Security is non-negotiable.
It's really as simple as that. The point of security rules is that the rules must be followed by everyone. People don't get to circumvent a rule because it's easier, or whatever justification they can come up with.
Of course, this is all within reason. Don't enforce security rules e.g. if the building is on fire and everyone is escaping. For similar reason, EMTs will be allowed through without needing a key fob.
You are not in charge of others' adherence to security rules.
I think this part is essential. When the company drafts the rules, the company is the beneficiary here. They can expect you to follow the rules, but they cannot expect you to ensure that others follow the rules.
And this is where the system falls apart. It shouldn't be your job to ensure that random passersby follow the rules to a tee. Unless you're literally hired as a security officer; which I surmise you are not.
Not only would such an expectation unfairly offload (unpaid) work onto you, but there's also an issue with presumptuous behavior. Have you been kept in the loop about everyone's access privileges, including guests, maintenance staff etc? No? Then you can't be held responsible for failing to bar someone access from somewhere.
The current company I work at has enforced such a presumptuous nature in its employees. It's customary here for new hires to get introduced to literally every employee (>100!), and everyone expects that they know everyone else. I'm a consultant, and even though I work here, I wasn't given a tour (not that I would want one, to be honest).
However, that expectation of knowing everyone is a constant hassle for me. I've had people refuse me access to the elevator based on their assumption that I don't work here, because they would have been introduced to me. They've put a wheel clamp on my car. I've been removed from a floor (one above where I usually work) because I wanted to get a cup of coffee and they had never seen me before (note that their kitchen is used by 4 floors, so it's not unusual to see people not from their team).
Enforcing security should be left to security personnel.
You're caught between a rock and a hard place. Now what?
This is an issue for you, because you're stuck between two IPS problems: antagonizing your employer (you come across as defiant of authority), or antagonizing your colleagues (you come across as a pedantic nitpicker). If you start enforcing the rules strictly, it impacts on your social standing with your colleagues (the company suffers less from it) and you're doing work that you're not hired to do.
I've always tried to find a middle ground here; because either extreme is going to end up costing on a social/professional level. And in the long term, social problems can become professional ones (especially since I'm a consultant who needs to get contract renewals).
- I don't intentionally hold the door open for people I don't know.
- If someone is able to go through the door after me, without me intentionally holding it open for them, that is their breach of security protocol, not mine.
- If I come up behind someone else and the door is still open, I will probably use the open door, but will definitely still use my badge to register that I've used the door.
I think this is the best way to both avoid any wrongdoing in the company's eyes, and also not actively antagonizing my colleagues.
If the company wants the security policy to be enforced without fail; then they should post a security officer to ensure that everyone uses their fob. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
The expectation that the work can be offloaded onto the staff based on a "everyone does their part" argument is presumptuous and flawed. Are they dedicating some of your contracted work time to enforcement of security protocol? I would guess not.
Again, they can require you to follow the rules; but they cannot require you to make others follow the rules.
But what to say?
My answer is devoid of a particular phrasing. While you often find suggested phrasing in IPS answers, the issue here is that you are being judged on your actions more than your words.
There are of course good and bad ways to speak to someone, but that's a general rule that applies to every situation. There's nothing specific about this situation, I would merely be copy/pasting the gist of every other IPS answer with no particular applicability to this question.
The issue here is that it's your behavior (not your statements) that avoids (or causes) the conflict. As such, my answer tried to suggest how to behave in regards to the security protocol while avoiding interpersonal conflict (both with your colleagues and your employer).
There's one case where phrasing does help:
If someone uses the door after you, without using their fob, and you wish to inform them that it's against security protocol. Not so much to be a stickler, but rather to inform someone who may honestly not be aware of the rules.
Looking at your question, you're basically trying to find a way to kindly tell them that they should use their fob. Asking it in the form of a question is the politest way to approach this, I agree with you there. However, I consider the nature of the request (telling them what to do) to be offensive, regardless of how kindly it is phrased.
Referring back to your question:
What is the best way I can ask someone to follow this security requirement without sounding like a stickler?
I think it's unavoidable to come across as a stickler, because you are approaching this person and telling them what to do, for no reason other than your desire for having the rules be followed by everyone. That's pretty much the definition of a stickler.
If you're a security officer, then it's not offensive (when phrased kindly) because it's your job. Not asking them would endanger your employment, and thus it's forgivable/understandable for you to approach them. I can't fault a salesman for trying to sell me his product.
But when you're just a random passerby, the lack of apparent justification for you to tell them what to do will likely rub some people the wrong way, regardless of phrasing.
I would opt for sticking to the facts, and not telling others what to do (implicitly or not). That person has to decide for himself if he's going to follow security protocol or not, you can merely inform them of the correct approach.
I'm not sure if you saw the recent memo. In case you didn't, security protocol has been tightened, the company asks that all employees use their fob when using these doors. You might get in trouble for not using yours.
- You avoid any presumption that they're doing something they're not allowed to. There are valid reasons to not use a fob, e.g. when I had issues with my badge, and it took a day to fix, I was told to ask a colleague to escort me or give me their badge. I wouldn't want to continually get told to use my badge (or get held up because they see me using someone else's badge) by a random passerby (unaware of my situation) every time I took a smoke break.
- You stuck to undeniable facts: There is a security policy about using your fob. He did not use his fob (regardless of why he didn't). You've not made any assumption, that person cannot (honestly) refute anything you just said, because everything your said is the objective truth.
- By mentioning the memo (even if it's not all that recent anymore), the conversation ends up on a more lighthearted informative tone, as opposed to reprimanding for not following security protocol (because of ignorance or indifference). Essentially, you give the other person a non-awkward way out of the conversation; while you still achieved your goal (reminding them).
- Your statement is informative, not imperative. You don't tell them what to do. You merely mention the potential consequence of not doing so. It's their decision.