This paper argues that knowledge of employment law is equally as important as knowledge of criminal law for security managers. Drawing on high-profile corporate failures — including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster and the Enron fraud scandal — the paper demonstrates how a security manager's failure to understand and apply both bodies of law can contribute to organizational wrongdoing, regulatory violations, and large-scale harm. The paper outlines the key responsibilities of security managers, including real-time risk monitoring, policy development, and internal compliance oversight, and shows how competence in employment and criminal law underpins each of these functions.
Over the last several years, the issues of employment law and criminal law have become increasingly connected in the field of security management. This connection reflects a shift in attitudes about the responsibilities of security managers, who are now expected to serve as a stop-gap measure to prevent potential abuses from taking place. The challenge is that these expanded responsibilities require security managers to develop a greater understanding of both bodies of law in order to provide effective guidance within their organizations (Cole 2007).
One of the key issues facing firms today is the growing volume of lawsuits arising from their activities, some of which border on criminal law. Providing the best assistance to an organization requires that security managers understand and apply these legal frameworks internally. This ensures compliance with different aspects of the law and, more broadly, protects a wide range of stakeholders from harm (Cole 2007).
A common problem affecting many security managers is a lack of understanding of criminal and employment law. This often occurs because executives encourage them to prioritize other concerns, leading security managers to underestimate the importance of legal knowledge. In reality, these challenges have become increasingly difficult to manage, and a range of situations can arise that significantly increase the risks facing an organization (Cole 2007).
Security managers carry several key responsibilities that are vital to any organization. The most notable include: monitoring risks in real time; developing effective practices for reducing threats to the firm; and working within the financial limitations that are provided. These responsibilities require security managers to serve as a liaison who quickly identifies and addresses issues in order to reduce organizational risk (Sennwald 2011).
In the areas of employment and criminal law specifically, security managers must determine whether particular activities pose a threat to the organization. Among the most common challenges they face are internal theft and disgruntled employees who may seek to harm the employer. Security managers address these concerns partly by conducting and evaluating surveys, which help them identify procedural weaknesses and understand the pressures facing others in the organization (Sennwald 2011).
This knowledge is essential because it enables security managers to design strategies that effectively address these challenges and prevent abuses. Understanding employment and criminal law ensures that any policy changes are legally sound and that the mechanisms in use comply with applicable guidelines (Sennwald 2011).
The consequences of inadequate legal knowledge at the security management level are illustrated clearly by the Deepwater Horizon disaster. At BP, security managers were often encouraged to overlook practices that were in direct contradiction with employment law, because the company was focused on maximizing bottom-line results at any cost. This lack of legal understanding led to a culture where people were willing to push boundaries, increasing the dangers facing the company and, ultimately, the public (Kunzelman 2013; Cole 2007).
In 2010, these problems contributed directly to a failure to follow required safety practices on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The rig exploded and sank to the ocean floor. Subsequent investigations revealed that the failure to follow safety standards was part of a pattern of knowingly disregarding various aspects of employment-related requirements. Employees who spoke out were either demoted or effectively forced out of the company (Kunzelman 2013; Cole 2007).
Over time, this environment created a situation in which security managers routinely ignored aspects of employment law in order to help the company achieve broader financial objectives. The result was a culture in which criminal activities were tolerated and even normalized. Once that threshold was crossed, many individuals began engaging in practices that were criminal in nature. The explosion killed 11 employees (Kunzelman 2013; Cole 2007).
The long-term implications were severe. No one within the organization had a clear understanding of what was legally permissible, and security managers had failed in their obligation to identify these challenges and drive change. In the aftermath, over 2,200 lawsuits were filed against BP by the federal government, Gulf Coast states, and individuals harmed by the disaster (Kunzelman 2013; Cole 2007).
This case illustrates how a security manager's knowledge of employment and criminal law could have helped prevent the disaster. Security managers had options available to them: they could have worked to change practices at the facility itself, or they could have utilized whistleblower statutes to prompt a shift in behavior. Had these legal principles been understood and acted upon, the underlying practices might have been uncovered earlier, and management attitudes might have changed before catastrophe struck (Kunzelman 2013; Cole 2007).
"Enron used performance reviews to silence dissent"
"Preventing lawsuits through proactive legal compliance"
Security managers who possess a thorough understanding of both employment and criminal law are better positioned to serve as trusted advisers within their organizations. This knowledge allows them to create standards that take legal requirements into account, monitor for practices that may encourage illegal behavior, and intervene before individual misconduct or systemic violations cause lasting harm to employees, the public, or the organization itself.
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.