The streets of Manhattan are no strangers to stories — some whispered in alleyways, others splashed across headlines, in the city that never sleeps. But the narrative that unfolded this week is notable even by New York City standards.
Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot outside a Midtown hotel as he walked toward his company’s annual investor day. The motive remains unknown, the assailant still at large as of the time of writing. But in the wake of this tragedy, many organizations and professionals are taking a hard look at how they protect those who steer some of our largest corporations.
In the immediate aftermath of the murder, corporate security officers from Fortune 500 companies convened in an urgent video call, as detailed by Jordyn Holman in The New York Times. “Many of my colleagues are sitting down with their executive protection team leaders, re-evaluating what they are doing and not doing,” said Dave Komendat, a retired chief security officer at Boeing and president of DSKomendat Risk Management Services. The conversation wasn’t just about one man; it was about a systemic issue that has been simmering beneath the surface.
Public schedules
The schedules of senior executives are often publicized, especially in publicly traded companies where transparency is the norm. Conferences, investor meetings, and speaking engagements are announced in advance, turning leaders into potential targets. In a polarized world where online vitriol can spill into real-life violence, it’s a scary reality.
“Health care industry executives face increased risks because of the services that are being provided and the emotion that comes along with some of those services,” Komendat told the Times.
But there is no universal standard for executive protection. Some companies invest heavily, while others hesitate, fearing that visible security might draw unwanted attention or perhaps it’s a simple matter of not wanting to spend the cash on guards. Bloomberg’s Matthew Boyle noted, in a LinkedIn post, that companies like Meta and Alphabet Inc. have “allocated millions of dollars a year to protect their CEOs.”
Glen Kucera, president of the Enhanced Protection Services unit of Allied Universal, pointed out this paradox in an interview with Bloomberg: “Some companies don’t invest in executive protection services because they feel it might actually draw unwanted attention to them. Some don’t want the hassle, some don’t want the exposure, some don’t feel it’s necessary.”
Thompson had no personal security detail. Surveillance footage of the shooting shows him walking alone as he was gunned down from behind, a fact that is causing many boardrooms to rethink their stance. The median spending by S&P 500 companies on security perks doubled from 2021 to 2023, reaching nearly $100,000, according to Equilar, an executive compensation data provider.
Dylan Jones, managing partner at Boldsquare, questioned the current mindset in a post on LinkedIn: “Interesting to see the SEC regard the provision of personal security to CEOs as a ‘perk’ (and therefore taxable). Maybe it’s time for protection to be considered part of the essential necessities of the role for certain bosses?”
A luxury?
The notion that personal security is a luxury might be outdated. In industries fraught with public scrutiny and emotional stakes— like healthcare, insurance, and defense — the risks are real and present. Earlier this year, there were reports that U.S. intelligence had uncovered a Russian-based plot to execute the CEO of a German arms manufacturer that was supplying weapons to Ukraine.
The bottom line is that nobody should ever feel threatened for doing their job — that applies equally to a front-line cashier at a late-night gas station all the way to the CEO of a multibillion dollar enterprise.
So, what can be done?
First, we need to acknowledge that executive protection isn’t about creating an impenetrable bubble around leaders. It’s about thoughtful risk assessment and implementing measures that address specific vulnerabilities. Open-source intelligence and online monitoring, as practiced by experienced security teams, can provide some early warnings of potential threats.
Second, companies must reevaluate their policies on transparency. While openness is crucial, there may be ways to balance it with discretion, especially regarding the movements of key personnel.
Third, there needs to be a cultural shift in how we view security expenses. If the SEC considers personal security a taxable perk, perhaps it’s time for regulatory bodies to reassess and recognize it as a necessary business expense in certain contexts. The same rules should be scrutinized in Canada as well.
Cautionary tale
Emma Burleigh at Fortune emphasized the broader implications: “This case… should serve as a cautionary tale for other businesses.” Indeed, it’s a wake-up call that extends beyond the tragic loss of one leader. It’s about the unseen vulnerabilities that many executives face daily, often without adequate protection.
The stability of major organizations impacts economies, industries, and countless lives. Protecting those at the helm is, in essence, safeguarding all who depend on them.
It’s time for boardrooms to have frank discussions about security — not as an afterthought, but as a strategic imperative. We owe it to our leaders, our employees, and the communities we serve. The world has changed, and our approach to protecting those who guide us should change with it.
