I’ve seen several articles lately about the costs associated with providing security for senior executives or CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg. While the millions of dollars quoted seem quite large, when you look at them closely it doesn’t seem like a large price to pay to protect a corporation’s most valuable asset. When CEOs or other high profile executives are tied closely to a product or company, anything that happens to that individual can greatly affect the financial situation of the corporation. Incidents meant to embarrass the individual or draw attention to ongoing legal or labor actions can affect stock valuations and investor confidence. Disgruntled former employees or irrational customers can focus on senior executives as the cause for their problems.
For these reasons and many others, headlines like “Millions spent on CEO Security”, is a logical response to an actual risk. Corporations don’t spend money on CEO security because it is a ‘perk’ or as a way to raise his/her profile. Security professionals conduct a comprehensive PSA (Personal Security Assessment) and develop an overall mitigation/security plan. The assessment is comprehensive and looks at every aspect of an executive’s life, both business and personal. After completion, the results are discussed with the executive and a plan of action is developed. The involvement and agreement by the executive and their family is a must for a security/protection program to be effective.
Company funds invested in senior executive security programs is an investment, as critical as any other capital investment made by a corporation. Corporations named after their founders will always be identified with that individual and their families. Protecting them is protecting the brand, its reputation, and its bottom line.
A robust executive security/protection program makes good business sense. Although the amounts spent on the programs may seem large at first glance, when viewed as an investment in a corporation’s success, it seems like a logical course of action.