Turnover, Overtime and a Favouritism Complaint in a 72-Guard Contract Team
You have just taken over a contracted security team of 72 guards covering 18 posts across three shifts at a manufacturing site. Annual turnover is 48 percent, overtime is running at 22 percent of base hours, and 19 of the 72 guards have expired training records for first aid or fire response. There are three supervisors. Four guards have complained in writing that one supervisor manipulates the roster, gives preferred posts and leave to friends, and penalises anyone who questions him. The night shift has a 30 percent vacancy rate and is covered by the same few guards on repeated overtime. The client has cut the training budget by 40 percent and is threatening to invoke the service-credit clause over two recent access-control failures. You have 90 days before the contract review.
1. Diagnose the likely root causes behind the turnover, overtime and expired training, using the numbers given. Explain which causes you would test first and what evidence would confirm or refute them.
Read the worked answer
The temptation is to treat turnover, overtime and expired training as three separate problems. The numbers suggest they are connected, but I would test that rather than assume it.
First hypothesis: the roster and supervisor behaviour drive attrition. A 48 percent annual turnover means roughly 35 guards leaving a year. If the four complainants are credible and other guards confirm the pattern, the supervisor is allocating scarce benefits: preferred posts, leave, and overtime. Repeated overtime on the night shift with a 30 percent vacancy rate makes those allocations valuable, which increases the incentive to favour allies and punish critics. Evidence to test: exit interview themes, leave refusal records, overtime distribution by guard, post allocation by supervisor, and anonymous interviews across shifts. If overtime is concentrated among a small group close to one supervisor, the favouritism complaint gains support.
Second hypothesis: overtime is a symptom of vacancies and poor scheduling, not just fairness. 22 percent overtime with 30 percent night vacancies is arithmetically plausible. Evidence: roster versus actual attendance, absence patterns, and recruitment pipeline.
Third hypothesis: expired training is a scheduling and records problem as much as a budget problem. 19 expired records with a 40 percent budget cut suggests training was deferred when overtime was used to cover posts. Evidence: training dates, who was scheduled and cancelled, and whether refreshers were offered on paid time.
I would test the supervisor issue first because it affects trust and because the other fixes will fail if staff believe the process is rigged.
2. Set out a 90-day plan to stabilise the team and protect the contract, with sequenced actions and the reasoning for the sequence.
Read the worked answer
Days 1-10: stabilise safety and evidence. Identify the 19 expired records and the posts they cover, and move those guards off first-aid or fire-warden duties until refreshed, or arrange an immediate short refresher for the highest-risk posts. The client's access-control failures also need a short factual report with corrective actions, because the contract review is imminent and silence looks like denial.
Days 1-30: investigate the complaint fairly and visibly. Interview the complainants, the supervisor and a sample of guards; review rosters, leave and overtime records. If the allegation is substantiated, apply the disciplinary process and remove roster control from that supervisor pending outcome. Regardless of outcome, introduce a published roster rule: overtime offered by rotation, leave approved against a written rule, and post allocation reviewed by a second supervisor. This addresses the perception of favouritism, which is as damaging as proven favouritism.
Days 15-45: fix the night-shift vacancy. Recruitment alone is too slow; consider a retention payment for night shift, a reviewed shift pattern, and cross-training day staff who volunteer. The aim is to cut overtime from 22 percent toward 10 percent, which also reduces fatigue-related errors.
Days 30-60: rebuild training within the reduced budget. Use short in-house refreshers for fire response and first aid awareness, prioritise the posts with highest risk, and schedule training on paid time so it is not cancelled for coverage.
Days 60-90: measure and report to the client: turnover, overtime percentage, training compliance, access-control audit results, and complaint outcomes. Publish the numbers monthly.
Sequence reasoning: safety and client confidence first, because they carry immediate legal and contractual risk; fairness next, because it underpins retention; then recruitment and training, which take longer to show results.
3. How would you investigate the favouritism complaint in a way that is fair to the supervisor and credible to the guards? Set out the steps and the pitfalls.
Read the worked answer
Fairness to the supervisor and credibility with the guards are not opposites; both depend on a documented, consistent process.
Step 1: acknowledge the complaint in writing to the four guards, without promising an outcome. Confirm whether they want to be identified and explain the protection against retaliation.
Step 2: preserve records immediately: rosters, leave applications and approvals, overtime sheets, post allocations, and any messages about shift swaps for the past six to twelve months. Evidence disappears when people know an investigation has started.
Step 3: plan interviews. Speak to the complainants separately to get specific dates and examples, because a general claim of favouritism is hard to test. Then interview the supervisor, giving them the substance of the allegations and a chance to respond. Interview a sample of guards from different shifts, including those seen as close to the supervisor, so the sample is not stacked.
Step 4: analyse the data against the allegations. If one guard received most of the preferred posts and leave approvals, that is relevant; if allocation is broadly consistent with a published rule, the complaint may reflect a communication failure rather than corruption. Be willing to conclude either way.
Step 5: report findings to the appropriate manager, recommend action, and inform the complainants of the outcome at a level that respects confidentiality.
Pitfalls: investigating alone when you are new and may be seen as an outsider; promising confidentiality you cannot keep; interviewing only the complainants; treating a supervisor's informal style as proof of favouritism; and failing to act on a substantiated finding, which teaches the team that complaints are pointless. I would also check whether the client's HR or the contract's grievance procedure requires a particular route.