THE SECURITY PARADOX: WHY "IDIOTS AND LOAFERS" THRIVE AND PROFESSIONALS STRUGGLE (part one)

As the CEO of Security Global Ltd , I've been immersed in the world of private security for years, witnessing the intricate dynamics between clients and security personnel. I'd like to delve into the historical evolution of this relationship, shedding light on the misconceptions and challenges that have shaped our industry. My hope is that this exploration will provide valuable insights for those involved in training security professionals, fostering a better understanding of the complexities we face.

MAJOR MISCONCEPTIONS IN THE FIELD OF PRIVATE SECURITY

At the heart of our discussion lies a critical issue: the attitude towards the protection of those we are entrusted to guard. It might seem paradoxical, but this issue is so pervasive that it demands our immediate attention. One might reasonably assume that clients and security personnel should share a mutually beneficial relationship. After all, clients provide employment, while security professionals ensure their clients' well-being and prosperity. It seems logical that this relationship should be built on four pillars: mutual understanding, mutual assistance, interaction, and mutual respect. However, the reality I've observed is often starkly different.

In many cases, the relationship between clients and security personnel is characterized by undisguised, sarcastic irony, and sometimes escalates into outright hostility. This unfortunate reality stems from two deeply ingrained misconceptions that have plagued the business world for over a decade. To understand and address these challenges, we must first acknowledge their existence and examine their origins.

MISCONCEPTION ONE: "GUARDS ARE IDIOTS AND LOAFERS"

This misconception, I've found, is particularly prevalent among our esteemed clients - the very individuals whose safety we are dedicated to ensuring. It would seem that these individuals, more than anyone, would demand genuine, reliable protection from the most formidable and professional bodyguards. However, the reality is often more complex.

Many successful business or government figures in positions of power exhibit a strong desire for control, extending even to matters of personal security. This desire often overrides their understanding of security protocols, as they instinctively seek to maintain personal control over all aspects of their lives. They are accustomed to being the masters of their domain, and this mindset influences their perception of security personnel. ?

For these clients, a bodyguard is primarily an employee, hired and paid for, almost like a personal possession. They believe that this "acquisition" comes with the right to dictate the bodyguard's actions and decisions. The notion that a bodyguard might make decisions on their behalf, or even guide their movements, is often met with resistance and resentment. This resistance is further fueled by the fact that bodyguards, by the very nature of their job, are a constant presence in their clients' lives.

Clients often derive their "expertise" in personal security from popular action movies and sensationalized media reports, forming unrealistic expectations of what constitutes a professional bodyguard. They envision bodyguards as possessing almost supernatural abilities, materializing at the first sign of danger and vanishing just as quickly once the threat has been neutralized. They expect bodyguards to cater to their every whim while remaining invisible, essentially fulfilling the role of a magical genie.

This distorted perception leads clients to disregard the advice of trained security professionals, often favoring the opinions of unqualified acquaintances or even random individuals. I recall a specific incident involving a highly skilled former Secret Service operative who was dismissed from his position after just one week on the job due to such misplaced trust in "trusted individuals."

The situation unfolded as follows: the client's car was caught in a Megacity traffic jam, a common occurrence in the city. As the car crawled along, a motorcyclist approached from behind, weaving through traffic at a considerably faster pace. The bodyguard, demonstrating his professionalism, exited the vehicle and positioned himself protectively by the client's door, maintaining this position until the motorcyclist had passed. However, this sensible action was met with disapproval from a passenger in the car, a "good acquaintance" of the client, who questioned the bodyguard's behavior.

The client, unfamiliar with the concept of a running escort and eager to maintain his image, sought validation from his driver, who also happened to be designated as a "driver-bodyguard." The driver, whose knowledge of security protocols was limited, feigned ignorance rather than admitting his lack of expertise. As a result, the diligent bodyguard was dismissed, despite being the only individual present who had correctly assessed and responded to the potential threat.

This incident highlights the unfortunate reality that even highly skilled security professionals can be hindered by their clients' misconceptions and misplaced trust in unqualified individuals. In some cases, clients actively resist protection efforts, going to great lengths to evade their security detail. This behavior, while seemingly counterintuitive, underscores the disconnect between clients' perceptions and the realities of effective security practices.

The evolution of private security has been marked by distinct phases, each reflecting the prevailing attitudes and misconceptions of the time. These phases, much like trends in fashion, have swung from one extreme to another, often with detrimental consequences for both clients and security professionals.

PHASE ONE: "THE GRAND EXIT"

In the past, dignitaries and individuals of high social standing often employed footmen to assist with their public appearances. These footmen served primarily as status symbols, helping their employers enter and exit carriages, fetching items, and clearing a path through crowds. This practice, known as the "grand exit," emphasized outward appearances and prestige rather than genuine protection.

The modern equivalent of this phenomenon emerged in the 90's with the rise of the "bodyguard" as a status symbol. Inspired by popular media portrayals, businessmen sought to emulate this image, hiring imposing figures to accompany them as a display of power and success. The emphasis was on physical presence and intimidation rather than actual security expertise.

Clients often believed that simply by hiring a bodyguard who "looked the part," they had ensured their safety. They failed to recognize the difference between cinematic portrayals and real-life security threats, neglecting the importance of training and operational procedures.

This overreliance on brute force and appearance proved disastrous. Bodyguards, lacking the necessary skills and knowledge, were often unable to protect their clients from real-world dangers. Many paid the ultimate price, becoming casualties alongside the clients they were supposed to safeguard.

The legacy of this phase is a sobering reminder of the importance of genuine security expertise. It also highlights the need for a unified training system, which, unfortunately, remains elusive to this day.

#privatesecurity #bodyguard #closeprotection #ceoinsights #securityindustry #misconceptions #training #professionalism #securityservices #protection