Security officers may be the easiest employees to reach at a site. That availability can gradually channel work belonging to other departments towards the security desk. Each request may supposedly take “only a few minutes”, while the role and the time reserved for its main duties change unnoticed. The client and provider need to resolve who owns the work.
Assess role boundaries together
Three studies by Semmer and colleagues associated tasks perceived as unnecessary or unreasonable with employee strain; one included a two-month follow-up. [1] Their psychological concept of an “illegitimate task” does not mean that a task is legally prohibited. The management question is why additional work is perceived as outside the role.
Legal assessment is separate. Article 16 of Law No. 5188, reproduced in the EGM's 2023 legislative compilation, restricts employing private security personnel in work outside protection and security services. [2] A particular assignment should be assessed against current legislation and its actual scope. Client approval alone does not remove that boundary.
Describe the actual activity
Broad expressions such as “support reception” provide insufficient detail. Describe the transaction involved, when it occurs and whether it requires the officer to leave the assigned position. Directing a visitor to a department and routinely taking over that department's administrative work may require different assessments.
Likewise, monitoring the entry process for a delivery and commercially accepting the supplied goods can involve different responsibilities. Consider them separately. Record enough detail for a decision without adding unnecessary information about customers or visitors.
Use a five-part request record
A short management record can stop a verbal request from being forgotten:
- The specific activity and requesting department.
- Its relationship to the existing protection and security role.
- The implications for authority, competence and the assigned position.
- The client and provider representatives who will review it.
- The appropriate owner of the work and the decision communicated to staff.
This record makes assessment visible and helps redirect work where necessary. It also makes it easier to notice when “do it for now and discuss it later” has become a permanent arrangement.
Direct the need to its appropriate owner
A requirement outside the security role can be assigned to the appropriate administrative, technical or logistics department. Explaining whom the officer should contact is a practical way of reducing repeated arguments at the entrance. Do not expect the officer to negotiate the boundary with a different manager each time.
For example, where a recurring administrative request has no recognised owner, the organisation can name a responsible department and a backup contact. Purchasing security services does not automatically resolve gaps in the allocation of other support work.
Where a request is urgent, the escalation route should also be known in advance. Urgency should bring the appropriate decision-maker into the conversation. Relevant emergency arrangements still need to be followed.
Learn from recurring requests
If the same additional request repeatedly appears during a month, investigate its source. The cause may be incomplete directions, unclear operating hours or misunderstood responsibilities. Agree a solution with the relevant departments and reflect it in the current role explanation.
Finally, check whether the requesting department, security team and provider can describe the same boundary. That shared explanation is a concrete starting point for a more predictable daily service.
