What security can learn from Japan’s train cleaners

The mission for the security industry should be to increase both the status of security workers and their actual contribution. The two belong together.

I keep coming back to TESSEI, the company known for its seven-minute turnaround cleaning of JR East’s Shinkansen trains at Tokyo Station. Its experience offers a lesson for anyone managing people whose work is essential and often overlooked.

Under Teruo Yabe, TESSEI made its workers visible as part of the passenger experience. Teams helped solve problems and improve how the work was done. One suggestion from cleaners changed the platform sign from “Cleaning in progress” to “Preparing for boarding”. Their responsibility was preparing the train for the next passenger. That gave the task a wider purpose.

The company also introduced “Angel Reports”, through which colleagues recognised helpful actions and good work. Someone preparing equipment before a shift or helping another team member could receive recognition. Yabe describes how this helped people feel that their contribution was being noticed.

Alongside that recognition were demanding standards, teamwork and opportunities to improve the job. TESSEI managers reported passengers applauding the crews and described the effect this had on motivation. These accounts show several changes working together: recognition, employee involvement and operational discipline.

That combination matters to security: respect, capability and responsibility.

Imagine security workers failing to turn up tomorrow. Think about airports, hospitals, shops, offices and events. How much of ordinary life depends on someone being there?

We have a concrete example. Berlin Brandenburg Airport announced that no passenger departures would operate on 1 February 2024 because aviation security staff were striking. Around 170 departures had been planned. Their absence made the airport’s dependence on their work immediately visible.

In everyday security work, the contribution can be harder to see. An officer notices a hazard, calms someone down, controls access or helps a vulnerable person. A quiet shift may contain many useful decisions.

Before judging an officer from a video of shoplifting, I want to understand the situation. What instructions were they given? What training and equipment did they receive? What support was available?

Employer policies and security roles differ. In parliamentary evidence in April 2024, Co-op said its staff and guards were told to avoid intervention that would put them in danger. It also described guards who intervene and specialist guards who detain offenders. The instructions, risks and available support matter when assessing someone’s response.

I have also heard security leaders dismiss the intelligence of people entering the industry. That concerns me.

Someone who turns up at eight in the morning, day after day, engages with a course and completes it is giving us evidence of commitment. I see a willingness to learn and something to develop.

Initial training is a starting point. The SIA’s door-supervisor course requires 44 hours over six days with self-study, or seven days without it. Security-guard training is four or five days respectively, and a qualifying first-aid certificate is also required. The SIA itself says employers and venue management should assess risks and provide additional training where necessary.

If a manager begins with a low opinion of someone’s ability, how much time will they invest in teaching them? How often will they listen to an idea? How much responsibility will that person ever get to demonstrate?

TESSEI gives us practical changes to consider.

Give officers a clear purpose at each site. Explain what good performance looks like and where their responsibilities begin and end.

Continue their development through paid practice, coaching and feedback. Give them working equipment, clear escalation routes and supervisors who support sound decisions.

Ask the people doing the work what needs to change. They see recurring problems that head office may never encounter.

Recognise prevention, judgement and care. Record the conflict resolved, the hazard spotted and the person helped.

And make progression real, with increasing skill leading to greater responsibility and better pay.

Calling someone a security officer creates an expectation. Employers and clients share responsibility for giving that person the conditions to meet it.

The question I want the industry to take seriously is: how do we help security workers contribute more, and make sure that contribution earns them respect, opportunity and better pay?