By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — April 29, 2026

Why Security Exists in the First Place

In many commercial environments, security officers are not hired because management wants them. They are hired because insurers require them.

Businesses operating in higher-risk areas—whether due to crime rates, asset value, or operational exposure—often face increased insurance premiums. One of the most common mitigation strategies is the presence of on-site security personnel (Insurance Information Institute, 2023).

In some cases, this requirement is explicit. In others, it is financial: the cost of hiring security is lower than the increase in insurance premiums without it.

Security, in this context, is not viewed as an operational asset. It is a cost-control measure.

The Cost Versus Value Problem

This dynamic creates an immediate contradiction.

From an insurance standpoint:

  • Security presence reduces liability
  • Security provides documentation and incident reporting
  • Security acts as a deterrent

From a management standpoint:

  • Security appears inactive during uneventful periods
  • Security does not directly generate revenue
  • Security is seen as an expense

This leads to a perception gap.

When nothing happens, management often concludes that security is unnecessary. In reality, the absence of incidents is frequently the result of deterrence and monitoring—functions that are not immediately visible (Button, 2007).

The “They’re Not Doing Anything” Misconception

One of the most persistent misunderstandings about security work is the idea that inactivity equals uselessness.

Security officers are trained to:

  • Observe
  • Report
  • Document

They are not, in most cases:

  • Law enforcement officers
  • Investigators
  • Agents of force

The primary function is preventive presence and accurate reporting.

This creates a paradox:

  • If nothing happens, the officer appears idle
  • If something happens, the officer is expected to respond

The expectation that security should actively prevent crime misunderstands both the legal limitations and the practical role of private security (ASIS International, 2021).

Legal Boundaries and Risk Exposure

Security officers operate under strict legal constraints.

If an officer:

  • Uses force improperly
  • Detains someone without proper authority
  • Acts beyond the scope of their role

The liability does not fall on law enforcement. It falls on the employer—and potentially the client.

The widely cited standard—“observe and report”—exists precisely to limit this liability (U.S. Department of Labor, 2024).

When management pressures officers to “do more” without understanding these limits, they are not increasing security. They are increasing legal risk.

Workplace Attitudes and Social Perception

The insurance-driven nature of security employment contributes to a broader cultural issue.

Because security is:

  • Required rather than desired
  • Viewed as a cost rather than an investment

Officers are often treated as:

  • Unnecessary
  • Replaceable
  • Low-skill labor

This can manifest as dismissive or degrading attitudes from management and staff.

At its core, this reflects a misunderstanding of the role and a devaluation of the function security provides.

Deterrence Is Invisible by Design

Effective security is often invisible.

A visible presence can:

  • Discourage opportunistic crime
  • Signal monitoring and accountability
  • Reduce the likelihood of incidents occurring

When this deterrence works, there is nothing to see.

This creates a fundamental disconnect:

  • The better the system functions, the less visible its impact

And in many organizations, invisibility is interpreted as inactivity.

The Structural Contradiction

The system creates a loop:

  • Insurance requires security
  • Companies hire security to meet that requirement
  • Managers resent the cost
  • Security is undervalued
  • Expectations become unrealistic

This contradiction is not the result of individual behavior. It is built into the structure of how security is deployed.

Conclusion

Security officers exist in many workplaces not because they are fully understood, but because they are required. This creates a disconnect between purpose and perception.

When security is treated as a cost rather than a function, and when its role is misunderstood, both the effectiveness of the system and the treatment of the people within it suffer.

Understanding what security is—and what it is not—is essential to resolving that disconnect.

If you read this and it matters, help me keep it going: https://www.patreon.com/cw/WPSNews

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

References

ASIS International. (2021). Private security principles and practices. ASIS International.

Button, M. (2007). Security officers and policing: Powers, culture and control in the governance of private space. Ashgate Publishing.

Insurance Information Institute. (2023). Commercial property risk and insurance practices. https://www.iii.org

U.S. Department of Labor. (2024). Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa

Discover more from WPS News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.