A recurring complaint from frontline supervisors and officers: “Our manager makes things far more complicated than they need to be.”
This view often comes up when a security manager has a degree in risk management or has been trained in risk-based methodologies. While it can be frustrating for those who just want clear instructions and quick answers, there are understandable reasons behind this style of management.
Academic vs. Practical Approaches
A degree in risk management doesn’t teach someone how to patrol a site, de-escalate a conflict, or deal with a drunk at the front door. Instead, it trains people in structured methods for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks across an organisation.
Frameworks such as ISO 31000 or the “Three Lines of Defence” model are often emphasised in academic courses. They require risk managers to think in terms of processes, evidence, and documentation. To the frontline officer, this can feel detached from the realities of day-to-day work, where what matters is often simple: “What’s the threat, and what do I do about it now?”
The Language Barrier
Risk managers often use terms like:
- Risk appetite
- Residual risk
- Likelihood and consequence
- Risk register
For a security officer, the same issue might be explained more directly as: “What’s the chance of it happening, how bad would it be, and what are we doing about it?”
It’s the same point, but the language creates distance. Officers may feel managers are “dressing things up” instead of cutting to the chase.
This isn’t just about specialist terminology. All too often, frontline officers are handed site instructions written in a language they do not understand, or technical documents aimed at non-technical staff. Instead of plain directions, they get jargon-heavy statements such as:
“Ensure the ingress point is rendered inaccessible through activation of the mechanical locking mechanism prior to the initiation of the site-wide alarm system.”
When what they really need is:
“Close and lock the door before setting the alarm.”
This gap between complicated documentation and the practical needs of frontline staff creates confusion and, in some cases, risk.
Proving Value
Security managers with specialist qualifications often feel pressure to demonstrate their expertise, particularly in organisations where security is not always valued. Producing detailed reports, risk matrices, and step-by-step assessments is one way of showing senior leaders that security decisions are based on logic, not just instinct.
The downside is that what reassures a board of directors can frustrate a frontline officer. The officer wants clarity of instruction; the manager is thinking about legal defensibility and reputation management.
Avoiding Oversimplification
Risk-trained managers are often wary of being seen as too simplistic. They know that if something goes wrong, the question will be: “Did you consider all the risks?” This can make them cautious, breaking even small issues into multiple steps and analyses.
For example, a simple question about whether to increase patrols at night might generate a five-page paper on threat likelihoods, historical incident data, and cost-benefit analysis. For the patrol officer, the only thing that matters is: “Yes, increase patrols.”
A Cultural Disconnect
Ultimately, the frustration often comes down to a clash of cultures:
- Frontline security culture: quick decisions, clear orders, practical solutions.
- Risk management culture: documented processes, measured approaches, long-term accountability.
Both are valid, but when they’re not balanced, frontline staff feel bogged down in complexity, while managers feel staff don’t take risk seriously enough.
Bridging the Gap
So how do we close this gap? A few ideas stand out:
- Plain English first, technical detail second
Risk managers should explain outcomes in simple, actionable terms, then provide the documentation separately for those who need it. - Frontline input
Officers and supervisors should be involved in risk discussions. Their practical knowledge often highlights risks that academic models can overlook. - Training both ways
Just as risk managers could benefit from shadowing frontline staff, officers and supervisors may gain from short courses on risk principles. This builds mutual understanding. - Remembering the audience
What works in a boardroom doesn’t always work on the ground. Communication should be tailored to fit.
Security is at its best when theory and practice work hand in hand. Risk managers bring valuable tools for predicting and preventing problems. Frontline officers bring practical experience and the ability to act quickly under pressure.
The perception of overcomplication isn’t about one side being wrong — it’s about finding a better balance. When managers communicate clearly and officers appreciate the reasons behind the paperwork, both groups benefit. And most importantly, the sites and people we protect are safer for it.
