Executive Protection (EP) is a term that is thrown around, but at its core, it is the protection of human life from soft tissue damage; think of it as a human shield, the final two feet and the last two seconds prior to an attack. Most people picture a stone-faced figure, wearing sunglasses, whispering into their sleeves. Hollywood has done a great job selling that image. Professional Protectors are charged with advance work, planning motorcades, protective formations, and much more. They put their life on the line to protect another; it is a heroic and admirable profession.

Some of the best Protectors that I have worked with over my career can think three steps ahead and outside of the box. They are problem solvers. They excel at situational awareness and operational execution. In advance work, for example, it’s all about relationships. I recall a time when I spent days in advance of a client at a multi-national event. I drove, walked and assessed every route, every checkpoint and every potential obstacle. I had every possible credential needed and I was ready. What I didn’t anticipate was a shift change for the venue security at the vehicle checkpoint. I became friends with “Bob” who knew we were coming and was ready. What I didn’t know was that “Bob” took his break and “Sam” was there when we arrived. “Sam” didn’t know who we were and caused a significant delay in our entrance and embarrassment for the Protectee.

The challenge is that this is only half the story. Without a steady IV drip of intelligence, risk mitigation and threat assessment, Protectors do not have all the tools in their toolbox to be effective, often playing catch up. Think Riggs and Murtaugh, The Blues Brothers, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler… you get the point.

Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) is the other side of the equation. This approach focuses on identifying, evaluating, and managing individuals who may be on the Pathway to Violence, a concept created by Frederick Calhoun and Stephen Weston. They study patterns in behavior, monitor escalating rhetoric, and drive intervention hopefully before someone crosses the line from concerning, to dangerous. The most successful programs are multidisciplinary teams, comprised of experts in mental health, law enforcement, corporate security, legal and HR.

Better Together

Protectors keep people physically safe and create uninterrupted ease of movement. BTAM works to monitor threats and flag concerning behavior, which could materialize. Each discipline can operate independently, however, together, they can accomplish so much more.

Think of it like this. BTAM is like radar spotting trouble miles away, and Protectors are the missile defense system ready to stop it. Without radar, you’re just guessing and hoping nothing sneaks up. Without defense, all you can do is watch the blip inch closer and silently panic while sipping your coffee. One of my mentors, James Hamilton, a former FBI Supervisory Special Agent and the creator of the FBI’s Close Protection School, says it best, “Hope is not a successful strategy.”

When these programs work together, the flow of information goes both ways. BTAM may identify someone who has been making concerning statements on social media towards a Protectee. Conversely, Protectors may identify someone at a public appearance that is displaying concerning behaviors or PINS (Pre-Incident Indicators). This information is shared with the multidisciplinary team who can do a deeper dive, often revealing a larger risk pattern.

What is a viable plan or approach to reducing risk?

• Utilizing Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) to guide assessments. This systematic approach evaluates information and helps determine levels of risk.
• Focusing on the Pathway to Violence. Study individuals’ actions, plans, communications, and intentions.
• Revised Protective Strategies. Protectors can adjust staffing levels for known public appearances, implement surveillance detection, increased focus on areas of mandatory travel and limit time in or around vehicles.

 Targeted attacks are prevented by robust teams of professionals. All of these roles; Protectors, Threat Assessment Experts, Investigators and Protective Intelligence Analysts work in concert to reduce risk.

Reading the Signs: From Leakage to Learning

A public figure receives concerning communication from an unknown individual. In threat assessment terms, this is referred to as leakage – when a person reveals their intent or mindset before taking action. Leakage doesn’t always guarantee violence, but it does raise the level of concern and would benefit from provoking a joint assessment.

Leakage can come in various forms:

1. Verbal – An employee mutters, “The CEO is going to regret not giving me a raise.”
2. Written – Social media posts, email, letters, etc.
3. Behavioral – Showing up at events, sending gifts, or attempting proximity.

One can interpret that leakage stems from a Pursuer’s need to air frustrations, pursue validation, or test protective responses. Not every social media post indicates an immediate threat, but each provides crucial insight into a Pursuer’s thought process.

To borrow from pop culture, think back to Seinfeld and the made-up holiday of “Festivus”. One of its traditions? The Airing of Grievances. Everyone sits around the table sharing complaints about one another’s actions. It’s funny on TV, but in the real world those grievances, when aimed at a public figure, are exactly the type of signals a BTAM team would want to assess.

Now that we’ve learned that information, where does this information go? Ideally, into a central clearinghouse. A centralized hub ensures the various teams tasked with reducing risk and preventing targeted violence have access to all materials instead of remaining siloed and only having snippets of fact. It’s the difference between everyone holding puzzle pieces in separate rooms versus sitting at the same table and completing the picture together.

With shared information, BTAM teams can leverage various partners such as Investigations or Protective Intelligence to dig deeper into the individual’s background, stressors, and possible escalation pathway. More context allows us to better understand the individual, their unique situation, past behavior, criminal history, social media footprint, or other factors driving their outreach ultimately developing a more targeted response.

Turning a blind eye and hoping this concerning behavior goes away? Not a valid plan. Gavin de Becker shares in his best-selling book, The Gift of Fear, that “the passage of time does not automatically diminish the threat of a potentially violent individual.” In fact, he reminds us that threats emerging later in a conflict may be even more dangerous, calculated, deliberate, and intentional, rather than impulsive.

Reactive vs Proactive

The reality is that targeted violence is rarely spontaneous. There are almost always observable concerning behaviors that show up on the Pathway to Violence prior to an attack. How many times have we heard post incident, “I knew something was off with that individual” or “he’s been acting weird for a long time.” Research shows that many attackers have told someone about their plans prior to acting.

Protectees who are only traveling with Protectors on the ground, often a single Protector, do not take advantage of the network of subject matter experts who can anticipate and manage threats. Often there are outside factors that can alter a Pursuer’s trajectory on the Pathway to Violence, and we must catch them early. Effective collaboration between these teams relies on open and regular communication to ensure timely and accurate information sharing about potential threats.

Great, now what? When Protectors are aware of potential threats or Pursuers they can put mitigation strategies in place. They can make recommendations alter arrival/departure locations, limit areas of predictability, create white space or facilitate secure transportation. For context, white space is physical distance that is created between the Protectee and potential threats.

Here is a great example of thinking outside the box. If a Protectee enjoys getting a cup of coffee from their favorite spot on the way to the office every day, that location now becomes known and predictable for someone seeking an inappropriate encounter. What if the Protectors get that coffee on the way in and have it ready in the car before the Protectee even gets in? What did we accomplish; setting the standard of completing service-related tasks, which we generally want to avoid? I’d argue not. I would suggest that we just created an opportunity to reduce risk. The Protectee no longer has to get out of a secure space (the vehicle) and enter a potentially known location, in which someone seeking to air the grievances or worse, bodily harm, can act. All of this is being driven by assessments and information received.

Keeping Score

Are we able to measure that success or keep track of the encounters we’ve prevented? No. Our successes are often never known, but we must rely on our programs and partnerships (Executive Protection + BTAM) to complement each other in our zero-fail mission. Neither discipline works best alone, there is power in this partnership.

Targeted attacks are prevented by robust teams of professionals. All of these roles; Protectors, Threat Assessment Experts, Investigators and Protective Intelligence Analysts work in concert to reduce risk. We protect by trusting our instincts, acting on intelligence, and combining our skills. The real measure of success is simple: nothing happens. And that’s exactly the goal.