Workplace Violence Prevention: The New Era of Corporate Security

A recent mass shooting at a Manhattan office building has shaken corporate America to its core. It’s the second high-profile fatal shooting involving corporate executives this past year, the first one involving the targeted assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, which took place just a short distance away.

The deadly attack left five people dead, including the gunman, who took his own life after entering the offices of an investment management firm and killing his final victim. The deceased include a high-ranking Blackstone executive, the lobby security guard, and an off-duty police officer, who were all shot in the lobby, and an employee of the investment firm who owns the building, who was shot in their 33rd floor offices before the gunman turned the weapon on himself.

While there were adequate security systems in place, including safe rooms and features that could have locked the elevators, the security guard responsible for activating these systems was shot at his desk. The gunman proceeded to the elevators, chose the wrong bank, and ended up in Blackstone offices rather than the NFL offices he had intended to target.

Fortunately, many building employees were able to lock themselves in bathrooms and safe rooms, avoiding the mayhem.

In the wake of this tragedy, security firms have been inundated with requests from commercial and office property management companies for armed security. For their part, companies are doing their best to reassure employees that it’s safe to be in the office, though many are preferring to work from home.

The consensus is that corporate America is not safe from violence and that firms of all types should be vigilant. In reaction, many corporate security clients have now retained additional lobby security and implemented more robust access management protocols.

Armed Security Doesn’t Come Cheap

Armed guards are an elite sector of the security industry. Many are former police officers or military specialists. Their specialized training puts them in a league of their own, and the cost to clients is appropriately higher than that of a non-armed certified guard.

Posting an armed guard in the lobby or deploying an armed escort to protect top CEOs costs in the range of $75 to $200 per hour and up. By all accounts, even this high cost is not easing the demand for threat assessments and a consistent armed presence. Some corporations are even requesting risk assessments tied to specific employees or former employees. In one instance, a company requested that a firm work with their customer service department to analyze workers who complain excessively, underscoring the widespread sense of urgency to identify and mitigate risk before it takes a dark turn.

It would seem that anybody who expresses controversial opinions is under scrutiny. Even non-controversial businesses are reevaluating their security posture proactively to ensure the safety and security of their workforce and executive teams.

Most security industry leaders believe that the widespread sense of urgency will persist, driving the need to train and certify an increasing number of armed security personnel. Some, however, anticipate an initial surge before the panic eases, and predict that such spending will be cut after the initial apprehension wanes.

And then, there’s the technology.

Advanced Monitoring Systems Support but Do Not Replace Personnel

Along with the exponential increase in demand for armed guards, companies are rushing to deploy AI-powered security technologies, including robots, cameras, and software that enable weapon detection.

While these measures can increase security capacity, deter bad actors, and ostensibly prevent corporate tragedies, they are only effective when paired with humans who are trained to monitor and maintain them.

Although AI provides massive support in security, systems, and capabilities are still considered nascent and can be prone to errors. The last thing you want coloring today’s heightened corporate vigilance is to incorrectly target individuals due to bias or system errors.

In other words, it’s not enough simply to deploy these advanced systems. While they can be highly effective at reducing risk and helping to prevent threat incidents, they require specialized expertise to oversee the results they deliver.

Failure to do so can increase liability for security firms due to false detection. In one such example, an AI-enabled system deployed at a university was falsely identifying laptops and water bottles as weapons (source). The security firm named in this matter was named in a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for falsely representing their software’s capabilities and was ordered to pay a settlement.

Understandably, this type of situation can be very upsetting for the individual and could cause undue panic among others present, not to mention the unnecessary panic at being refused entry to a building for something as innocuous as a water bottle.

It’s also a cautionary tale for security firms and corporate clients who assume that technology can replace physical guard presence. While AI and other emerging technologies are incredibly capable, they cannot entirely supersede guard presence.

For corporations to ensure the level of security they want, a combination of appropriately trained guards and advanced tech is recommended.

Reducing Corporate Security Cost and Mitigating Risk with Technology

In examining the Park Avenue live shooter event, it shouldn’t escape anyone’s notice that both physical and technological security were present in force. And yet, these measures did not prevent the deadly attack. An on-duty guard and an armed police officer were killed in the attack, precluding the execution of what should have been relatively robust deterrent systems.

Could this attack have been prevented? We think so. The deployment of AI-enabled surveillance systems would undoubtedly have picked up the shooter walking toward the building with an assault rifle, alerting the lobby guard to take immediate action to lock down the building and take cover.

As corporate leaders rush to protect their human capital, they must understand the capabilities and limitations of technology before procurement. While the knee-jerk reaction will be to select and deploy immediately, the ideal scenario would be to engage a security firm to conduct a thorough threat assessment. In doing so, corporations will receive the tailored support, expertise, and recommendations they need to make an informed decision.

Security assessments are tailored to the organization, taking into account industry- or company-specific risks. Assessments are conducted by qualified professionals, ideally with expertise in the specific industry niche.

Upgrading and expanding security posture is not a decision any company should take lightly. It’s a significant expense, but it will pay dividends in peace of mind for leadership, employees, and the public.

As always, there is no substitute for elite guard training. Guards who are licensed for armed response may well see increased demand for their services and more competitive compensation packages in the wake of America’s corporate crisis.

Browse our advanced continuing education modules today.