Building Mutual Trust in the UK Security Industry
How can security operators and companies get on the same page? In the UK’s diverse security sector – from door supervisors at pubs, to shopping centre guards, to close protection details – trust is the invisible force that keeps things running smoothly (or not). This post dives into why that trust often falters and how to rebuild it, with real (but anonymised) examples of both breakdowns and breakthroughs.
The Trust Deficit: Why Security Pros and Firms Drift Apart
One recent survey of UK frontline security personnel, only 44.5% said they were sure they’d renew their mandatory licence when it expires; a whopping 38.5% were undecided. That indecision hints at an underlying lack of faith in the industry’s future. If an operator isn’t even sure they want to stay in the field, you can bet their trust in their employer’s promises is thin. On the flip side, many security firms operate on razor-thin margins and high client expectations, which can breed a “just get the job done” attitude rather than investing in long-term trust.
Why does this trust gap matter? Because when a security officer “checks out” or a company stops caring, the consequences aren’t just hurt feelings – they’re safety risks and business costs. Disengaged guards lead to lapses in vigilance: as one industry analysis bluntly noted, if a security guard mentally clocks out, “people can get hurt, businesses may be exposed to increased theft or vandalism,” and incidents can spiral. For companies, constant turnover and mistrust mean higher retraining costs and a revolving door of staff who never truly understand the site or the client. It’s a lose-lose cycle.
Why Trust Matters More Than Ever
Trust isn’t a fluffy concept; it’s a practical cornerstone of effective security work. When an operator trusts their company, they are more likely to go the extra mile – to cover an extra shift in a pinch, to confidently handle a crisis knowing their back-up will come, or to report problems early without fear of being ignored. When a company trusts its operators, it empowers them with autonomy and respects their feedback, rather than micromanaging or second-guessing every decision. In an ideal world, both sides feel “we’re in this together.”
If distrust prevails, the industry could degrade into what one veteran called a “McJob”. In a detailed study of UK security work, experts warned that without changes, security roles risk becoming seen as dead-end, placeholder jobs filled by people “not serious about their profession” – which would have “truly horrendous consequences over the long term” for public safety. In other words, if experienced, dedicated guards keep leaving due to broken trust, and are replaced by uninvested staff, everyone (employees, companies, and the public) loses out.
Let’s explore five key trust factors – pay, scheduling, training, communication, and duty of care – and see how each can sour or strengthen the operator-company relationship. Along the way, we’ll share anonymised stories of what happens when things go wrong and when they go wonderfully right. And yes, we’ll play devil’s advocate on both sides, because understanding each other’s viewpoint is part of rebuilding trust.
Pay Transparency and Fairness: “Show Me the Money (Honestly)”
Money talks, and in security it often says, “you’re not worth much.” UK security officers are typically paid around the legal minimum. The Security Industry Authority (SIA) found in 2022 that the usual guard wage was roughly the National Living Wage (about £9.50 at the time). Remarkably, average pay in this sector hadn’t improved significantly since 2006. Guards today are often making the same in real terms as guards 15 years ago, even while inflation and licensing costs have marched on. It’s hard to feel valued by your employer when your wage slip basically says “you’re only as good as the law requires us to pay.”
Case in point: A security officer (we’ll call him “Jim”) took a job with a regional security firm that promised “competitive pay.” In reality, Jim was misclassified as a self-employed subcontractor – a loophole some firms use to avoid benefits and holiday pay. He worked 12-hour night shifts for weeks on end. The company paid him below minimum wage with no holiday pay by claiming he wasn’t an “employee.” When Jim raised a complaint about these unfair wages, management’s response was to stop giving him shifts altogether. He effectively got fired for asking to be paid what the law says he’s owed. This kind of wage abuse is an extreme trust-destroyer. Not only was Jim underpaid, but the company also wasn’t transparent about his employment status – a one-two punch to morale. Jim has since taken legal action, but the damage was done: neither he nor his colleagues trust a word from that employer now.
Devil’s advocate: Security firms often operate on contracts that are won by the lowest bidder. A manager might say, “We’d love to pay more, but clients won’t cover higher rates. If we raise wages, we lose the contract and everyone loses their job.” There’s some truth there – the competitive tendering in security can create a race to the bottom on pay. However, if a company is squeezing margins by underpaying staff or using shady tactics (like calling them self-employed when they’re not), they are trading short-term savings for long-term trust erosion. It’s a classic penny-wise, pound-foolish strategy. Operators aren’t blind to this; many know the client is likely being billed far more per hour than they see in their wages. Secrecy around that gap breeds resentment.
What works: By contrast, some companies have decided to bet on trust – and it’s paying off. One UK security firm recently committed to Real Living Wage accreditation, meaning they pay all their officers a wage calculated on actual living costs (not just the government minimum). The result? They saw lower turnover, greater loyalty and more motivated officers, according to their CEO. In fact, even during a tough labor market, this firm isn’t struggling to recruit like others, because trained guards are actively seeking them out for better pay and respect. They also chose to be up-front about pay scales: new recruits are told exactly what they’ll earn and how raises are decided. “We believe it is our duty to ensure our colleagues earn enough to cover essentials, regardless of role or rank,” the CEO said when inflation spiked. That kind of statement, followed by action, sends a powerful trust signal to employees: we see your value.
Transparency in pay can take simple forms. For example, some companies clearly list the hourly rate for each contract or site and any bonus structure, so guards know if a job pays £10/hour or £13/hour and why (e.g. higher risk or remote location). When there are opportunities for overtime or advancement to higher-paid roles (like supervisor or control room positions), those pathways and pay bumps are communicated openly. An operator who understands how they can earn more, and believes the company is doing its best to reward them fairly, is far more likely to stick around.
Reliable Scheduling and Job Security: No More Shift Shenanigans
Unfortunately, but necessary, zero-hour contracts and erratic schedules are common in the industry. Job reliability – knowing you’ll actually get the hours (and income) you were promised – is a huge part of trust.
Case in point: A team of venue security stewards (event operators) in the Midlands had an understanding with their company that they’d get at least 30 hours a week. It wasn’t in writing, but it was “assumed” because that had been the pattern for months. Suddenly, when a big contract ended, many of them saw their hours slashed to near zero with no warning. One week you’re working five days, the next week only one short shift. The company didn’t openly communicate about the contract loss or try to redistribute hours fairly; some officers only found out when they checked the rota and saw blank spaces. Feeling disposable and misled, several quit on the spot. Those who remained certainly didn’t trust any future promises like “we’ll make it up to you next month.”
This scenario is all too familiar: unsociable hours and lack of flexibility are cited as major reasons people leave security jobs. Many guards are willing to work late nights and weekends – it comes with the territory – but they need some stability. Constantly changing shift patterns or being on-call without compensation quickly breeds resentment. An operator might think, “My company only sees me as a warm body to plug a gap, not as a person with a life and bills to pay.”
Devil’s advocate: Managers will argue that in security, “the only constant is change.” Client needs fluctuate, emergencies happen, and staff call in sick, so they must adjust schedules on the fly. Also, some companies genuinely cannot guarantee hours because they themselves only get short-term assignments. While that’s understandable on occasion, if chaos becomes the norm in scheduling, it means the company is shifting all the instability onto the operators – which erodes trust fast. There’s a difference between occasional emergency changes and a systemic lack of scheduling transparency. The latter is what makes operators feel like they’re always waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What works : Trust-building companies treat their operators’ time with respect. They give as much advance notice as possible for shifts (using tools like scheduling apps or at least a steady weekly pattern) and honour minimum hours where they can. One success story comes from a UK security contractor that moved many of its staff from zero-hour contracts to guaranteed-hour contracts after feedback. Management realised they were losing good people who couldn’t plan their lives on uncertain schedules. Now, even if a client contract is lost, those guards get paid a base number of hours and are reassigned to other work or given additional training during idle time. The result: employees feel more secure and trust that the company won’t pull the rug out from under them. In return, when an urgent coverage need does arise, these operators are far more likely to step up – they know it’s a two-way street. As one guard put it, “They’ve had my back in slow weeks, so I’ll have theirs when things get busy.”
Communication and Feedback: Breaking the “Radio Silence”
Ever worked a job where you only hear from the boss when something’s gone wrong? Unfortunately, many security operators have. Communication breakdown is a silent killer of trust. When operators on the ground feel their concerns go into a black hole or that management isn’t transparent about decisions, disengagement quickly follows. On the other side, companies sometimes feel guards never speak up about issues early enough. Clearly, there’s a disconnect. Closing that loop with honest communication and feedback channels is key to mutual understanding.
Security officers often go above and beyond their formal duties. When such extra efforts are acknowledged by employers, it strengthens trust. Conversely, if management takes it for granted (or worse, doesn’t even notice), officers may feel their goodwill is being exploited. In the day-to-day grind, a little recognition can go a long way.
Case in point: A security officer at a large warehousenoticed the perimeter fence had a weak point where intruders could slip in. They reported it to his supervisor and suggested additional lighting or a camera to cover the blind spot. Weeks went by with no action and no response. Eventually, a break-in did occur through that very weak point, and the guard on duty was reprimanded for the security failure. When the operator later mentioned that they had raised this issue before, management essentially shrugged. This was a crushing moment: why bother speaking up or trying to improve things if the company doesn’t listen? The operator started looking for a new job shortly thereafter. The company not only lost a proactive employee, they also got a black eye with the client for an incident that was preventable. It’s a classic case of top-down communication only, and even that only in negative form.
Devil’s advocate: Some managers might say, “We have hundreds of guards – we can’t personalise communication for each one. No news is good news, right?” They might also worry that inviting too much feedback will open a flood of complaints or unrealistic requests. But ignoring the frontline perspective is perilous in security. These are the people seeing risks in real time. A savvy security company will treat its operatives as its eyes and ears – essentially as consultants on how to improve the service. Yes, it takes effort to set up feedback mechanisms (be it regular check-in calls, a WhatsApp group, or an anonymous suggestion box), and yes, you’ll hear some gripes, but you’ll also catch brewing issues before they explode. Moreover, when guards feel heard, even if their request can’t be fulfilled immediately, they at least know the company respects their input.
What works: The best operator-company relationships function almost like partnerships. For example, one successful manned guarding firm in London holds a quick monthly huddle (via video call) with dispersed site teams. Operators can share any on-site concerns, and management shares any client feedback or company news. It’s two-way. In one of these meetings, a night guard brought up that the lone-worker device they were given kept glitching. The firm’s ops manager hadn’t been aware and promptly arranged a better model for all staff after testing the issue – and thanked the guard who spoke up. That guard later said it was the first time in his career he saw a suggestion promptly turn into action. You can bet his trust in this employer skyrocketed.
Feedback loops can be informal too. Some companies encourage supervisors to simply ask their team at shift handover, “Everything alright? Need anything?” It sounds trivial, but when done consistently, guards start to believe that the company actually wants to know their needs. In turn, operators who feel listened to are more likely to accept the occasional top-down directive because they know it’s not the only time they hear from the boss. They’re also more open to giving constructive feedback that can save the company from bigger problems. Essentially, communication should be treated as part of the job on both sides, not an afterthought.
Duty of Care: Safety, Well-being, and Trust in High-Risk Roles
The phrase “duty of care” gets thrown around often, but here’s what it boils down to: does the company truly prioritise the safety and well-being of its security operators? For trust, the answer must be yes – and visibly so. This is crucial in high-risk or under-regulated sectors, like night-time door supervision or isolated lone-worker assignments (construction sites, remote facilities), and of course in close protection. If operators feel their employer cuts corners when it comes to their safety, any remaining trust can evaporate overnight.
We’ve already touched on communication, which is part of duty of care, but there’s more: training, providing proper equipment, staffing levels, rest breaks, and support after difficult incidents. Let’s illustrate with both extremes:
Case in point: In one distressing real-life case, a 74-year-old security guard was assigned to guard a remote wind-farm site alone overnight, in the dead of winter. The company knew bad weather was incoming and that the site had poor mobile signal. Yet they had no robust emergency plan. When heavy snowfall hit, the guard became trapped on site. Without a backup generator for heat or a reliable communication link, he succumbed to hypothermia before help arrived. The aftermath: the companies involved were fined nearly £900,000 for failing in their duty of care, and a man needlessly lost his life. This is an extreme example, but it highlights the ultimate breach of trust – an operator sent into a dangerous situation without adequate support or contingency. No one should have to literally risk their life because an employer didn’t plan for known hazards.
Even in less tragic circumstances, duty of care lapses damage trust. Door supervisors in rough venues often face physical assaults. If their company doesn’t provide stab vests or refuses to supply sufficient staff (say, trying to cover a club with two door staff when clearly four are needed), operators quickly realise profit is being put over their safety. Likewise, if an incident happens and the company’s first instinct is to blame the operator rather than care for their injury and assess what went wrong, that guard is unlikely to feel any loyalty going forward.
Devil’s advocate: Most security companies will insist, “Of course we care about safety!” But good intentions are not enough – it requires action and investment. Yes, there’s a cost to duty of care: extra guards on a risky site, quality equipment, insurance, conducting risk assessments, etc. Some smaller firms especially might struggle with these costs. However, the cost of neglect is far greater – in legal fees, lost contracts, and human life. Moreover, a company known for looking after its people will attract better staff (who often will work safer and more effectively, creating a virtuous cycle). It’s also worth noting that the security industry’s image as a whole suffers when stories like the above make news. Each firm has a part to play in raising standards, even if it means occasionally saying no to a client’s unreasonable request because it violates safety protocols.
What works: There are companies and sectors that excel in duty of care. Take close protection for example – by necessity, CP teams operate with meticulous attention to safety and planning. Reputable close protection firms conduct detailed advance work (reconnaissance of sites, intelligence on threats) and ensure their operators have the right gear and backup.
Even in regular security roles, duty of care successes can shine. For instance, a shopping centre security company noticed their guards were often dealing with aggressive individuals and sometimes got hurt. In response, the company implemented a rotation system (no one works the highest-risk position more than 2 hours at a time), provided de-escalation refresher training, and ensured every guard had access to a panic button linked directly to local police. They also set up a protocol that if any guard is involved in a violent incident, they get a check-in call from management and offered counseling/leave if needed. Such measures are not overly expensive, but they send a clear message: your safety and health matter. The guards at that site report feeling considerably more confident and supported. The trust this builds means those guards are likely to stay with the company longer and perform better, which in turn keeps the clients (in this case, retail tenants and shoppers) safer and happier.
Bridging the Divide: Toward a Trust-Based Security Culture
We’ve walked through the minefields of pay, scheduling, training, communication, and duty of care, seeing how each can fracture the operator-company relationship. The patterns are clear – transparency, consistency, and empathy are the common threads of solutions. If distrust is allowed to fester, the industry will keep facing high turnover, staffing shortages, and incidents. But if both sides commit to understanding and addressing each other’s concerns, the cycle can be broken. Here are some actionable steps for both security companies and security operators to build mutual trust:
For Security Companies: Be transparent and fair in policies. Share how pay is determined and any changes that affect jobs. Honour your promises – if you say you provide training, actually do it; if you guarantee hours or equipment, follow through. Solicit feedback actively and act on it wherever possible (or explain why you can’t). Invest in your people’s safety and growth; it’s not just morally right, it pays off in performance. Importantly, communicate the “why” behind decisions. If a site is short-staffed one night due to emergency, explain it to the team and thank them – don’t just assume they’ll take the hardship in stride without acknowledgment.
For Security Operators: Meet transparency with transparency. Be honest about your availability and any issues on the job. If you make a mistake or encounter a challenge, communicate it upwards early – give the company a chance to address it. Seek feedback on your performance; show that you care about doing the job well, which will encourage management to engage more with you. Also, take advantage of any training or upskilling opportunities offered – it signals to your employer that you’re invested, which makes them more likely to invest in you. And if your company isn’t living up to its side, consider raising it constructively: for example, if schedules are chaotic, suggest a meeting to plan a better system. Good employers will take note and bad ones… well, if nothing changes, you at least know where you stand and can plan accordingly.
Finally, both parties should remember they share the same end goal: providing effective security. An operator who feels trusted and supported will treat the company’s clients as their own and represent the firm proudly. A company that trusts its operators will delegate responsibility and involve them in improving operations. This synergy directly impacts the quality of security provided. Clients notice when guards are engaged and confident – it reflects well on the company’s brand. Conversely, a disengaged, demoralised guard force can tarnish reputations and invite client complaints or even regulatory scrutiny.
From Distrust to Partnership: The Road Ahead
Rebuilding trust in the UK security industry won’t happen overnight. It requires a cultural shift in an industry that has historically been quite top-down and cost-driven. But the winds are changing. Post-pandemic, many firms have realised that security personnel are essential workers who carry significant responsibility. Surveys even show a post-Covid uptick in security professionals feeling more appreciated and valued by employers than beforecitysecuritymagazine.com. This is encouraging – it shows that when pushed, the industry can adapt and improve the way it treats its people.
The consequences of continuing on the old path of distrust are simply too dire to ignore. High levels of violence against staff, chronic attrition, and roles seen only as last-resort jobs will leave the industry in permanent crisis. In contrast, a trust-rich environment creates a virtuous cycle: experienced guards stay and mentor new ones (instead of all the veterans quitting out of frustration), which raises overall competency and professionalism. As one security study noted, retaining experienced operatives is vital because they pass on knowledge and uphold standards – exactly what’s needed to avoid the “horrendous consequences” of an inexperienced, disengaged workforceworkingthedoors.co.uk.
In a deadpan sort of way, one might say the formula for trust is not rocket science – pay people decently, schedule them sanely, train them properly, listen to them, and don’t get them killed. It sounds obvious, yet executing these basics consistently is where many falter. The good news is that every positive example we shared started with a conscious decision by someone in charge to change a practice and treat security staff as true partners in the mission.
For security operators and companies reading this, the challenge is laid out: Will you continue the adversarial “us vs. them” stance, or will you take steps – even small ones – to understand each other better and meet halfway? The trust gap can be closed one action at a time. It might be a manager deciding to reveal the rationale behind a policy, or an officer deciding to give frank feedback in good faith. Over time, these actions build a reservoir of goodwill.
In conclusion, the UK security industry, spanning close protection bodyguards to mall guards, thrives when built on mutual trust. Companies that are transparent, fair, and protective of their teams will earn loyalty and better performance. Operators who feel respected and secure will go above and beyond to uphold the company’s reputation and client’s safety. The stakes – public safety, asset protection, and human lives – are too high for us to accept distrust as “just the way it is.” By focusing on the core trust factors and learning from both failures and successes, we can foster a security culture where operators and employers stand united, each confident that the other “has their six.” In the end, that’s good for business, good for employees, and good for everyone who relies on private security every day.
Sources: The insights and examples above draw on a range of industry reports, surveys, and case studies, including findings from the Security Industry Authority on recruitment and retentiongov.ukgov.uk, security professionals’ surveyscitysecuritymagazine.com, and real-world legal cases and news (e.g. wage disputesleighday.co.uk and safety failingspbctoday.co.uk). These illustrate the real consequences of broken trust and the tangible benefits when trust is strengthened. The path forward is challenging, but clear – bridging the trust gap is not only possible, it’s imperative for the future of the security industry.
workingthedoors.co.uk
tracktik.com
leighday.co.uk
assistsecurity.co.uk
pbctoday.co.uk
