What’s Past is Prologue

Few hazards will surprise the student of risk mitigation. Historical data informs. Both natural and manmade catastrophes will occur with varying certainty over time. Our opportunity is influencing outcomes with awareness, preparedness, and good mitigation practices.

William Shakespeare acutely observed that our past is predictive of the future.1 The past certainly informs most protection practitioners and their approach to security risk and mitigation. It did mine prior to my interview for the global security leadership position at Starbucks Coffee in May of 1997.

Consequential risks were not new to me, nor were measurable security risk mitigations. My previous security teams had managed the aftermath of more than 60 workplace homicides, hundreds of injuries, and countless threats to people and assets costing untold anguish and millions of dollars. Importantly, my teams had innovated, tested, implemented, and measured effective security practices for significant risk reduction and return on investment.

Data and experience formed my view that commercial armed robbery posed a primary risk to all cash-handling businesses. In responding to an interview question regarding priorities, I mentioned that Starbucks was no exception to this hazard. I was a bit taken aback when my interviewers expressed uncertainty. It was apparent that my assessment of this potential impediment to Starbucks global aspirations was more or less received as a personal opinion.

This high-growth organization was learning its way, like a talented adolescent eager to travel but inexperienced in the risks that lay ahead. Interview panels followed with questions and comments that illustrated diverse concerns for other looming hazards, including risks to assets: cash, inventory, information, manufacturing and supply chain. Terrorism and pandemic were remote possibilities in 1997. Armed robbery violence seemed equally unlikely to some.

There was a persuasive case to be made for prioritizing commercial armed robbery risk. Several comprehensive studies and behavioral science applications proofed prior to 1997 resulted in significant incidence and injury risk reductions. I shared the data that had enabled my previous teams to significantly reduce the frequency and severity of violent events at three international corporations while facilitating cost containment, growth, and significant contribution to profit margin.

The armed robbery hazard in North America was well documented by the Western Behavioral Science Institute (WBSI), the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), Athena Research, and the National Food Service Security Council (NFSSC). The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) had published extensive guidelines for preventing workplace violence.2 The convenience and quick service segments had moved decisively to curb the risk. Robbery incidence reductions of more than 50 percent were common. Many companies had mitigated robbery hazards using layered and integrated security approaches featuring crime prevention design, risk awareness training, cash control, and security technology.

There was much more than the numbers I left unsaid—the parade of victims I held close. I remembered their faces from happier times as well as the anguish of family and friends. I remembered their pitiful assailants. I was committed to making the workplace safe enough for my children and was passionately inclined to influence others to that reasonable goal.

Having read the Starbucks mission and guiding principles, I intuitively connected my risk assessment to the company’s cultural imperative to provide a great workplace. After the interviews I remained uncertain of my employment chances. I knew from insiders that there was a “culture of consensus” at Starbucks. I had witnessed little consensus but was nevertheless excited to have the opportunity to influence the strategy. Opportunities to protect a rising global brand are few and far between.

Although grateful to receive the job offer on July 1, my enthusiasm was checked days later on the July 4 weekend when I deeply regretted learning that three Starbucks partners were found murdered in the manager’s office area, next to the safe, in the relatively safe Georgetown section of Washington, DC, in an apparent botched robbery attempt. During the weeks prior to joining the company I advised the cross-functional leadership group that convened to manage the aftermath. From the beginning of my career with Starbucks to this writing, that event has profoundly influenced my careful consideration of the consequences of risk and the benefits of mitigation.

This book contains a number of stories that are intended to help readers improve their own personal security while influencing the protection of their families, communities, and organizations. We will cover a range of hazards from our local neighborhood to the region, country, and globe. We will assess philosophy, methodology, and data to make the case for good security practices that empirically mitigate risk and its attendant anxiety.

Practices capable of return on investment include risk awareness; hazard detection and response; and injury, loss, and cost mitigation. We will never be threat-free. Yet we can afford to effectively recognize risk, reduce hazardous incidents, and mitigate consequences to continuously improve outcomes.

Shortly after my arrival at Starbucks I learned that one of my interviewers claimed I “predicted” the 1997 triple homicide. That was inaccurate. I merely observed that the commercial armed robbery hazard featured both frequency and severity for the industry segment. Surmising the likelihood of injury in a frequent threat environment is like anticipating the eventuality of a drowning in a 100-year flood plain. The severity of a foreseeable unmitigated outcome is nearly certain over time. Only the intervals of occurrence vary.

Data may instruct both hazard probabilities and impact consequences. Charting community or organization event history, benchmarking comparable communities, and assessing risk adjacency including network interconnectivity are recommended. Questions will arise. How likely is a risk? What is the frequency? Will it evolve in the community or chance to travel from other quarters? How severe is the impact?

Hazards are more or less predictable by virtue of their tendency to repeat over time. Risk frequency for all hazards may range from minutes to a year or longer periods of measurement depending on the size, breadth, and niche of the institution. All, including near geologic time, help forecast impacts on people and assets taking climate, cultural demographics, geology, geography, sociopolitical conditions, and historical incidents into account.

Robbery violence is no different. As with other hazards, commitment and resources can mitigate the frequency and severity. The Georgetown murders were a body blow. I was struck by the sense of palpable loss throughout Starbucks—from the baristas to the chairman of the board. I witnessed for the first time in my professional career a company that owned the consequence of tragedy to its core and was compelled not to repeat it.

Following the Starbucks homicides, the existing loss prevention department was renamed Partner and Asset Protection (P&AP). This new identity communicated a service level agreement within the organization. The departmental mission was: “Protect people. Secure assets. Contribute margin.” Those were the priorities in order. P&AP was to become an enabler of the global Starbucks experience from remote country origins to manufacturing and stores distributed around the world.

The priority was suppression of commercial armed robbery. Other global risks could wait. The Georgetown homicides had badly shaken security confidence across the enterprise. P&AP pressed forward to improve the chances that this kind of tragedy would not happen again. The mitigation of this risk would boost the investment confidence of stakeholders for addressing other hazards.

Employees at Starbucks are called “partners.” Stock ownership and health benefits for part-time employees were unique offerings in the early 1990s. Starbucks enjoyed meteoric success with its people-centric approach. Howard Behar, former chief operating officer, was fond of stipulating: “We are not in the coffee business serving people, we are in the people business serving coffee.” That mantra, made famous in his 2007 book, It’s Not About the Coffee, became a litmus test for performance. Partnerships also extend to other relationships including license and joint venture agreements as well as critical service dependencies.

Starbucks, like other highly ethical companies, strategically chose a path wider than simple business objectives, as is evidenced in its mission statement, an excerpt of which is included below.3 Community missions for highly respected brands are often underpinned by visionary goals as well as requirements for principled conduct that may evolve to a culture of care.

Since 2007, Ethisphere, an international think tank concerned with business ethics, corporate social responsibility, anticorruption, and sustainability, has compiled a list of the world’s most ethical...