|
It is said, in somewhat bowdlerized form, that the
lawyer who chooses to represent himself in a law
suit has a fool for a client. The great Spanish
philosopher, Ortega Y Gasset observed that the
difference between a fool and a knave is that the
knave does take a rest sometimes. It never ceases to
amaze how foolish are the otherwise most sagacious
and successful among us when it comes to hiring
those entrusted with their personal security. They
seem, at such times, to be affected by a kind of
myopia that borders upon denial. It is rather like
the disinclination of some to make a last will and
testament out of a kind of superstitious fear of
acknowledging the inevitability of death. The
serious among us, once these fears have been
overcome, will usually seek competent counsel to
make sure that their wishes are properly formulated
so as to be reasonably certain that they are acted
upon after the desired fashion when they are no
longer around, themselves, to attend to matters.
Generally speaking, it is those who have something
worthwhile to leave behind who are most anxious to
make sure their worldly goods do not fall into the
wrong hands. Yet, how many of these take action, in
the matters of personal protection that might well
risk their departing this life more speedily than
they might have wished? So.....?
Personal Protection does not come cheap. Those who
can afford it, very often do not need it, while
those who need it the most, all too often, cannot
afford it. If you do need it, and can afford it, it
is axiomatic that you had better acquire the genuine
article, something truly adapted to your needs. Why
hire a butler with a gun, who might be hesitant or
reluctant in its use when called upon to do so? When
you hire a personal protection specialist, you are
placing your life in that individual's hands. It
behooves you to make a wise choice - especially if
you hope to live not to regret it. You may be a
genius on Wall Street yet an ignoramus when it comes
to reading people rather than numbers. You are a
fool when you read people as numbers. Again, you may
be very good at hiring the right kind of staff to
assist you in the business in which you ordinarily
engage. You know how to engage the services of good
accountants and lawyers and know how to avoid
shysters of either profession. In your personal
life, you know how to avoid quacks in the medical
profession and snake oil vendors of all types. It is
easy, then, to assume that these sterling qualities
of judgment will serve you in the matter of
safeguarding your physical integrity and that of
your nearest and dearest. Don't count on it. And why
not?
Bodyguards have been around, seemingly, since the
Dawn of Mankind. The Chaldean chronicles contain an
intriguing reference to one Enkidu, who served as a
personal protection specialist for the celebrated
traveler, Gilgamesh. Kings, princes, presidents and
captains of commerce and industry have, since that
time, availed themselves of the services of such as
might stand between them and the jaws of death.
Basically, this is a very wise idea. But the road to
Hell is, as we are told, paved with the best of
intentions. Over the centuries, how many of the Rich
and Famous have come to an untimely demise at the
hands of those who, supposedly, were there to
protect them, or who were clandestine participants
in some "palace intrigue." A propensity for
subversion is, all too often, more dangerous than
the rankest incompetence. Yet, who are you to judge
in these matters? And, if you cannot trust your own
judgment in these delicate affairs, to whom can you
safely entrust such a grave responsibility? It is in
this department that the matter most usually goes
seriously awry. The job is all too often given to
those whose skills and experience have been
developed in the selection of persons for other
tasks and responsibilities. Even in our dangerous
world, hiring personal protection specialists is not
an everyday matter. It is easy for those entrusted
with procurement to believe that hiring a bodyguard
is no different from signing on a confidential,
executive secretary or a chauffeur. Wrong!
Hiring a personal protection specialist is not a job
for the run-of-the-mill human resources department,
unaided. Sadly, the great American world of
business, that functions so well in other ways, is
often plagued by a kind of internecire warfare
between Directors of Security on the one hand and
Directors of Human Resources on the other. This is
decidedly unhealthy. Trials of strength serve no
purpose save to weaken the organization and
frustrate the selection process. There is an
unfortunate kind of hubris at work in these turf
battles that needs to be addressed at the highest of
levels. Oftimes, the struggle is mediated by others
in the hierarchy who are, themselves, no better
equipped to appreciate or address the substantive
and procedural issues involved. You do not buy
personal protection specialists off the peg, however
attractive their appearance to the untutored eye. We
are dealing, putatively, with matters of life and
death, here. Those choosing personnel to undertake
these onerous, demanding, sometimes dangerous tasks
have a heavy responsibility to discharge. There is a
lot more to all this than being able to write a good
job description and carry out a conscientious and
thorough background check. Would that even these
necessary steps were satisfactorily taken.
The selection of personal protection specialists is
not a job for ordinary headhunters or other business
consultants. You may be very good at finding, and
recommending a CEO for a Fortune 100 Company yet
utterly clueless about acquiring the services of a
bodyguard to protect him and his family once he is
in place. There is a simple principle at the bottom
of all this: you do not hire even the best
optometrist to perform brain surgery. In this, as in
other matters, take the appropriate advice - and act
upon it. Why keep a dog and bark yourself. Just make
sure you don't buy a basenji. Again, only a fool
would substitute his or her own judgment for that of
a carefully selected, experienced professional. A
note of caution is introduced at this juncture. It
is rarely wise to purchase advice from one who has
an interest, manifest or concealed, in the product
or services being recommended. The unscrupulous have
little hesitation in compromising in this regard.
That is why the IRS insists, under penalties of law,
on the independence of those who undertake to report
upon the business needs of individuals claiming to
deduct certain security related expenditures.
Serious consequences can flow from making
recommendations from which the individual making
them can be seen to have personally benefited from
the subsequent provision of the goods or services
recommended. This is a Sword of Damocles changing
over the heads of those who do not play by the
rules. Good, honest consultants do not come cheap.
But they are worth their weight in gold in the long
run.
Providing personal protection is somewhat akin to
bespoke tailoring: there is no one size fits all. A
bodyguard who might be ideally suited to serve the
needs of a highly visible celebrity entertainer
might be woefully out of place in a low-key,
corporate environment. Yet, in the abstract, there
are basic similarities which all these positions
enjoy in common. Perhaps the most important of
these, and certainly, the most difficult to evaluate
prospectively are integrity and a sense of
commitment. If you develop a distaste for your
principal, however well you conceal it, you are
placing him or her, and perhaps yourself in
jeopardy. It requires a singular kind of
whole-heartedness to put yourself on the line for
another on a daily basis. Being a bodyguard is not
just another job. It is almost akin to a sacred
trust. You have to believe wholeheartedly in what
you are doing and why you are doing it. Providing
personal protection demands an extraordinary degree
of single-mindedness. It does not admit of a
conflict of loyalties. Career advancement is a fine
objective, but how can one trust the job-hopper in
this super-delicate field of endeavor? The astute
evaluator will always inquire, diligently, "Why did
you leave your last situation?" The poignant
historical precedent of the fearsome Mongol
conqueror, Halagu comes to mind. Investing the
ancient city of Baghdad, he received a secret
representation from the Wazir, the Chief Minister to
secure for him entrance to that place without
resistance from the defending forces. He accepted
the offer, and speedily took the city without
bloodshed. Shortly thereafter, he had an audience
with the new ruler. "I suppose," said he, "you have
come to claim your reward?" The former Wazir humbly
admitted that was indeed his purpose. "Take him out
and hang him," commanded Halagu. "If you could thus
betray your master," said he, "how could I be so
foolish as not to consider that you might, in the
future, not accord me a similar favor?"
Competence, the ability to do the assigned job,
according to narrowly drawn specifications, can be
measured by reference to objectively verifiable
standards. This is not an unfamiliar task for those
concerned, professionally, with the hiring process.
But how, in this delicate field, does one assess the
loyalty of a candidate who might be required to take
a bullet for his or her prospective protectee? The
past is the best, perhaps the only guide to the
future. The assessment requires a most rigorous
questioning of the job-seeker and a painstaking
review and verification of the answers given. The
process demands a certain expertise and experience,
with, perhaps, a touch of cynicism throw in.
Leopards are not known to change their spots. Those
who have not demonstrated their loyalty in the past
can hardly claim any high degree of credibility in
the matter for the future. Present day employment
practices tend to inhibit useful enquiry of others.
They do not prohibit rigorous enquiry of the
candidate, him or herself. The Halagu test is not
recommended, here, though in our own times it seems
to have served the present ruler of Iraq well enough
in many departments. But there is no excuse for
timidity or carelessness in these matters. Too much
hangs upon them. Those who presume to offer counsel
in these cases should carry out their obligations
without fear or favor. There is always the
possibility that they, too, might pay a heavy price
for giving bad advice.
This piece is not addressed to the really great
power-mongers of this world. These may be assigned,
broadly to two classes for the present purposes.
There are those who, like the president of the
United States, ordinarily have little choice over
those detailed, at any particular time, to protect
them. And there are the Saddam Husseins, who deal
summarily and unpleasantly with those who give bad
advice as well as those even remotely suspected of
unfaithfulness or potential betrayal. Rather, it is
for the instruction of those who, in our times, have
a need for personal protection, expensive as it is,
and who are concerned to get value for their money.
We live in an age of kiss and tell, by word of
mouth, on the Web or otherwise in print. This may
suit the celebrity entertainer whose business
includes more than just a little kissing, the
telling of which can only serve to enhance an
already powerful reputation. Captains of industry
and commerce must view such possibilities in a
different light. The revelation of some
discreditable or embarrassing episode in the past
can be very damaging when it comes time to merge or
sell the company or make a public offering of its
stock. Close protection means just that; the
protector is close enough to see all that is going
on. We cannot always rely upon the attitude of `so
what' to protect us from our enemies waiting to take
advantage of the failings or proclivities of those
we have chosen to protect our persons.
|
