In the operations of the current security industry, attempts to maximize profits have replaced ethical priorities. Instead of seeking security personnel who exemplify high standards of performance, the industry leadership has sought the lowest standard of performance in order to undercut competitors with similarly low standards, creating a downward race toward a supposedly acceptable minimum. In the author's experience, the downward race has fallen significantly below an acceptable level, and the result is a web of unethical behavior from industry leadership which seeks to conceal performance failures. In typical security operations, lip service is paid to vigilance, watchfulness, and observation, yet personnel are given little to no training in observation. Current industry leadership does not hold personnel accountable to best practices in observation, and allows persons to continue in positions of responsibility even after proven inability to meet acceptable levels of performance in observation. In a security operation which is led in an ethical manner, the performance standard for observation will be spelled out in a detailed and objective manner. The acceptable standard will be implemented in all training and in regular performance reviews. The failure of the current security industry extends beyond observation. It includes refusal to define standards of performance for other critical areas such as emergency tasks, verbal communication, use of force, and decision-making. It is the mission of Sixth Training Group to present an ethical alternative to the failures of the current security industry. To that end, the author has prepared an array of standards which attempt to define a standardized level of performance which may be an acceptable minimum for all persons engaged in security operations. The standards have been given a numbering system which allows each standard to be individually identified. The six categories of observation, decision-making, use of force, verbal communication, emergency task performance, and personal performance is hoped to be both logical and useful. In general, each standard presents a summary statement for a skill, task, or an area of understanding. It is recognized that there may be more than a single way to achieve these various states, but for most of them, the author is convinced that there is a benefit to requiring standardized skills, abilities, and knowledge. After the summary statement, each standard presents one or more knowledge areas which represent the minimum level of competent understanding. It is the author's conviction that it is in no way excessive to expect professionals to have a thorough understanding of about twenty pages of material. Finally, each standard will spell out the abilities which must be demonstrated in a standardized simulation or field exercise. If an individual cannot achieve these target levels of performance under controlled conditions, it is virtually certain that they will fail in the course of actual operations.
