For the last few years in our industry, it has been extremely
interesting to watch the progression…or regression,
one might say…of the basic functions and services we
deliver at the store and multistore level. While we have as an
industry progressed in our technological capabilities and in
our abilities to influence shrinkage results, there appears to be
a significant change going on in retail America insofar as the
core responsibilities and expectations of the loss prevention
executives are concerned.
A number of retailers over the last few years have in actuality
reduced overall core responsibilities and certain functions that
the single unit and multiunit LP executive once delivered. They
are now refocusing and streamlining those efforts toward more
of a simplistic, but critical and just as demanding, safety, theft,
and fraud methodology.
In one case recently a retailer went so far as to eliminate
virtually all of the operational responsibilities once owned by the
loss prevention executives and simplified the role to the point
that allowed them to reduce head count.
In another case one retailer evolved the title and function
so far beyond the core, simplistic causes of shrink that they in
essence eliminated loss prevention. This seriously impacted
their ability as an organization to deal with core issues, which
resulted in an increase in shrink that led to restaffing the
function with basic core responsibilities on a national level
within eighteen months.
In other cases, reductions in multiunit staffing levels
have necessitated the decreasing of responsibilities and the
streamlining of functions to ensure that the core causes of
shrink are managed.
Reasons for Moving to Basics
This back-to-basics popularity that seems to be gaining
momentum is a result of a number of compressing reasons. On
the one hand, you have technology and systemic enhancements
that eliminate human effort, human error, and human need. On
the other hand you have the economic pressure of increasing
profit by any means, which demands the academic standards
of scrutinizing head count, increasing the quality of service
delivered through the simplification of services, and reducing
duplication of effort. This results in sharply reducing the
support for multiple audit processes and training programs
that go beyond perceived core needs. It is through this
back-to-basics approach that we will in actuality satisfy
expectations and increase the overall quality of what we as an
industry are at the core responsible for.
Certainly there could also be an argument made that this
back-to-basics approach has also been fueled to some extent
by the emergence of the increasing problem of organized retail
crime (ORC), which has taken our industry by storm over
the last few years and necessitated both payroll and capital
investments that as recently as ten years ago were spent in the
stores or not spent at all.
The spending on ORC has had a double-edged sword effect.
It takes payroll and capital out of the stores, it increases our
value to the retailers, feeds our industry’s basic love of the thrill
of the chase, but keeps us, at least subconsciously, attached
to the law enforcement perceptions that retailers understand
they need, but are always concerned about how it impacts their
employee populations. So, the emergence of the ORC functions,
while representing growth opportunities for our industry and
having a positive impact on our perceived value, is also keeping
us grounded in a back-to-basics mentality.
Keeping It Simple
Obviously financial pressures will always dictate that retailers
maximize performance. Technology today allows them to apply that
standard on an individual position-by-position basis, which at the
end of the day translates into keeping it simple and getting back
to basics. In my opinion, what we’re seeing is merely this process
being applied to our industry on a position-by-position basis.
Systemic enhancements over the last decade have allowed
most retailers to reach such levels of information sophistication
that human involvement and interpretation is being reduced
significantly to the point where only the basics need be
addressed. So while some of us may feel like we’re losing
ground, in actuality we’re gaining ground because this allows us
to focus on our core deliverables, increase our effectiveness and
value, and spend time on the one element that technology will
never replace—leadership skills.
At the end of the day, learning one’s function is somewhat easy.
But leading a team is the key to success as well as the most difficult
function of all because it requires a daily commitment to your team,
to yourself, and to your mission. And speaking from experience, it is
the one area where we make most of our mistakes.
To that end, I would suggest that the keys to success are
keeping it simple, staying grounded in the basics, and always
working on your leadership skills until the day you decide not to lead.