent the events from ever happening again. There will probably not be the need for all five extra guards after a few weeks and the other managers should be aware of the changes when the guards are able to be used inside the hotel again. A reasonable time line for bringing the guards back to their other positions that kept the other managers happy should be given to them so they feel like you are not trying to take away the importance of their department or area.

Why the Changes Must Be Made

In the course of trying to hide and cover crimes, the company president will set up a feeling in the community that crime is tolerated on their property. Crime affects the entire community and not only the target of the crimes. The more crime that is located in an area, the less likely people are going to want to live there and be productive members of that community (Taylor 1995: 29). From the descriptions of the crimes, it seems as if it is normally two men creating the problems. If others see that they are not punished for their crimes they also may start to see the customers outside the hotel as easy targets. If they are able to get away with smaller crimes outside the hotel then they may start to get the mentality that they can get away with larger personal crimes, crimes inside the hotel, or even attract others to their delinquent practices (31).

Another effect on the community as a whole is that they be less likely to help the hotel with their crime or other problems if they see they allow these types of crimes to occur (Taylor 1995: 33). Residents may not report crimes they see out of fear for their own lives or they may just up and move, taking their support away and leaving the undesirables to move in closer (34). Ignoring the problem will not solve anything.

The pastor and probably many other members of the community may have a problem with the officers stopping and searching African-American men. The community is not aware that crimes have occurred; much less that it has been men from their community accused of them. They may feel discriminated against all of a sudden by a hotel they have supported throughout the years which may cause a huge negative backlash against the hotel.

They may even feel like the hotel is engaging in racial profiling by thinking they just look guilty because they are African American. This is a touchy subject for security and businesses to journey into, but all of the crimes are suspected to be only committed by a certain type person. The profiling can definitely have its advantages in that they know what they are looking for in a potential suspect, but it violates the basic rights these men have as Americans (Trende 2000: 333). With the nature of the United States history many members of the hotels community already have an uneasy relationship with any type of police or security (334). This is likely to have another negative impact on the community's view and relationship with the hotel.

All security members that are involved in the new operation should be informed of the negative effects of racial profiling. They should also be informed of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so that the rights of anyone being searched or watched are not violated and have a chance at a lawsuit against the hotel (342). With influential community leaders behind the rights of those being searched no lead way should be given to them so they do not look like the good guys against the big bad business because they will give negative media and legal attention to your hotel.

The media can play a huge role in the outcome of your security operations. If they find out that crimes are being covered up or that unethical business practices are being followed, they will be the first ones to make sure that you are punished or at least humiliated in the pursuit of an audience (Gilliam and Iyengar 2000: 560). The media has already been in contact about the robberies so apparently the entire situation isn't as quiet as the company president would like. Rather than trying to cover up anything, a consultation with the president about asking the media for help in finding the suspects instead than trying to fight them and probably making yourself look rude and unethical in the process should be the next step.

How the media spins your story will make the biggest community opinion of how your hotel is viewed (Gilliam and Iyengar 2000: 561). If you are honest and show you are trying to help the community they may be supportive back and give you information or try and help find the people that are making their neighborhood unsafe. There will always be those that judge you as being racially discriminatory, but in the long run you may have a better chance at keeping good community and investor relations if you are open and honest. The media may not take this angle in the story, but ethically you have done the right thing and made the right decisions in keeping the hotel assets protected.

By making the right moral and ethical decisions, a security manager or executive will make the best decision possible for a given situation. In this situation, a calculated risk against the company must be taken in order to protect their future. They might only have been looking at the immediate effects of what a few robberies may do to their image, but imagine what a massive crime wave or murder would do in the long term. A good security executive should be able to foresee these potential problems and relay them to the other employees. If all executives and managers are able to keep these ethical principles and pass them on, then the future of security and security management may gain more respect and professionalism in the future. Employees learn by watching their supervisors and managers on what is and what is not acceptable. By teaching good ethical decision making, security employees will have a bright future.

References

Berman, E.M. & West, J.P. (1998). Responsible Risk-Taking. Public Administration Review. 58(4), 346-352. Retrieved November 6, 2006 from JSTOR Database: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-3352%28199807%2F08%2958%3A4%3C346%3ARR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

Gilliam, F.D. Jr, & Iyengar, S. (2000, July). Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local Television New on the Viewing Public. American Journal of Political Science. 44(3), 560-573). Retrieved November 6, 2006 from JSTOR Database: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-5853%28200007%2944%3A3%3C560%3APSTIOL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

Taylor, R.B. (1995, May). The Impact of Crime on Communities. Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. 539, 28-45. ). Retrieved November 7, 2006 from JSTOR Database: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28199505%29539%3C28%3ATIOCOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

Trende, S. (2000). Why Modest Proposals Offer the Best Solution for Combating Racial Profiling. Duke Law Journal, 50(1), 331-380. Retrieved November 7, 2006 from JSTOR Database: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-7086%28200010%293%3A50%3A1%3C331%3AWMPOTB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7.