Perception

It has always amazed me how two people can look at the same data points and come to opposite conclusions. Recently, I was speaking to a Chemistry professor and we somehow got onto the topic of workplace liability. I was surprised to learn that the professor considered the potential for litigation against academics to be a very serious matter. Wanting clarification, I asked “Do professors often get sued?” She explained that she knew of a case in where a student was injured during the course of a laboratory experiment and, alleging negligent training and supervision, subsequently sued the school and the instructor. Now I understood where she was coming from; having witnessed such an event at close range, she took this issue very seriously. As I considered this brief conversation more closely, I realized that, like the professor’s reaction, mine, too, was based on my own experience. Since my own educational background was heavily focused on politics, history, criminal justice and education courses, science labs would be the last thing to come to my mind when thinking about litigation threats to higher education professionals.

The same thing happens when people think about personal security. The old saw that a conservative is simply a liberal who got mugged, while funny, has some truth to it. We all view the world around us through the prism of our own experience. Some people, viewing a large group of armed security or police personnel, will feel safe based on the level of perceived protection. Other people, seeing the same level of security, will feel anxious and come to the conclusion that the presence of such high levels of security must indicate an even higher level of danger.

As individuals with an interest and concern for our own and our family’s personal security, we cannot underestimate the importance of our perceptions. Our perceptions of danger are influenced by a number of factors, but here are some of the more common ones.

Experience:
Our personal experience and the experiences of others we see become our reality. A teacher friend of mine once told me how she left her purse inside her running vehicle (doors unlocked) and when she came back a few minutes later, she discovered it was missing. She then sheepishly added that I probably thought that was pretty dumb. In fact, I did not think it was dumb at all. Why? Because she is a teacher and not a security professional. From her perspective and experience there was a strong probability that her purse would be exactly where she left it when she returned to her vehicle. Her previous experience had, until that time, bore that theory out.

Personally, I would never decide to leave my vehicle running and unlocked with my wallet or some other asset in plain view. Then again, I have spent 17 years working in the security field and have seen thousands of thefts and related incidents. My previous experience bore out the theory that an open door is an open invitation.

The reality is that if you have ever been the victim of a crime, you are unlikely forget it and if you have been the victim of a violent crime you will never forget it. When creating a personal security program, you must remember to take a serious look at your own experiences.

Environment:
Related to experience is environment. We become used to and comfortable in the places where we live and visit often. For example, I have been to Cambodia three times now and each time I go, someone asks me why I would go to such a “dangerous place”. I tell them the truth; I feel much more comfortable in Cambodia than I do in many major US cities. Having travelled to high crime areas of Newark, New Jersey, Detroit, Michigan and New Orleans, Louisiana (to name a few) I just can’t get all that worked up about danger in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Des Moines, Iowa and similar low crime rate areas. It is not that one can’t get mugged, assaulted or murdered in these places; one can. Rather, as people get used to their own environments, their danger threshold adapts to match their surroundings. When considering your personal security program, consider your threshold of perceived danger.

Age:
Age is another contributing factor in our perception of danger. Young people, especially young men, tend to ignore warning signs of danger and often times unwittingly encourage criminal incidents. As people get older, the overall trend is to become more cautious and thus more adept at avoiding danger. Young people generally do not perceive danger as readily as older people do, yet the young (especially men) are most likely to be both victims and perpetrators of violence.

Gender:
Gender and gender roles are also important factors in our perception of danger. Generally, men are dual socialized as both protectors from and perpetrators of criminal activity. Which side becomes dominant depends on the influences and opportunities a young man has in his life. In terms of perception, most men tend to think they can handle themselves in a violent confrontation and based on this assumption are likely to take chances that most women would not.

Women, on the other hand, even in today’s world, are generally socialized to be protected members of society. As a result of this socialization, many women perceive danger in situations that most men would never consider dangerous.

Perceived ability to protect oneself:
Related to age, gender and experience is the perceived ability to defend oneself. People who think they have a strong ability to defend themselves are less likely to perceive and act upon danger signs. Those who are not as confident in their ability to defend themselves are more likely to rely on their ability to read danger signs and proactively remove themselves from potentially harmful situations. Curiously enough, those who think they can physically defend themselves best are more likely to have to test that assumption.

When developing your personal security program you’ll need to be honest with yourself. How do you perceive yourself and the potential sources of danger around you? Knowledge of your own perceptions will help you properly assess your own risks and vulnerabilities.

In the next post we will discuss the risk analysis process and how it can be applied to individuals.

By: SA Watson

Mindset

It’s been years now, but I still remember Mr. Patterson, or as we middle school aged Karate students called him, “Sensei Patterson”, telling us:

“The way you practice is the way you are! Don’t expect to be able to do this in real life if you don’t practice hard now!”

In the many years since, I’ve dabbled in the study of martial arts on and off as the ebb and flow of my life has changed. I’ve had many instructors in many styles, and even though I’m still no expert, I enjoy the feeling of a hard practice; the camaraderie of helping others achieve their goals and, in turn, being helped as well. Nonetheless, as enjoyable as these aspects of training are, they are just the window dressing; Sensei Patterson’s statement still rings true “The way you practice is the way you are!”. In other words, a right mindset followed by right action is the key to success in martial arts and in life.

After seventeen years serving as a security professional with and for various organizations, I’ve seen evidence that this concept is the foundation upon which all successful security programs are based. Unfortunately, I’ve also seen the following common, but wrong security mindsets:

The Checklist Mindset:
The Checklist Mindset says that the mere presence of a security program is, by itself, adequate to prevent incidents. It isn’t. While several elements go into the make up of a security program, it takes committed people to prevent harmful events. As an individual, you too must be committed to your own personal security program to make it work.

The Denial Mindset:
The Denial Mindset says that because the odds of a critical incident occurring at any given location or to any particular person are low, there is no reason to plan or to inconvenience ourselves with security procedures. People who hold this mindset are usually correct about one thing; the odds are low, unfortunately, the exception more than makes up for the rule. In the event of a critical incident, a lack of planning or a breakdown in procedures will take an already chaotic situation and make it worse.

Defeatist Mindset:
The Defeatist Mindset says that “If someone really wants to_______________, they’ll find a way.” While there is some element of truth to this statement, there is an unsubstantiated assumption as well. The assumption is that no amount of security can deter a hostile actor. This is only true for highly motivated or highly irrational adversaries. Most criminals aren’t highly motivated; if they were, they’d be doing something productive. They are also generally rational people; given the choice between an easy target and a difficult one, they will typically opt for the easy one. The most negative thing about this mindset is that it is often used to justify inaction against all potential adversaries.

Not My Job Mindset:
The “It’s not my job” mindset says that security is only the concern of professionals. Consider the events of a several months ago; the FBI arrested of several people in New Jersey on terror related charges. A video store worker, in the course of normal business noticed that a tape, brought in by his customers, showed information related to terror activities. If that video store worker hadn’t reported what he saw, there may have had another terrorist attack on US soil. Now consider; what do you see and do every day that may impact the safety of your family or community?

I’m Too Busy Mindset:
The “I’m too busy” mindset is closely related to the “It’s not my job mindset”. This mindset says that the amount of activity one is engaged in is so great that short-cuts are acceptable. “After all”, says the person who holds this mindset, “I’m busy and besides, what are the odds?” While security procedures should be as user friendly as possible, there is some inconvenience that is inherent in having to protect people, information, reputation and property. In a perfect world we wouldn’t need to lock our doors or be concerned about fraud and violence, but we do not live in a perfect world. The time “saved” by ignoring security can result in greater losses.

There are, of course, many other wrong mindsets, but there is also a right mindset:

The Right Mindset:
Bad things happen to someone, somewhere everyday. Today may be our turn. By taking reasonable steps to prepare, we can help to prevent or, at least, mitigate harmful events. Even if we are not security professionals, we can take reasonable steps to protect ourselves, our families, our workplaces and our nation. After all, “How we practice is how we are!”

By: SA Watson