Executives have long been seen as valuable assets by their companies, but the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson late last year created a new era of safety concerns for these leaders. As a result, many security firms are fielding a deluge of calls from corporate clients about how to protect their top people.
While most large international corporations have at least some security in place for their CEO, Thompson’s death is leading many to take another look at their programs and gaps that might exist. It’s also prompting firms that may have never considered security before to explore whether it’s the right decision for their executive teams.
Fortune spoke with experts to better understand what the executive security landscape looks like, who actually needs protection, and what company leaders should ask themselves before spending money on safeguarding their most senior employees.
“Overall, there’s a lot more evaluation being done right now,” Glen Kucera, president of enhanced protection services at Allied Universal, which provides security to roughly 80% of the Fortune 500, tells Fortune. “The board of directors, the investors, everybody’s requesting that at least an assessment is being done.”
How does a company know if it needs security?
Not all companies need to hire security, but they should all take the same steps when it comes to deciding whether or not to take action, says Kucera. That means doing a risk assessment.
A typical assessment with his company takes about three days and costs $10,000 to $15,000. It includes looking at the type of product the company offers, whether it’s controversial, how public facing the executives are, how often they travel, how protected their personal residences are, and whether there are any targeted social media threats. From there, private security teams assess how serious the security risks are, and recommend any measures needed.
Many companies certainly don’t need advanced security measures, notes Kucera, especially executives at more private or smaller companies with a low profile. However, they may still want to monitor social media for any potential threats, or have an emergency team in place for unforeseen events.
“Going forward, all security policies will be living documents that are revisited every six to 12 months,” says Kucera.
Does the company understand the ‘threat landscape’?
While some companies may have full-time annual security for a CEO, others should consider the cyclical nature of their risk.
Security decisions are often environment and timing dependent. Companies may wish to provide additional CEO protection during times of strife, such as during mass layoffs, a missed earnings announcement, or a worker strike.
That’s why experts say it’s essential to monitor social media sentiment toward individual executives during these times, and keep tabs on the dark web. Dave Komendat, president of DSKomendat Risk Management Services and former longtime chief security officer for the Boeing Co., tells Fortune it comes down to having a 360-degree view of how a company is perceived, and “being able to understand that threat landscape.”
There are also some simple measures CEOs themselves can take to ensure their own safety.
It’s important for executives to not be “time/place predictable,” notes Komendat. That means they should keep their schedules private both internally and on social media, especially during high-risk times.
How much does it cost?
For companies and executives that decide they do want security, there is no one-size-fits-all formula. How much they need, when to deploy it, and how much to spend can vary drastically.
Most CEOs, especially those who are less publicly facing, are usually only interested in hiring security during periods of travel, or public appearances. A day’s worth of protection, which typically includes a private driver and/or bodyguard, can cost around $2,000 to $2,500 per day, says Kucera.
More robust security, which can include the use of armed bodyguards or a full-time private driver, becomes much more expensive, and costs around $500,000 a year or more, depending on the job. The highest-profile CEOs in the world spend much more than that. Elon Musk, for example, reportedly travels with up to 20 security guards, and tech giant Meta spent a whopping $23 million on personal security for founder Mark Zuckerberg in 2023.
When it comes to adding a line item to the budget for executive security, companies must be very clear about why they need it, says Komendat. In Zuckerberg’s case, the company wrote in an SEC filing earlier this year that because he is “synonymous with Meta,” any negative news regarding the founder could have major impacts on shareholder value.
“You have to go in with facts, and can’t make these kinds of decisions based on emotion,” says Komendat. “You need to be in a position to articulate why you’re going to spend that money.”
A new world for CEOs
Despite recent events, many CEOs avoid using bodyguards or other security measures because they believe it’s simply unnecessary, experts say.
But these people are often earning compensation that far exceeds that of the average worker, they have a high-profile public persona, or they work in a controversial industry that provokes anger among the public.
“One of the common things you’ll hear from CEOs today is that they want to be treated like everybody else, and the reality is, they’re not like everybody else,” says Komendat. “For them to act like such is really foolish.”
Tim Pollock, a professor of management and entrepreneurship at the University of Tennessee Knoxville Haslam College of Business, tells Fortune that given huge executive pay packages and a corporate focus on shareholder value at the expense of their customers and employees, “it’s not hard to see why people will blame CEOs for the pain and suffering their companies inflict on them.”
But he adds that rather than walling themselves off from the public, CEOs should try to address the root problems that have provoked such ire in the first place.
“There will always be wing nuts that need guarding against,” he says. “But the risk will be much lower if the public loves rather than hates what the CEO and their company do.”
