Executive and Personnel-Security Board Adviser

The mandate

Public controversy and online exposure have produced threats ranging from abusive messages to home-address publication and persistent physical approach. Protection grew around senior title and personal request, leaving some visible researchers and employee advocates with greater evidence-based risk than executives receiving standing security. Travel, residential support, family contact and online monitoring are commissioned through separate vendors. The board needs a fair, privacy-conscious threat framework that does not turn protective security into status or employee surveillance.

The adviser will challenge a threat-to-support pathway covering report intake, credibility, imminence, vulnerability, exposure, law-enforcement dependency, travel, events, residence, family, digital footprint, workplace access and recovery. The framework must separate protective monitoring from performance or belief monitoring, define consent and family boundaries and calibrate support to threat evidence. Executive convenience, employee seniority and public relations should not substitute for risk assessment.

The cadence comprises fortnightly challenge with people and security leads, monthly board-committee attendance and two exercises involving high-risk travel and residential exposure. The adviser will review de-identified threat decisions, vendor practices, escalation and aftercare without receiving unnecessary personal location data. Specialist threat, clinical, privacy, insurance and legal judgements remain attributable to appointed professionals.

The adviser has no line authority and holds no executive responsibility for protection, travel, investigations, law enforcement, employee relations, cyber or communications. The role cannot task surveillance, contact threatened employees or families, approve protection, carry weapons, direct police engagement or determine threat credibility. Accountable security professionals make operational decisions; employees retain consent and rights; the board sets governance and resources. Advice is not an operational threat assessment.

The appointment lasts ten months. Renewal requires a newly recorded threat-governance need after both exercises. Relationships with protection providers, investigators, monitoring vendors, insurers, executives, public figures and law-enforcement bodies must be disclosed. Conflicted cases require recusal, and no vendor placement, monitoring, investigation or security-service referral value may be accepted.

Why the board wants this voice

Security teams naturally focus on credible harm, executive offices on reassurance and privacy teams on data minimisation, while affected people need one safe pathway. Historic support reflects hierarchy more than comparative risk. An independent personnel-security adviser can challenge proportionality and rights without directing protection or promoting a security vendor.

What you will own

• Challenge threat triage across source, credibility, imminence, vulnerability, exposure, recurrence and specialist dependencies.
• Test support decisions for role neutrality, consent, family scope, privacy, duration, review, proportional cost and safe withdrawal.
• Map travel, events, residential, digital, workplace, communications, insurer and law-enforcement handoffs across jurisdictions and time zones.
• Review monitoring for necessity, authorised sources, prohibited content, retention, access and separation from employment decisions.
• Observe both exercises, recording decision latency, information gaps, vendor failures and employee communication risk.
• Advise on board indicators, escalation, resource thresholds, unresolved cases and accountable specialist reliance.
• Deliver a closing personnel-security charter, conflict record, review calendar and residual-governance opinion.

Candidate qualifications

• Has advised boards on executive protection, personnel security, threat management or high-risk workforce support after credible incidents.
• Understands doxxing, stalking, travel, residential exposure, family boundaries, monitoring, privacy and law-enforcement interfaces.
• Can challenge threat governance without conducting operations, investigations or intrusive employee surveillance.
• Has calibrated protective resources to evidence rather than title, visibility, influence or executive preference.
• Brings credible collaboration with security professionals, people leaders, privacy, communications, insurers and threatened employees.
• Is independent of protection contracts, monitoring tools, investigations, insurance placement and vendor referrals.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend monthly Seoul sessions and both protected travel and residence exercises despite remote work.
• Brings direct personnel-security governance; ordinary corporate security or executive support alone is insufficient.
• Will not direct surveillance, access unnecessary location data, contact families or make operational threat decisions.
• Will disclose ties to protection firms, investigators, monitoring vendors, insurers, executives and law-enforcement bodies.

1. 49 words maximum. Which fact should outweigh executive title when allocating protective resources?
2. 49 words maximum. How would you distinguish protective monitoring from employee surveillance?
3. 49 words maximum. What support decision must remain with an accountable security professional?