Checking the suitability of candidates in the security sector using technology.

Criminal background checks are increasingly failing to predict success or even integrity in the workplace. So what options do we have to enhance the selection process and make sure you have the right people in positions to do the right job, as well as better predictors of integrity and success on the job.

Today’s guest is Alan Saquella, professor of corporate security, security investigations and interrogation at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University- College of Business, Security and Intelligence.

More about Alan:

Alan Saquella is a Certified Protection Professional and Certified Polygraph Examiner. He is an enthusiastic influential security and investigations leader with more than 25 years of security and investigations experience in corporate and public organizations. Alan took early retirement after 16 years as the Security and Investigations Director at Cox Communications.

Alan is now an Assistant Professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University- College of Business, Security and Intelligence. He has written numerous papers and articles on business security, employee safety, and internal fraud prevention and has been interviewed by several media entities on the same and related topics.  Alan provides advisement on subjects of security and safety training and fraud prevention services to multiple organizations and entities.

LinkedIn

More about the Circuit:

The Circuit Magazine is written and produced by volunteers, most of who are operationally active, working full time in the security industry. The magazine is a product of their combined passion and desire to give something back to the industry. By subscribing to the magazine you are helping to keep it going into the future. Find out more >

If you liked this podcast, we have an accompanying weekly newsletter called 'On the Circuit' where we take a deeper dive into the wider industry. Opt in here >

The Circuit team is:

• Elijah Shaw
• Jon Moss
• Shaun West
• Phelim Rowe

Connect with Us: 

Circuit Magazine

BBA Connect

NABA Protector

British Bodyguard Association

every single one of the the that we investigated terminated and

or prosecuted passed the background.

check.

So what we have found is it's not a good, reliable, indicator of

success for integrity on the job.

How to become a human lie detector?

No, I'm kidding.

But actually am I today?

We're going to be talking with Alan Saquella.

Head of investigations at Cox now at Embry-Riddle university and

previously with a career in government, he's got the skillset to look at

interrogations and lie detector tests.

He's taken it to the corporate world.

And today we're going to be looking at its application in the round to

EAP, including wider topics like background checks, but also the

skillset involved and whether or not we can replicate it through technology.

I'm here with the Elijah Shaw.

Is this exciting in this Crumbo limbo period.

First of all, I need to know what Crumbo limbo means.

What.

It's the period in between Christmas and new year.

Ah, okay.

I'm a little bit off on that one.

Uh, yeah, I mean, I, I think the wonderful thing about the circuit

podcast is we, we bring all these different views and opinions and

perspectives from all around the world.

And particularly when we get these subject matter experts that, you know,

to operate in, in an area that, you know, maybe we don't spend a lot of time in.

And so when you think about, you know, lie detection, when you think about the.

You, uh, that have to come into doing a successful background check, whether

that's vetting a potential staff, whether that's betting the potential client, you

know, all of these things come into play.

And so anything that makes us better in that, but it's

ultimately going to make us better.

I like it.

And do you think, you know, there's often been a complaint that some

clients simply want EAP and they don't know what they're buying, but equally

some EPA teams might rush the vetting process to meet the needs, which are

very, very short term requirements.

100%.

And I think part of that is, is just the lack of knowledge.

Uh, unfortunately we see when that goes wrong and then it hits the

headlines and then people go, oh, why didn't they do their due diligence?

Um, you know, we, we are a brotherhood in the sense that if someone is referred

to us, we put a lot of stock into that.

However, there are some boxes that we really need to check, uh, strategically

in order to, you know, cover on that.

And one of the things that I know Alan is a big proponent

of is, and this might sound harsh, but I clean a rap sheet.

Doesn't mean they're not offending.

They just means they haven't been called.

Now that, that, that is guilty until proven innocent.

I know that's a bit of a different thing, but it is an interesting way

to look at it that in, unless you do some sort of personality profiling

or intent profile, I don't know, through light detection, uh, or other

means it's going to be a bit tricky.

Um, obviously this is, this is minority report and it's not the

first time we've mentioned minority report on the, on the Circuit podcast.

I do know that, but I think we're onto something this first, if period,

do you think people are going to do a due diligence whilst, you know,

they've had this bit of downtime?

Yeah.

One would hope so.

And maybe, you know, after listening to this episode, listening to him

talk and getting his perspective, you go, oh, well, you know what?

I wasn't putting as much emphasis as I should have been on these areas here.

And again, I circled back to the fact that we see the horror stories.

We'll read the paper about, Hey, this person did this.

Or, um, this person did this and that.

And they go, you know, we didn't.

However, if you dig into that person's history, maybe there were some red

flags, maybe there were some pre indicators that would have let us know.

And so anything that gives us additional insights to, to help ourselves be

more effective as a team or, uh, help us make better judgment decisions.

I think as a plus,

Uh, plus indeed.

And let's bring the spirits up.

I know it's in between Christmas and new year,

wait, wait, what did you call it again?

crim bow limber.

It's that limbo period.

No more IPS, SBE, no more, uh, Christmas and, and only a little

time til new year, we're going to have to lift people's spirits.

Keep the party going with interrogation and the effects for the EAP community.

Let's say from Alan great friend of the industry looking forward to it.

Checking the suitability of candidates in a security sector using

technology today, we're here with Alan Saquella, professor of corporate

security, security, investigations, and interrogation at Embry riddle,

aeronautical university, college of, uh, security business and intelligence.

What a pleasure to have you on board?

Very well, thanks for having me.

Yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a very timely time to have you on

actually, because a lot of people are talking about, uh, robot select

tours, uh, for, you know, CB sifting.

And I, and I think throughout this process, it'd be nice to dispel some,

some myths and, and look at some big advantages, but, but right off the

bat, let's do our three quickfire questions, um, to sort of get us going.

What is this technology seeking to solve for what problem exists

within the industry that, that you're trying to solve right now?

Well Pelham, that's a great question.

So I'm going to to you back.

So if you think back to the old selection processes for, uh, candidates,

you know, historically, um, there's a background check there's criminal

background check, reference checks, verification of education, certifications,

licenses, and a lot of those are good, but we're, we're a lot of.

of the Issues com is that a predicting success in the workplace?

So uh, criminal background check and I'll get into it more deeply is,

uh, is failing to predict success or even integrity in the workplace.

So we're looking for ways to enhance the selection process and make

sure you have the right people in positions to do the right job, as

well as, uh, better predictors of integrity and success on the job.

Okay.

Okay.

I can see that.

That'd be, that'd be very, very handy, especially with an a, with

a, with a glut of, uh, applications.

Um, what about you?

Uh, what is

your passion for this come

from?

My passion comes from my history.

So interestingly enough, I started my career off of law enforcement was

a polygraph examiner, and I did a lot of polygraphs white attention.

If you will, on the preemployment selection side, of course, that's

a great investigative tool.

It's able to pull out a lot of information from your candidates.

Of course, about the polygraph protection act of 1989 eliminated use for most

corporate private sector Africa.

So the evolution of background checks had to change because that was eliminated,

uh, criminal background checks.

I've always been part of of that.

Uh, the issue I found is that, my career

and with all the internal investigations that were conducted by numbers, my chain,

as well as myself, every single one of the the that we investigated terminated

and or prosecuted passed the background.

check.

They pass the criminal background check as well as all the other checks.

So what we have found is it's not a good, reliable, um, indicator of

success for integrity on the job.

And so what is there, what else is out there?

Be a better predictor nets.

That's been my passion for decades looking for something else,

something that will help them better prepare us and also select those

candidates are not only going to be.

But also have high integrity.

I like it.

So what then considering our audiences, you know, as part corporate security

part, executive protection, um, uh, you know, generally physical security

specialist, um, what should the completely uninitiated better know about this?

You know, needs to check backgrounds.

Um, is it just that, uh, you know, fresh skins simply haven't created,

you know, done anything wrong yet?

What should they really better understand if they, if they know

very little about this topic?

Well, it's important to know that.

employees that come to work, the traditional background check is

not a predictor of behaviors.

You know, if you look at some of the publications by some of the most,

uh, um, steamed psychologists, like BF Skinner, Albert Ellis and Walter

Michael, we know that past behavior is a a predictor of future behavior?

Unfortunately, the selection tools that we use are not good predictors.

And so, because we're using history and records to predict

future behavior, those don't work.

What you have to do is look at what are the behaviors from the

past, because those behaviors will be replicated in the the future.

We generally continue those behaviors.

What's also important to know that most people that have committed crimes

that are convicted, that is not the first time that committed a crime.

There might be a hundred crimes are committed before they got caught.

So if a person is not caught, they're hired, those behaviors

are going to continue.

The background check will never identify those texts.

So we have to be sensitive of that and looking for better solutions.

Okay.

So.

What sort of behaviors are we talking about that we, we

want to, uh, to pick up on?

I mean, uh, some people sort of talk about a criminal mindset, uh, you

know, uh, a quite a simple switch in, in someone's brain where instead of

working hard, uh, progressing and then earning some money and then achieving

the purchase of a big, big, big

thing they think, hang on, I'll just take

it.

Is it that simple or, or, or other other behaviors we're

looking for?

Oh, there's quite a few behaviors we're looking for.

So.

example, I'll give you an example.

So in an integrity type situation where you're, where you're screening and I

hate to use the word integrity tests, this is not really an integrity test

is more of a behavioral assessment.

Is if you ask someone a question, whether it be in person.

Um, computer or on a test, if you will, um, what should happen to

a person that takes a thousand dollars from their employer?

And there are five choices and of course the right answer is they should

be terminated, um, or something similar to that instead of there'll

be some options like, well, it it depends this was her first time or

not, uh, B uh, uh, anything Over a thousand dollars would be a problem.

So what you're looking for is behavior so that the candidate would align with.

So we know that psychologists known through years of study that a person

who has a propensity or has done these things now, her past Tends to

align with wanting to be easier on the, on the culprit and cause that's

how they would want to be treated if they were caught stealing from nobody.

So the behaviors have to be pulled out through some sort of an assessment,

uh, which, uh, uh, that we'll be talking about a little bit later.

So And those types things are now available and they're also available

as the technology for screening.

But surely all a company needs is one

Allen.

So Keller surely that's all they need or are we facing a deluge of seed CVS

to sift through?

Uh, no, there's a day Lewis.

Uh, Well, look, what's going on a great resignation right now.

Uh, because of COVID we have the United States, 4 million people have quit

their jobs without another company.

And sooner or later they're going to have to start looking for employment.

And those resumes are going to be going out.

with.

So forth.

And so we had a lot of positions open across the country.

We have a lot of people that will be looking for those positions.

So we're going to have to sift through those, those candidates.

There's several screens that the candidate goes through.

Like the applicant tracking system, that's that automated system

that's going to project, let's say resumes based on keywords.

If it doesn't match the jobs perfect.

That's your first screen.

And then after that, you make it through the first round of recruiters.

And then of course you go through a series of things.

The background check is usually last and a reason this last one is it's,

uh, it's both, uh, because of cost, but also because of most recent regulations.

So federally and in our federal laws required the removal.

of.

Asking they were convicted of a crime that has to come at the offer.

So it's contingent based on an awful, we didn't do a background check on you, but

here's your offer if you've cleared a background or supplier or there's another

law that's going through the state several states have it's called ban buh-bye.

ban the box is you can't ask them on the application if they've been

convicted of a crime, so that following the federal law, whereas you will get

an offer contingent on passing the background check, and there's several

states that are also restricting.

Uh, how far back you can check what types of crimes you can reject a person for?

In some cases, there's at some of the states, there's a presumption

that if a person has been, uh, a person has been rehabilitated after

five years, that's preposterous.

You know, so behaviors generally don't change if they're in rank and a person has

committed a crime, a crime five years ago.

And again, we know that they were convicted five years ago.

How many did I commit prior the pavers already there?

So is that really going to be a good selection criteria?

And so we, again, us, the reason for this technology and bounce back.

So, so, so how is this technology then created?

Because you have an illustrious career, you have a very deep

understanding of interrogation.

How can

that be replicated, duplicated, you know, scaled

out in, in, in technology.

Ah, that's a great question.

So what, uh, the company that I will talk about a little bit in the technology

later on has done what they did is they took the best of the best out there.

They work with psychologists.

They developed an automated process of screening by looking at what we've used

traditionally in the selection process.

There's a lot of different types of selection tools that were used at the

wording of the questions and looked at the different types of things

we want to screen for, for example, workplace violence, embezzlement

fraud, sabotage, uh, sexual harassment, just a whole host of things.

And so as I developed a questions, what, what we know historically from research is

that, and of course, examples is that, um, The behaviors again, solidified passes.

And we're looking to select, we also know that when a person is asked a

question, if someone who plans online, again, this goes back to my polygraph

days when a person lies about something that's concerning to them, such as

telling them about the.

I may be rejected, so I better lie.

So just by that thought, what happens?

You have a delay in your response.

So we know that the person that takes longer to respond to our question,

a person that hovers with their mouse on yes or no, or checks, no.

Then go to.

Uh, if somebody that we need to take a closer look here.

So the process is you using algorithms artificial intelligence

to look at the behaviors and the movements of the individual.

And also in some cases, the eye movement.

Cause you're

looking at the faces.

And of course, uh, we know history, the screening, there, all this

technology, both verbal nonverbal behaviors are different for those

who intend to be deceptive versus those planned to be truthful.

So what, what the process then does that lead them down?

A path of questions are tailored to that.

So if a person has not answer slower, they're going to get a

different follow-up question.

It's going to lead.

If they made a timeout and a little note come up and say, I noticed it

took longer than normal and to, uh,

to, uh, uh, select an answer.

Um, we're going to rephrase it.

Please be truthful when you answer to this question.

Again, this is all based

on studies that we were trying to convince them to be truthful.

So we're looking for self admissions as well because self admissions and

self-disclosure again, is getting at the true behavior of the past.

And so let's

think of the end game, uh, you know, the goal that we have in

using such technology it's to find,

not the ideal candidate, because ideally we will have found the

ideal candidate by this stage,

but we want to

find out, have they hidden anything.

We want to find out the app to their attitude rather than the aptitude.

Um,

can we then confront them

with a score based on.

Telemetrics from a automated system.

How can we confront them?

Because surely we'll end up with highly

qualified candidates being rejected.

And there'll be simply told that the computer said no.

Or is it more

complex

than that

Yeah, actually, what happens is at the end of these types of

surveys and there's three types, there's a preemployment screening survey, which

is used for that purpose and screening.

There is a specific, um, tool that's used for, let's say, identifying criminal

activity within the organization specific.

Specific crime more.

If a company wants to just see the overall temperament attitude of the

workforce, they can do what they're called some sort of random screening.

So in each case, what happens is a person gets categorized in a green, yellow, or.

Um, a bucket if they, uh, if they fall into the wreck, um, that's like

in a preemployment setting, that would be an automatic rejection.

So that again is based on a lot of valid and reliable studies with this technique.

We know that that person has a high propensity of repeating past behavior

and in some K-12 and all cases, if they if they show up red, just because

they made admissions during the survey, they admitted to some crimes.

So for example, one of the questions, maybe during your employment, what

is the most amount of money you took?

It did not pull off.

on.

Well, and they give you five choices.

One is zero.

The rest are different dollar amounts.

If, uh, if in incremental, the person says I took a thousand dollars

cash, that's a self admission and there's a, here's all the questions

related to workplace violence.

Have you ever punched somebody to work?

You ever, you know, whatever different choices, again, The The

self admission shows that there's some problems with that behavior.

And that's not somebody you want it for.

Now, those who fall into yellow are the ones that will have follow-up.

And so they would be contacted by the HR organization and or whoever's doing the

screening to get some additional follow-up questions that might categorize them.

This yellow green means are hireable.

In a

a preemployment center, in an investigation, investigatory type

setting, they're going to still fall in one of those categories,

The investigators, anybody use the reds do a followup in-person interview

may lead into an interrogation because they might've made some admissions

specific to the crime at hand.

And yellow may mean they might not have been involved in the crime, but they have

information about it or they witnessed it and they know who is doing it.

So again, that may also.

Require an in-person interview.

So the technology is a tool.

It's like anything it's like cameras, you know, you have cameras that have now video

analytics and also facial recognition.

They give us better and clearer picture, but we also know that

depending on the angle of the camera, you don't always see everything.

So there's still going to have to be some human intervention and follow up to

validate what what's being interpreted.

And so I'd be interested.

I know you said that in 1989

polygraphs were, um, less, uh, desired, shall we say?

Um, uh, but, but, but how does this

technology hold up against that in your opinion?

Not, not, not depending if those who have discounted photographs,

but, but in your opinion,

how, how, how does it compare.

Well, that's a, that's a very good question.

Um, so.

Let me give you a little history about polar.

So polygraph is basically a tool that records what's going on inside your

body, heart rate, blood pressure,

go back galvanic skin response, which is perspiration of

executives as well as respiration.

So it's based on the, premise that weren't, for some personalized, it's

something threatening to them, they have an autonomic nervous system response.

And so with that as a flight or fight reaction, your body prepared.

Ron and phone.

and so we can't control that in a polygraph settings.

We ask one question, which is the stimulus.

If you shoot Johnny Jones, if he shot John talons, he's going to have it on an opp

nervous system fight or flight reaction.

We're all going to see blood

pressure, respiration, sweating.

Um, activity responses.

Um, and so it's very, very effective when it's used by a very well skilled, trained

polygraph San Francisco, but the examiner has to raise the questions and being

a a polygraph, in San Snapchat asking questions and determining truth or not.

We're looking for changes in a person's normal physiology to the question.

And of course the response to show up on the chart.

And then we compare that to a control.

question.

Uh, so I know it probably contusions are weighed over most people's heads.

I mean, the polygraph itself is also an investigative

tool.

It's not the end.

All it does have some significance and reliability depending on

a type of exam and also the skills of the polygraph

examiner.

polygraph, as it takes a lot of time, a lot of resources, money to screen.

If you're gonna do a crimp on a screenings.

So here's the differences you're getting to your question.

Oh, the guy from may take a print on polygraph to take two hours for a

low-level position and maybe a half a day finding not a law enforcement polygraph

screening in some cases, a full day.

So high security level screening,

this technology expedites the process.

You could have a person go through it.

You don't have a good idea about whether you want to hire somebody

within just a few minutes.

The whole survey can take less than 45 minutes and there's no prep time.

It's simple as clicking on a link

and then answering the questions.

So reliability is very good.

Of course, backs that up as well.

We have to have other tools that, like I said, the polygraph protection act chasm.

Limited to had and polygraph and appointment setting

with the exception of drug

manufacturers, security folks has to be very specific crime pers.

And so because of the restrictions most employers have gone away

So they've been looking from two minutes, but again, to answer your

question, I like this new technology.

I'm still certified as a polygraph examiner.

I still did some photographs and presentations,

but it's a lot of work and really, I don't see the application of it.

Yeah, again, We have to come up with something and I think this new technology.

Okay, but one thing over here, at least there is a complaint, not about

the lack of background checking in.

You know, not, uh, people's behaviors and people's truthfulness and people's

character, but there seems to be a complaint about a lack of any

check, especially in some of

the less formal, uh, settings.

So corporations, I can imagine they have a process, a structure in HR department,

but w w w with some of the executive protection, uh, community.

Uh, working for ultra

high net worth and family offices and private offices.

Sometimes there is a complaint that they don't even want to

do a background check at all.

They just want a service.

Like they want an Uber and they, and they don't, they don't look into

what they're, what they're buying, I suppose, by that I'm sort of.

Do you see a distinct divide in

the corporate world where there's compliance issues and maybe

the more private world who yes, there are compliance issues, but

they might, they might shy away from looking under the hood.

Um, is that an urban myth?

Is it, is it real?

I just be

interested for your

thoughts.

That's a very big concern.

And so when I try to test some of this stuff with my previous employer,

they were concerned that we would be projecting too many people.

They would be making it through the screening process.

So you instead decide not to do a background check, right?

And this particular person doing this job committed crime, where's the,

where's the liability, where's the issue.

I mean, you have a lot more issues later on.

I'll give you a great extent, uh, where not doing the right check and

can lead to some significant problems.

So we had a technician that was working for us in my previous

one I was doing an installation

in a customer's home.

Um,

So friended the kid that lived there, once parents started dealing with

drugs or suspect, he would regularly go back to this technician in

that making buttons change.

Ultimately the, uh, individual, uh, technician was not getting

paid for the per the first.

And resulted in the.

homicide took kill him.

Uh, you can imagine, wow.

It cost us to settle there for a while.

Yeah.

And So when we look back, when she

goes back, how did this person get hired?

Well, in that case somehow or another, he didn't go through it back check.

So similar to what you're saying, if you just want to to kind of believe it's not

an issue, let's not look at it because one would want to hire this person or

hurdle for whatever the motivation is.

You're leaving yourself wide open and there's gotta be some screenings.

So.

So.

Yes.

I understand.

Regional background checks, employment verification, education

checks, checking for licensing, fingerprint checks, all that.

Stuff's very, very costly.

By the time you go through the whole process, what I'm saying

is there are some tools out

there similar to what I'm speaking of.

Is that can automate.

And of course also do the background or do the assessment very quickly with

high Bolivian pliability assessment.

tech.

So

at a

a much lower cost, I don't know, let's say doing all of those things.

So I think they may just not be aware of the tools that.

He said, I speak about this technology since forever and stuff,

access there's other countries like Israel, develop it and use it.

Do a great, good job.

We're just starting to see it here.

And I guess maybe a more procedural thing.

Um, if, if I'm a big corporation, then I have a compliance department,

I've got my legal counsel.

I know about data

protection and all of that.

What if I'm a smaller company and I want to do this, um,

What should I think about in terms of who has, what data, where does it go?

How does it, how is it held?

How is it

handled?

Um, I mean,

of course each state has different privacy law and data protection thing.

I know, I know what you can't generalize, but, but what, what considerations should

the smaller company, because bear in mind, a lot of our listeners are from the.

Uh, private security EAP world.

What should they consider?

Where did the answers go?

If for want of a better

word?

You know, well, that's a great question as well.

Think about all these companies big and small today, use a third

party to run background checks.

Most of it, it's not done in internal,

so you have to have obviously, um, so, um,

show you some

place, uh, as part of the contracts that you're signing with these

companies that are doing this stuff for you, uh, it is protected.

Uh, VM just like would be in these types of assessments, the information,

this particular on top of that, it goes back to the employer so

that the company doesn't hold it.

They don't pretend it's going to be retained by a smaller

company, large company.

So but I mean, even if they don't want to retain it, of course

it's going to be destroyed.

So it's just.

a matter of What policies are.

They should certainly counsel,

uh, someone earlier the department or find someone externally as part of the

agreement to use and start technologies.

Just like any type of background check.

You got to check that date.

And how, how does this compare to personality tests?

Because many people have been through some sort of HR process where

they've said, right, we want our team to get on a little bit better.

Let's, let's send you through Myers, Briggs.

Um, and, uh, and, and, you know, there are, there are other, there are

other things to do with color or emotional intelligence.

Um, and, and I think there's a Goldman's EEQ test or something like that, but,

um, how does this compare to that?

I guess at the end of the day, we want to

find out undesirable traits and maybe Myers-Briggs, it's not

about desirable, undesirable.

It's literally about

let's understand how an introvert will, you know, get the best

out of their work experience

and and let's understand how someone that

judges more than perceives and blah, blah,

blah,

you know?

Um, but, but, but how,

how, how does this compare with

that

Well, you know, it's interesting.

There's so many assessments out there and we used to use them at my last

company in a company before that it's really what you're trying to get at.

Most of these assessments that you're speaking of are very good

at looking at how we've worked together, leadership capabilities.

And again, they're going to be used and they have a great deal of success as well.

Uh, they compare in a way that they're very reliable and of course the mountains,

uh, where they differ is that this is getting at the undesirable behaviors

that you don't want in a workplace specific to those types of things.

For screening for such as violence, theft, sabotage behaviors.

Uh, nobody wants it.

So if you can screen these people out in advance as they go through these

other assessments, or we going to to serve a bee or a to developing and

becoming a reliable, good working.

Okay.

Now that's, that's fair enough to assess.

That's actually very clear.

I actually, as I was asking the question, I was suddenly thinking,

oh yeah, we're looking at working better together versus criminality.

It's a little bit, it's a little bit different.

Um, but, but

but, but also one of the things, you know, that the EAP community is big.

Uh, more skills.

They love it.

They love more skills.

I don't know what it is.

It's just, um, they, they they're continually improving themselves.

Um, maybe, maybe some of their backgrounds, um, mean that they're

particularly good at learning.

I don't know.

Um, I'm not trying to blow smoke at our community that

they love developing themselves.

So

aside from the technology, looking at you and your career in investigations,

W what should they do if they wanted to start to start to bring some

of that skillset into their, into

their wheelhouse, how can they

start?

No, preemployment implements priests,

obviously I think once you have identified the right candidates and you

bring them on board, a lot of that, the skills development has to occur once.

Hertz.

And say, you know, we're seeing it and education as well.

I worked for a private university.

And what we're, what we're hearing from employers

is we want to experience, we want certifications, but wants skills.

And so I'm going to to give you just an illustration.

So I was talking to a friend of mine as a chair of our public equity,

as I was explaining to them what we're providing certifications

skills, training capabilities.

kids are coming out with very remarkable skills.

And this particular chair said, we don't want to do that.

That's not our focus.

We want teachers, students think We don't give them skills.

We teach theory.

Well, that's great.

But they come out with no skillset.

We don't know where they are, how they're going to fit.

And so.

The marketplace is unforgiving to candidates.

They want skills and want capable people.

They want experiences specific to the whatever they're looking for.

So we as a society, we as a nation, we, as employers need to be thinking

about doing that and doing what we need for these faculties.

These people, we owe it to the next generation coming in.

wine industry.

Yeah, it's interesting.

Also I did a presentation.

I was in a a public situation about a gen Z.

next generation.

I didn't know a lot about, chance.

So I had to do a little research, but what I found out was gen Z was, uh,

raised during the great recession.

So they saw a a lot of parents lose their jobs.

They were working on tight boxes.

I'm excited about you see, because these kids are coming up with, they want

loyalty and to look for job security, they like to differentiate themselves

from the generation before them.

So I think I'm excited about that.

I'll look forward to seeing them come in because they're a lot more open-minded to.

The skills they're looking for those certifications.

And of course, that's going to help us on the entry room, uh, mid mid-level

a little bit different, but I think, uh, overall we just have to start

putting together tools that are gonna help us screen out the undesirables

to start developing the skills.

Once they're employed.

But what if someone wanted to be like, Specifically, I'll

have to ask this cause you're here.

I know, I know maybe some of the polygraph screening opportunities in

the world are diminishing because of tech and because of laws and whatever.

I know, I know.

I mean, I once picked up a book and it's, it talks about, oh, look, look at the,

the, the eyes, the eyes look down when they're feeling or imagining something,

they look when they're doing something else and they look left and right.

And maybe some people will, will go down a, a bit of

a hokey, uh, uh, type of type

of path if they pick up the wrong book.

Um, if they want to be like you

specifically, w what can they do?

Well, you know, certainly they're going to have

to formal education for sure.

You get different ones.

That one of the things that I specifically focused on, especially

in the print preemployment aspects,

look to help employers with employees is understanding human psychology.

Is there, you know, At the university of teach, they have a

psychology department as well, and I teach detection of deception.

Uh, so you know, you have to start setting, and getting your mind set on.

Uh, humans are gonna continually to rule someone, has to develop and design and

invent these computers and these systems.

And so we're always going to be done, but there's going to be a human element.

So to get into this for you, get into this.

world, Um, get, get involved

with, um, what is necessary to

be successful investigator print On a screen and deal with, Uh, and then of

course, look for opportunities, especially coming in to find a mentor, find a

strong match is going to be able to

align with periodical and hope.

Uh, through the career path is one of the

the things I on a regular basis throughout my career, always taken out my teas.

I want them to develop, cause I'm want to give back.

I'm not going to be in this industry forever and what's going to be behind.

So I want to leave a legacy.

And so, uh, development, formal education, find a a mentor

to that.

Look to be the best in whatever you're in.

Uh, I tell my daughter, I tell her the kid that I'm.

Don't just be at mediocre.

Cut, get into something

passionate about, uh, and soul with your restaurants.

There's a book out there called soul.

And so forget about all the stuff, terrible life focused on the things

you're good at and then be the best.

And of course you are going to last over time.

You're going to be an expert.

If you saw with experience.

Great sentiment.

Love it.

Well then, well then what's next.

What's next for you?

Where we sort of coming up on, uh, 20, 22 and, uh, you know, lots of

interesting things, um, in the news

and you know, in the world of security, um, uh, around the world, what about you?

What's

what's what's next?

I spent a lot of time and, uh, corporate world falling apart.

That for me, it's given back.

I like education.

I taught when I was a graduate system.

I didn't know anything from anything.

So, but I knew one day I wanted to get back and I do in the way of mentoring

and continue to help the kids build their LinkedIn profiles, writing their

resumes

Of course, now co-teaching with.

The experiences that I can share with the kids.

And so that's next.

That's certainly going to be on my forefront here to probably retire.

But in addition to that, I like to also help the industry.

And so I keep my hands in the security consulting arena, as well as working.

And this company forensics, which is helping a fuck about the Tesla stuff.

So if you're interested now, certainly six.com more bodies, but I'm going to keep

my hand in the industry and I'm also going to stay in education so I can get back.

I like it.

And I really love the work of Embry-Riddle aeronautical university.

Um, had some, had some great speakers at events, uh, from, from

the, the very same university.

And of course you've very kindly spoken

at, uh, at our events before, which is

which is fantastic.

But Alan, it's been a pleasure having you on, I think this is a

real treat because the corporate security world, the EAP world, they

don't understand how much they need

this and maybe they don't understand how much they need your skillset.

And the skillset provided by technology.

I think massive questions that we could keep on going and asking, but

I think this is a very, very good tool to force around the subject.

Um, and it's a pleasure to have you on.

Thank you very much for that.

Um, thank so much.

It's always a pleasure speaking with you.

So are you now an interrogator?

Elijah?

Are we all interrogators?

Is, is this even something a CP colleague could aspire to be?

Well, I think the discussion, you know, brought up a lot of good

topics and gave some food for thought.

And so, you know, obviously here's someone who has excessive

experience in the, uh, FBI.

You know, he's done deep dives into these subjects.

Uh, for us it's, as, as agents, as protectors, we can be able to, the

question is if we'll be able to incorporate some of those things into our

toolbox, and I think the answer is.

Indeed.

And even if it's a short course on behavioral science, behavioral analysis, I

know Miranda is a great proponent of that.

Maybe just something that would spark an interest and, and that, and that

idea.

Perhaps a lot of

people have yet to commit something in plain sight.

They've yet to be caught.

Doesn't mean they haven't done it.

And so we need

to switch this mindset of either the background check.

What did you do?

I pulled the criminal records.

Uh, you know, we need to kind of switch that mindset a little bit like developed

vetting, uh, which is what the UK does when it wants to really do some

nice vetting of its government staff.

And, um,

I think, I think we can, we can incorporate that.

And the other point was

he does believe that technology could solve the gap in proper due

diligence because no matter how much we complain, oh, they haven't done the

due diligence on hiring a team X, Y.

It's about time and money.

So do you think technology could plug that gap?

Oh, okay.

So my short answer is yes.

I think that was probably, maybe.

Uh, one of the things that will go throw up a red flag to some

people, because there is a fear we've had these discussions on

previous episodes of the podcast.

There is a fear that, you know, too much tech is going to replace us, uh,

re you know, replace these roles that we normally would be doing ourselves.

Uh, however, I think if we'd look at the technology as assisting us, uh,

helping us do these jobs, then it just, it's just a force multiplier.

It will be well, you know, and if you're not doing anything, then

absolutely this is going to be a value.

And then, uh, you know, whether or not you want to hire a proper investigator, what.

I think, I think that's a, that's a wider question.

Well, w we, we, we've all heard these, you

know, uh, some version of this story where you've got the, the automated

system that reviews the applications and the AI just automatically rejects,

uh, you know, people for whatever criteria that might not be fair.

So we have to keep that part in mind.

So I think that's why it's essential to kind of develop these skills ourselves.

And then.

Use those alongside technology and kind of bridge that gap.

That's a, that's a great point.

Cause you don't want them building.

Some biases conscious or unconscious where suddenly, oh no, you acted in that way.

And that way is bad.

Whereas, you know, it's, it's just a nuance.

But overall, I really enjoyed, uh, you know, delving into this topic.

As I

said at the beginning, criminal limbo, it's often

difficult to know what to

do in between the Christmas new year period, but even more

difficult, I suppose, in between the IPS happy new year period.

Um, and you are fresh ish off the back of ISP.

So, so I thought I would take this opportunity to ask, uh, how was the AP

forum and, uh, IP SP close protection

conference.

Yeah.

I mean, I had a really good time.

It was in Vegas.

Um, but again, there were two events that were back to back.

Uh, the first one was the EAP forum

that was hosted by Byron Rogers, Kristen, Wes, and a couple other gentlemen.

And.

It was very impressive.

We had a good turnout.

Uh, they asked me to speak, I didn't put anybody to

sleep.

So I guess that's, uh, uh, when in

my, in my book, uh, and then after that, moving into the

greater conference itself, the turnout was massive.

I think it was, uh, over 600 people.

Uh, and I think that was a direct result

of, you know, everyone having been, uh, siloed because of a COVID.

And so,

you know, coming back out the world, reopening up, knock on wood.

Uh, I think people were just excited to get out, see each other, communicate

with each other, you know, pass the business cards network and also

learn something new.

And I think that happened over the weekend.

And I was able to watch remotely one panel that you're on talking about

online learning and in-person learning.

Yeah.

That was kind of a fighter.

that was, that was quite quite the panel.

Wasn't it?

Um, lots of, lots of opinions.

And even sometimes I felt to say hybrid was offensive to some people.

So, so whatever, whatever, whatever you say, I feel it's

going to ruffle some feathers.

Well, I think that speaks to the fact that you know, our

community, um, it spans a lot of.

Thoughts and processes and, uh, and opinions.

And so particularly at something like that, where you have these, these

different schools of thought and no pun intended, uh, in the same room, uh, and

you know, people be like, Hey, I'm right.

Or here's a different way of looking at it.

And I think even though there were differences of opinion, everyone's

still civil about it and left learning, uh, more than maybe they walked into.

They did and lots and lots of content, lots of food for thought.

And, and I really feel that perhaps the community moved forward, uh, not

least because it got to meet each other.

So many happy

faces.

Um, but what's next for you?

Are you making the most of the Primo limbo?

Are you getting ready for new new year's

events?

Uh, you know, this is a welcomed, I just, I just got

off an assignment two days ago.

So this is a welcome period of downtime for me.

Uh, I usually don't even get that during the holidays.

And so

I am taking it as stride.

So when it.

Um, on the other, outside of doing this podcast and a couple

more recordings we have to do for

some future stuff with the circuit media, I'm not going to do much until new years.

Uh, and then I just be prepping for the next year.

Love it.

And that may be it's a great adage prep for the next year.

Do your due diligence on yourself, on your life on everything?

I don't know.

I'm making a segue from today's interview.

You do the best segues, bro.

I just got.

Uh, sometimes they have to be brutal.

I don't

know.

Have

Those are called smash cuts, right there.

they hit go?

I like that.

Smash.

Cut.

See you.

I taught you criminal limbo.

Now you told me smash cuts.

There.

Yeah.

Let's let's, uh, take this opportunity to thank the

community for all their hard work and support this whole year.

Um, it's been great on the Uber app and the PBA connect

app and on the magazine or the

podcast, all of you you've been awesome.

This is our 50th episode.

So that is really great news.

50, can you, can we, we started with episode zero as well, so

technically it's, you know,

It's amazing.

I I've I've I've really enjoyed it.

I really look forward to what we've got in store for

2022.

And here's a great thing.

I'll just.

Well, again, I was just on an assignment and one of the agents that was with me,

I looked down at his iPhone and he was listening to the podcast on it and he

was listening to a previous episode.

He was like, yeah, I'm just playing catch-up.

And I just thought that was great.

Just because, you know, having this body of work now, like you say, 50 episodes

here, uh, You know, while we want to

remain topical, the episodes have a timelessness to them.

You know, they're things that you can go back, listen to

still get something out of.

Um, and they don't have to be listened to in chronological order.

And so, um, uh, our hope is, is that we move into the, into the new year and we'll

have a lot of fun stuff coming up there.

A lot of exciting guests and a lot of engagements.

Love it.

Well, thanks to today's guest islands, Keller let's.

Thank our co-hosts Sean West and John Moss, uh, for being such

awesome colleagues this entire year.

So from a larger

myself, this has been another

fantastic edition of the circuit magazine podcasts.

Happy holidays.

Happy holidays.