Thousands of security guard firms in all sizes and sectors are competing for talent—especially hourly labor. They face the same basic challenge to identify, recruit, select, train, and retain talent, but the process frequently breaks down when it comes to pay.
The security services industry was built on cost savings, which now results in guard firms competing by undercutting wages and benefits for guards, says Vince Carrabba, CEO and chairman for Specialized, an integrated family of three security providers (AURIX, M1 Global, and Metro One).
“This created a cycle that’s hard to break: When compensation is low, you narrow your talent pool and limit who you can hire,” Carrabba tells Security Management. “Many guard companies hire from a workforce that has been historically underemployed or in transition—people trying to reenter the job market or working multiple short-term roles.
“As a result, the profession was effectively unprofessionalized,” he continues. “Security became viewed as an entry-level or temporary job, not a career. That’s a fundamental perception and structural problem that affects everything downstream, from morale to retention.
“Until the industry commits to professionalizing the role—meaning better pay, benefits, training, and a defined career path—turnover will remain high.”
Security Management connected with executives at Specialized at GSX 2025 to talk about professional development and security guard recruitment. We continued the conversation afterward with company leaders via email, particularly digging into issues of wages and recruiting with retention in mind.
While Specialized executives say that they pay employees a living wage, plus competitive benefits and annual wage increases, “our wages aren’t high—they’re just high for the industry,” Carrabba says. “That says everything.”
“Clients are buyers. Service providers are sellers,” says Joseph Arwady, president of M1 Global. “When sellers conform to buyer norms, without offering options that lead to higher retention and better service, they do a disservice to customers. By the same token, when clients base supplier selection solely on cost, they are accepting the risk and service problems that come with high turnover, low retention, and inexperienced personnel. Retention and turnover are not reciprocal measurements. When clients shop for low-price options, they are hit with a double whammy—both high turnover and low retention.”
Although wages are far and away the primary factor in attracting employees, work-life balance and health benefits like paid time off, sick leave, and affordable healthcare options contribute to attracting and retaining top talent, Arwady says.
“The challenge is that clients often choose providers based purely on price,” Carrabba adds. “If we build in true healthcare contributions or development programs, our bids can lose to competitors who artificially claim to include benefits but don’t. For example, some firms ‘mark up’ 5 percent for healthcare in proposals, knowing most officers won’t take it—meaning the company pockets that margin.
“In truth, only about 15 percent of officers enroll in healthcare, even when we contribute, simply because they can’t afford it on current wages,” he continues. “Many rely on government subsidies for coverage. That alone shows the gap between what’s promised and what’s sustainable.”
Retention is a notable challenge in the industry because many guards leap from one organization to another, chasing minimal increases in wages.
“Finding people that want to work here for the right reasons is incredibly telling when it comes to retention,” says Camille Montoya, chief talent acquisitions officer. “‘Job hoppers’ may want to work here but only until the next best thing comes their way. Time spent investing in this group can be much more productive with career enhancements for those that we screen through our selective process to find higher qualified candidates. We believe in full lifecycle recruiting, meaning the job does not just end at the point of offer acceptance.”
Carrabba notes that, “We focus on candidates who have demonstrated consistency and reliability in their employment history. For example, we avoid hiring individuals who’ve cycled through multiple jobs in short periods—we want people who show they can commit and grow.
“Internally, we use what we call a ‘long-tenure lens,’ looking for candidates who’ve held positions for several years rather than months. It’s a simple filter, but it helps us avoid chronic turnover before it starts,” he explains.
Montoya adds: “Touchpoints through the employee lifecycle will help identify frustrations in advance. We can’t catch them all, but exit interviews are meaningful, and when relevant data is collected, we can react so that future situations are improved. We also operate with a bench mentality and keeping this group warm throughout their tenure allows us to easily backfill any turnover that occurs.”
Many organizations lean on professional development as the key to retention, but that doesn’t always work out in security services.
“Professional development is limited by the structure of the industry itself,” Carrabba says. “With 1.4 million security officers in the United States, there simply aren’t enough managerial or specialized positions to promote everyone. So, we focus on incremental wage increases, site upgrades, and recognition programs that provide a sense of progression even when role promotions aren’t available.”
The client site makes a notable difference. Carrabba says turnover is often lower at corporate campuses or data centers where officers feel supported and engaged, compared to isolated posts with limited interaction.
“Even when pay is comparable, the difference in environment and respect makes or breaks retention,” Carrabba says. “Clients who invest in their security teams—through appreciation, inclusion in company culture, or simply treating them as professionals—see far better outcomes.”
The guards themselves have a hand in mitigating turnover risk, provided clients and employers are listening.
“When a security program is experiencing high turnover, the supplier and the client are advised to agree on a methodology to identify root causes,” says Arwady. “The root cause analysis covers a wide range of contributors for high turnover, since it is seldom due to a single factor. Root cause [analysis] may identify issues in the workplace that are outside the control of the service provider, such as worksite conditions. Or perhaps similar job opportunities are increasing in the same local market, but with higher wages offered by competing employers.
“Whatever the factor(s), practical solutions are always available, made more or less difficult to install based on the size of the account (number of staff) and the variety of security job opportunities at the work location,” he says.
The bottom line is that low retention increases risk and the opportunity for injury, according to Arwady. It can result in additional issues, including higher costs of service from needing to hire and retrain employees.
“It also leads to reduced employee morale and productivity as a ‘gerbil in the cage mentality’ takes hold, when a non-stop stream of new employees with minimal knowledge are asked to provide protective services at levels they are unable to achieve,” he adds.
Claire Meyer is editor-in-chief of Security Management. Connect with her on LinkedIn or email directly at [email protected].