Executive protection... revisited

Executive protection is a fundamental part of many security management portfolios. There may well be liability reasons informing a security manager's decision to provide protection for personnel when they're being sent to operate in a high threat area or region ('On business – at risk', SMT, May 2004, pp26-30), while such planning usually represents a highly important safeguard towards future business continuity.

Providing protective services in a high threat environment isn't the same as offering executive protection in London or Washington, though. The protective team in a high threat location normally lives and works together. Members of the team will not go to their home or family at night in order to 'decompress'. Artillery, snipers, bombs, children with guns, criminal gangs, rival armed militias and bad traffic all add to the stress.

The essential skills set
There are several accepted and essential skills required of an executive protection service provider. They are often referred to as the 'hard skills' by way of differentiating them from 'soft' or 'people' skills. The protective officer in a high threat environment must be able to drive, shoot and operate tactically. In this case, tactics would centre on the techniques used in the actual performance of protection (eg formations for walking and driving, and the drills used for reacting to attacks).

Ultimately, the tactics deployed are geared for one purpose – to get the 'protectee' out of the danger zone. And fast. Very quickly, security operatives must choose the right tactics for the situation presented to them and adapt to what will inevitably be a fluid situation on the ground.

Traditionally, when Government entities have felt the need to provide physical protection to an individual, it has been assigned either to a civilian law enforcement entity or to a military organisation. Faced with having to piece together a team of operatives to provide protective security in a high threat environment, security managers operating in the private sector typically gravitate towards the same sources of personnel when staffing their security details (ie former special forces or other military personnel, or perhaps former law enforcement officers) – but is this really the best course of action?

Is it better to choose a protection team based upon the consideration of selected traits or characteristics that can be tested or screen-ed for in advance, and then train the selected personnel in the necessary 'hard skills'?

Protection officers: the ideal
As part of my Masters degree dissertation, I chose to undertake research examining exactly what factors make a person 'right' for the task of protection officer in high threat situations. The work included a review of the limited references to executive protection that exist in currently-available literature.

The most commonly mentioned desirable characteristics were physical fitness followed by intelligence, discipline, alertness, judgement and an ability to fit in with one's surroundings and the 'protectee'. 'Hard skills' such as experience with firearms, driving ability and tactical competence also cropped up. There has been a frequent emphasis on the importance of prior experience, specifically in protective operations, but also in the form of military or law enforcement experience.

The research also involved a survey of the views of 32 protection officers operational throughout Kabul, Afghanistan during 2003. In all cases, the operatives involved were working either directly or indirectly for national Governments in a high threat – and potentially high profile – environment.

Is it better to choose a protection team based upon the consideration of selected traits or characteristics that can be tested or screened for in advance, and then train the selected personnel in the necessary ‘hard skills’?

In reality, their perceptions were somewhat different from those expressed in available literature, with a greater emphasis placed on personality and the team dynamic. Common sense, a sound disposition, integrity and being a team player were clearly stated as the most important traits. Selfishness was the characteristic mentioned the most times as one that makes a person unsuitable.

Most respondents to the survey felt that previous training experience in either protection or combat wasn't necessarily the best indicator of a person's potential strength as a team member. The operatives' focus seemed to reflect the fact that, in an already stressful environment, levels of stress will increase still further if a team isn't working together smoothly (as will the chances of a dangerous tactical situation developing).

References and recommendations
When constructing a security team, then, how does the security manager ensure the selection process addresses all of these requirements – both in terms of the manager's need for competence and skills, and the team members' need for team-mates who can show common sense, are easy to work with, are team players and who are honest with their co-workers?

Any testing would need to address desired hard skills and personal characteristics, as well as an individual's ability to handle stress. While 'hard skills' may be measured objectively, it's much more difficult to do so with 'soft skills' (and it would be tough to develop a paper test that reliably identifies those individuals that can operate under high levels of stress).

A judgement of personal traits and characteristics would thus need to draw upon previous evidence of the requisite behaviour. Viewed in this light, it may be important to obtain detailed personal references and recommendations attesting to these attributes.

Is it best to contract-out?
Many respondents in this study were civilian contractors rather than serving military or Government employees. In any future study of protection operators in the field, it might be interesting to explore the differences – if any exist – between civilian contractors and full-time Government or military personnel.

Contracting is gaining more favour as a business solution for addressing short-term needs and rising costs. Some organisations have already gone down the road of contracting-out high threat close protection duties. Contractors might well have an advantage in that they may be a touch more experienced or mature. However, they might also have their motives questioned in that they are seen as being "in it only for the money".