In many businesses the term loss prevention is a bit of a misnomer. While certainly the philosophy is to prevent loss of profits and assets, in practice there is often very little prevention and much reaction. Many initiatives become focused on the reactionary processes of LP. Resources are allocated to chase dishonest employees, ORC rings, shoplifters and other crisis level security issues. These efforts are often required as a nature of the LP role, however, failure to apply efforts strategically ultimately results in dire consequences for the program and an inability to get ahead of shrink because too much time is expended putting out the fires.
Outsourcing has become a more widely accepted practice across various industries and business functions. However, with 15 years of experience in providing these services, we still continue to come across people who are skeptical and apprehensive about outsourcing. It is a decision that involves both a logical decision as much as an emotional decision. Is it any different than hiring an internal resource?
A look back on loss prevention in 2013
With just seven selling days left in this holiday season, we figured that there might be less time or energy for absorbing new ideas. So this week we are providing a recap and links to some of this year’s favorite blog topics.
Our own Steven May shares his thoughts on active shooter training
Until recently I didn’t give much thought to the topic of “active shooter.” In truth, the idea of a lengthy conversation seemed unnecessary. It appeared an investment in a discussion that pertained to a rare occurrence in a retail environment. That is not to say that it isn’t important to ensure the safety of employees. Active Shootings, while tragic, don’t seem to have a preventable solution. And my belief was that training should mostly rely on common sense. In the event of a shooting, employees should run and or hide. My ideas on the topic changed, however, after I attended a training seminar at the New England Organized Retail Crime Symposium, presented by the various retail associations of the New England states.
Interviewing is a directed conversation with a purpose. In the case of interviews for potential dishonesty the purpose is either to gain information important to resolution, to limit the suspect list by determining who was not involved, or to gain an admission from the responsible parties. Intuitively it can seem that some cases are easier than others or that because we have the “right” to engage with our employees in “business” discussions that there is little harm in having a “who dunnit” conversation. In truth, dishonesty interviews can create potential liabilities for a company. Whether those liabilities are as grand as wrongful termination suits or false imprisonment or as small as general “unhappiness,” a company does well to consider that interviewing is not only a conversation, but more importantly a “directed” conversation.