Considerations for Executive Protection

[Guest guest]

A Free-Reprint Article Written by: Harold German

Article Title:

Considerations for Executive Protection

See TERMS OF REPRINT to the end of the article.

Article Description:

In this article, Harold German discusses key topics that

should be considered when it comes to providing executive

protection.

Additional Article Information:

===============================

1732 Words; formatted to 65 Characters per Line

Distribution Date and Time: 2009-08-18 10:12:00

Written By: Harold German

Copyright: 2009

Contact Email: mailto:hgerman@...

For more free-reprint articles by Harold German, please visit:

http://www.thePhantomWriters.com/recent/author/harold-german.html

=============================================

Special Notice For Publishers and Webmasters:

=============================================

HTML Copy-and-Paste and TEXT Copy-and-Paste

Versions Of Article Are Available at:

http://thePhantomWriters.com/free_content/db/g/executive-protection-services.sht\

ml#get_code

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Considerations for Executive Protection

Copyright © 2009 Harold German

Arrow Security NY

http://www.arrowsecurity.net

According to the FBI, there is an average of 6.7 kidnappings and

5.5 murders for every 100,000 people in the United States.

Although these statistics refer to the general population,

executives and high profile individuals, as well as their

families, are included in this figure. In a continuous effort to

curb these numbers, many organizations seek out executive

protection services, which are typically performed by high-end

security companies. As part of their initial process a security

guard company usually begins its executive protection plan by

performing a comprehensive risk assessment. It is here that the

risks against the executive are identified, measured and are

implemented to prevent these risks from materializing. Many

considerations are factored into this process, which can vary

depending on the client and circumstances. For instance, the

client may be a political figure with a controversial stance, or

the child of a prominent business tycoon. The former might run a

higher assassination risk, whereas the latter might have a higher

risk for kidnapping. Each scenario poses a completely different

set of challenges.

Risk Assessment Does Not Fit Into a Perfect Mold

As those who have been in the executive protection business for

any length of time will tell you, in many cases, risk assessment

for executive protection-in practice-is not always that

straightforward. There are instances where one is assigned to a

principal against whom there is really no obvious threat. With a

case of this type, many security professionals working alone-and

even some working in a group-run the risk of falling into

complacency, which can result in grave mistakes and security

holes if a situation were to arise.

For instance, take a situation where you are assigned to protect

a much-loved philanthropic business executive. A background check

on the principal may show that this is a person who has worked

his way up using the straight and narrow path, making no enemies

in the process-or so it seems. The problem with most of the

methods used for checking these kinds of facts is that they tend

to take note of only the major incidents in a person's history;

therefore, no mention is made of things like the insubordinate

employee that the executive might have had to fire. The affected

individual might still be holding a grudge-perhaps feeling that

his/her life was ruined by, what they consider to have been, an

'unfair dismissal.' As surprising as it might seem, there have

been cases of people killing others over matters of even less

significance.

Moreover, some methods used to establish the kinds of risks

facing an executive tend not to mention some of what might be

considered significant happenings in his/her personal life, which

could also turn out to have major security implications. Take for

instance love triangles, which may have left behind a partner who

felt that their 'lover was stolen' and still yearns for any

opportunity to exact revenge. As improbable as it may sound, this

experience may be of enough concern to pose a security threat,

and as such, should be considered as part of the risk assessment.

The Low-Risk Case

What emerges from all of these scenarios is that while there are

indeed some executive who might be considered relatively 'low

risk' cases, there is clearly no executive who can be considered

a 'zero risk' case. A security professional's perspective on

this matter should be that 'if there was no risk against the

executive, then there clearly would be no need for me to be

here.' Security professionals are hired to guard against certain

risks, so it is their duty to accurately identify such risks and

implement measures to guard against them. This is a fact that

security professionals might lose sight of if they think that

their hiring is due to a matter of procedure, rather than due to

actual need or risk. For instance, if a given organization's top

executives are always assigned bodyguards, there is a risk of a

newcomer feeling that they are there because having a bodyguard

is one of the 'perks' of being a top executive for the

organization and that there is no actual risk. This would be a

huge departure from the proper perspective on this matter. The

assignment of bodyguards, or security staff, to these top

executives is necessary because there is always a risk when you

are in any high-profile role, whether it be business, political,

religious or social. There might be 'low risk' cases, but there

is never a 'zero risk' case, as far as executive protection

assignments go.

Equating 'Low Risk' with 'No Risk'

The ramifications of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' can

be grave. This is a business where mistakes can result in death,

either of the executive or of the guard. The first and foremost

danger of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' is, as

previously mentioned, that the security professional charged with

overseeing the wellbeing of an executive may fall into

complacency, thereby making serious blunders with regard to

security arrangements. It is due to these lapses that we hear

about cases of executives, or their families, being kidnapped in

spite of having bodyguards, or security staff, by their side.

Another danger of inaccurately gauging risk becomes apparent when

you consider that the perpetrators will be looking out for

behaviors and telling signs that depict this type of scenario by

simply reading the guards and the supposedly protected

environment. Criminals can read a secured environment and spot

weaknesses and mood. They can be spurred into action, or

completely diffused, simply by what they see. They may also make

adjustments their plans. Rather than assassinate an executive,

perpetrators might decide to instead kidnap him. For instance, if

the security environment is close to an open body of water, and

the guards are not in possession of fast nautical transportation,

the perpetrators can easily take advantage of this clear security

weakness. They have, essentially, been provided with an easy

method of escape, which can be identified by a simple visual

inspection. Hence, if the guards charged with the client's

safety only implemented safeguards against assassination, and

absolutely no measures to counter the risk of abduction, there is

no telling what harm can be done.

Yet another danger of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' is

that it can lead to loss of professional credibility, even where

the potential risk is caught before fully manifesting. Your role

as an security professional is to ensure the well being of the

executive in question; therefore, should you let the executive

fall into harm's way, it would reflect poorly on your

professional capabilities. In the aftermath of such an incident,

it should be of no surprise if you end up losing your executive

protection role.

Executive protection is a specialized security service and

customers expect all bases to be covered. Therefore, it reflects

very badly on the executive protection professional charged with

ensuring the wellbeing of the principal in question (and,

consequently, the company they work for) when it emerges that

some potential risks were left unidentified during risk

assessment. Granted, bad things do happen in spite of best

efforts; but should that fate befall an executive in your care,

it should be clear in the inevitable investigation that follows

that you-as an executive protection professional-had at the very

least anticipated the event in your risk assessment. This means

that it would be a case of protective measures failing, rather

than a case of failing to anticipate risks.

How Preparedness Can Affect the Outcome

There are many instances of executives falling into grave danger

because of what appears to be security detail neglect (typically

not deliberate) that one can learn from. Perhaps one of the most

famous cases is the death of Princess of Wales. On the 31st

of August 1997, Princess died in a car accident in the Pont

de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris, France. She was accompanied by

her companion and guards assigned to protect the couple during

their evening out on the town. After an eighteen-month French

judicial investigation, they concluded that the crash was caused

by the security team driver, whose errant driving had been

incited by paparazzi photographers, and impaired by the influence

of drugs and alcohol. A subsequent inquest conducted at the Royal

Courts of Justice in London concluded that the accident was the

result of the negligent driving of both the security team driver,

as well as the paparazzi photographers, whom they had sought to

evade. Either way, proper planning and an accurate assessment of

the security risk, should have been effected. In this case, the

security team driver decided to solve the security challenge at

hand by placing the individuals, which he had been assigned to

protect, in unnecessary levels of danger.

Sometimes security threats aren't caused by the actions of

others. As a security professional assigned to ensure the health

and safety of your customers, you must be ready to confront and

solve every security challenge that arises, even if it comes from

the customer himself. As an example of executive protection done

right, take the case of popular Australian musician and reality

TV executive Ozzie Osbourne. Osbourne found himself facing danger

not from a human saboteur, but from his own bike, and were it not

for his bodyguard's quick action (and knowledge of CPR),

Osbourne would have, in his own words, " lost his own life. "

These examples underscore the need to ensure that proper security

assessments of every risk are considered and conducted when it

comes to executive protection.

Whether you operate a security company in New York or in

California, the rules are the same. Assessment skills can be just

as effective and useful as any other skill that a guard may have.

It may even be the most important when it comes to preventing

security situations. These skills need to be honed even in a

low-risk environment, and no risk should be left unplanned for

simply because it is unlikely to happen. Security guards tasked

with providing executive protection must cover all the bases if

they expect to keep their client's free from danger. It should

be every protection professional's basic view that anyone they

are assigned to is at every imaginable risk (albeit in varying

degrees.) By executing proper assessments and assigning

appropriate risk levels, security professionals can more

effectively and accurately safeguard their clients against all

types of security threats.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Harold German is a renowned author and contributor, with

appearances on CNN and in noted international publications,

such as The Economist. Mr. German is senior writer for Partner

Service Sites, where he covers a variety of topics, including

technologies and procedures that would be used by a security

company in New York (http://www.arrowsecurity.net/) or elsewhere,

in addition to developments on the latest security services at

http://www.arrowsecurity.net/services