Sunk Cost Fallacy and Survivorship Bias in Security Operations

The Sunk Cost Fallacy and Survivorship Bias are two principles that affect your security organization and teams. I will explain these concepts in a simplified way to maintain the conversation's momentum rather than to educate on the individual principles themselves.

Survivorship Bias

Survivorship Bias occurs when an individual mistakes a visible successful subgroup for the entire group—for example, security staff performance metrics based on key performance indicators and risk triggers. Organizations might cherry-pick data to support or drive decision-making, leading to unintentional Bias. There must be conversations around hiring practices, hiring assessments, and changes to management and leadership performance regarding front-line staff and support to avoid this type of result.

The risk of measuring only pre-set KPIs is that sometimes, we fail to measure outside of them when trending changes occur. For instance, we have seen a significant difference in how security responds to medical situations over the last few years. The vast majority of incidents are drug-related medical emergencies, followed by mental health emergencies and suicidal ideations. However, very few organizations reform their captured data in the first aid response forms, and some still capture their information via incident reports instead of relevant information.

In Action: Security Front-line staff with 16 hours of First Aid training identify a drug-related emergency, call 911, and apply CPR and Naloxone intervention if required. This process has often shown a level of success, but on a basic ABC scale, the crisis is more likely to be a breathing-related issue due to opioids affecting the central nervous system (CNS). There needs to be more plans or action from most security companies and departments to address the risks. A simple course like BLS (Basic Life Saving) training can increase performance results, improve confidence and competence, and demonstrate agile thinking and responding as an organization and training to safely manage breathing emergencies in CPR with additional equipment such as a Bag Valve Mask and clearly defined response roles.

Sunk Cost Fallacy

Now, let's look at the Sunk Cost Fallacy. This occurs when an investment of money, time, and energy is put into a project, and they feel committed to "maintain the course," even if other factors suggest a "course correction" might be necessary.

For Example, Uniform costs have a hard cost associated with the purchase, storage, asset tracking, and delivery to front-line guards. The additional cost is also associated with the company's brand, image, and reputation. Often, in any downtown center, security uniforms have a considerable similarity, regardless of the security company.

The challenge is that the general public does not see a distinction between companies, and as a result, "All security companies are the same." Suppose a public member has a very negative experience with security at one property, and the negative experience is consistent every time. In that case, it is easy to assume that all security with that first impression will treat them the same. We know this is inaccurate, but it is a common behaviour association. That is why homeless people are defensive right away with security, or security gets nervous around addiction-based behaviours.

If a site drastically changed the colours and styles to break away from the norm, there could also be significant benefits, such as a chance for the public to see guards as a separate entity. This could lead to positive interactions exclusively benefiting this image. Future contracts could see an opportunity in strategy to curb negative social behaviour and provide a competitive edge.

Operation Questions Worth Asking

1. Are you process driven or results driven organization?
2. How much feedback would you like from front-line security staff?
3. Is your training based on certification or operational competence?
4. Is your hiring methods passive, active or selective?
5. Does your reporting have a way of capturing information outside of incdients and response?
6. How often you do "course correct" based on trend, feedback, reporting and engagement? Quarterly, Bi-Annualy, Annualy?
7. How do you define success on your sites or within operations? Does the front-line staff know how success is defined?

In Summary

In summary, it is always worth evaluating if there are ways to solve new security challenges with innovation rather than traditional thinking, box-drawer training topics, and operational philosophies.

About SCOPE Safety & Security

As a training and consultancy service, we are always striving to provide a solution based focuse to all our clients. Our unique experience and cross-over expertise ensure our clients remain competative in the security space while maintaing a guard-centric approach to professional relationship building and staff retention.