By Rick Mercuri
In the “post-UnitedHealthcare” threat environment, protecting executives has become a larger – in some cases the largest – focus for corporate security teams. It is critical that even as executive protection efforts receive greater prioritization, security and intelligence teams don’t ignore a broader and more pervasive threat: workplace violence that doesn’t target the corner office.
For every CEO at risk, there are thousands of employees, managers, and facilities facing threats from disgruntled workers, domestic violence spillover, stalkers, and ideologically motivated actors. Workplace violence is not a subset of executive protection. It is a parallel risk and far more common.
The Executive Protection Intelligence Guide that Liferaft and Rebel Global Security recently developed applies the Intelligence Cycle to protecting corporate leaders. The same framework, with appropriate calibration, can support workplace violence prevention efforts. Indeed, a strong intelligence program should be built to address a wide range of threats facing the organization and to avoid a myopic focus on the most recent headlines.
One of the Guide’s central arguments is that intelligence must precede and inform protection. As I describe in the foreword, what ultimately moved resistant executives whom I worked for to invest in EP (executive protection) was not a traditional business case; it was a timely, evidence-based threat analysis. The same dynamic plays out in workplace violence prevention. Programs that start with intelligence build faster and more durable capabilities than those that start with policy.
The risk equation from the Guide, "Threat × Vulnerability × Consequence = Risk," applies equally to workplace violence. Planning should identify the threat types most relevant to your workforce and operating environment, and focus collection and analysis on combinations of all three factors, not on threats alone.
In a workplace violence context, human intelligence (HUMINT) is especially critical. Managers, HR professionals, and coworkers are often the first to observe behavioral warning signs that precede targeted violence. Building reliable reporting channels from these human sources into a central threat management function is the highest-leverage collection investment most organizations can make.
A tip from a manager, a concerning post on an internal message board, and a prior incident report may each individually seem minor. Processing — validating, de-duplicating, and organizing information before it reaches an analyst — is what allows those data points to be seen together.
Many of the analytical products listed in the Guide are directly relevant to workplace violence prevention efforts. Most notably, a behavioral threat assessment is a key analytical output which evaluates individuals of concern for indicators of fixation, grievance, escalation, and potential violence, examining behaviors, communications, and stressors to assess intent, capability, and imminence.
The security officer responding to an active threat needs different information than the CHRO managing a high-risk termination. The Guide’s guidance on tailoring intelligence products to specific audiences translates directly to workplace violence communication protocols across HR, legal, facilities, and executive leadership.
Workplace violence programs, like EP programs, require continuous improvement. Hot washes after incidents or near-misses, after-action reviews, and periodic third-party assessments all apply here. The self-assessment questions in the Guide, such as, Are we over-collecting in low-value areas? Are we distinguishing fact from inference? Can we link our intelligence to changes in security posture? These are exactly the questions workplace violence program managers should be asking on a regular basis.
The threat environment the Guide describes - extreme political polarization, vilification of institutional leadership, and a rise in ideologically motivated violence - does not stop at the executive suite. A workforce that reflects broader societal divisions brings those dynamics into the workplace.
Organizations with mature programs increasingly manage risks to executives and employees through the same analytical framework, rather than running parallel, siloed efforts.
For teams looking to apply the Guide’s framework to a broader workplace violence prevention effort, three near-term steps are worth prioritizing:
The EP Intelligence Guide was written with Fortune and Global 500 analysts in mind, but its framework is scalable. Whether you run a global security operation or a lean two-person team, the Intelligence Cycle offers a structured, repeatable approach to the intelligence-led program that today’s threat environment demands.