CEOs don’t want bodyguards even after Brian Thompson murder

As corporations and their boards scramble to protect the C-suite after the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson — scrubbing company Web sites of bios and photos — they’re facing one big issue.

Many executives don’t want to deal with the massive lifestyle change that can come with having a bodyguard.

“Unless they’re ex-Mossad they probably aren’t going to be that helpful,” one high-level executive who has eschewed security, told NYNext. “I don’t want to walk around with bodyguards.”

This person explained he’s been around enough people who have guards to see how it can interfere with your life — the annoyance of someone invading personal moments and never feeling truly alone. If anything, he believes, “It makes you more conspicuous.” 

Indeed, said Yale School of Management’s Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, “Most CEOs don’t want security.”

Sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity said they are more willing to increase safety measures by taking safety into their own hands. That ranges from applying for a concealed carry permit to buying a pepper spray “pistol” (the Byrna gun, which advertises itself as being the “less lethal weapon”) to, in one case, even donning a bullet proof vest. 

Another source, who admits he’s been worried about disgruntled shareholders targeting him, said that since Thompson’s shooting he tries to be more aware of his surroundings when walking around. But he would rather be able to protect himself than outsource his safety.

“It’s too affected,” he explains.

But for boards — who could be on the hook for shareholder lawsuits if they’re not adequately protecting executives — security is a priority.

“It’s not the first agenda item … but it’s pretty high up,” Sonnenfeld said.

“There is panic from corporate America. If something happens to a public company CEO, it will affect the stock price,” said Mac Segal, whose AHNA Group provides security for wealthy individuals and corporations. “There has been a 30% uptick in interest and requests [for security] over the last week.”

Meta, which spent nearly $25 million last year on executive security — dramatically more than almost any other major corporation — is setting the tone for what board members feel obligated to do, another security expert explained.

“Without a doubt, that number is already going up — that is on every large company’s mind now,” said Kevin Hartz, the former Eventbrite CEO who recently launched Sauron, a high-end at-home security monitoring company.

While bodyguards are the most obvious sign of protection, security experts are quick to note there are other, less obtrusive ways to keep executives safe.

“It’s not about guys in dark suits and glasses,” Segal said, nothing that in some fields, those “can often be a status symbol.”

Instead, it is about “monitoring risk” — paying attention to threats on social media, possibly sending an advance team to scope out a location before an exec arrives, or protecting the entrance and exit to company events, the office and even the person’s home.

“You can opt for a lower-profile approach,” he added, noting he always provides clients a range of options. “Security is like medicine: Security firms shouldn’t be prescribing something [like bodyguards] if they don’t know what’s right for the company.” 

One group who is pro-bodyguard? The so-called “cryptonaires” who fear being targeted because their digital wealth can be accessed with just a password and transferred online to an anonymous user.

Tadas Kasputis, founder of crypto exchange ExMarkets, told CryptoNews he got bodyguards after being kidnapped in his hometown in Lithuania in 2015. 

“They came out of nowhere,” he recalled, “pushed me into a van and drove around town trying to get me to tell them my bitcoin wallet passwords.”