Part I: A Historical Perspective
It goes without saying – which, of course, means that it absolutely must be said – that the overarching goal of every protection practitioner should be to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, using the so-called hard skills that tend to be prominently displayed on the vast majority of training providers websites, in their social media posts, as well as other forms of marketing. Despite claims to the contrary, the content and context of the training being offered by some tends to correlate directly to their marketing strategy and tactics. The question that often goes unasked is whether that training comports with the day-to-day realities that protection practitioners are likely to face. If we’re being honest, at least for some of those providers that cater to newcomers and up-and-comers in the profession, pictures and videos of teams of gun wielding students covering and evacuating a Principal, or three vehicle motorcades being covered by six to eight agents while parked curbside is what sells seats; period, end of story.
After all, images of students sifting through open-source digital media looking for disparate pieces of information which may prove useful in assessing security risks, or a video clip showing students collecting restaurant menus and seeing firsthand the layout of the establishment’s restrooms are hardly the stuff that the dreams of the next “world’s greatest bodyguard” are made of. Nor are they the sorts of things that he or she feels a burning desire to shell out several thousand dollars for.
But be that as it may, such approaches to marketing actually do reflect a very small sliver of reality with regard to the protection profession, one which is often lost in the noise of the debate over exactly what the focal points of protection training should be. There should be little to no doubt that a well-informed Principal will appreciate the fact that those responsible for protecting them have the ability to interact and communicate effectively with his or her inner circle. Likewise, he or she will certainly appreciate the fact that the most adept protection practitioners will take appropriate steps to avoid the kinds of situations that attract undue attention while they accompany them through their daily schedule with the utmost efficiency. The most perceptive among them are also likely to recognize that the protection practitioner’s role and responsibilities extend beyond the “softer” realms of assessment and facilitation, even if the opportunities for their protector’s to assume those less commonplace roles and responsibilities are few and far between. The best-informed are, of course, those who understand that the intrinsic value of protection is typically only realized in those rare instances where peak performance on the part of their protectors may mean the difference between life and death. That understanding often leads to the realization on the part of the most astute Principals that, in those rare but potentially life-altering moments, performing the required tasks at the necessary level of proficiency is something that is well beyond their own abilities. Which is where that very small sliver of reality comes to the forefront, driven by the expectation of those being protected that in those exceedingly rare instances when his or her protectors may be called upon to do so, they will demonstrate as high a degree of proficiency in the hard skills as they do in the softer skills they rely on day in and day out.
Of course, none of this is to say that training which focuses on developing and improving upon so-called soft skills should take a backseat to other forms of training. In as much as the tasks that require those skill sets tend to take up a majority of the typical protection practitioner’s time and energy, investing in developing the knowledge, skill, and ability to perform them well is always a worthwhile investment. However, as the old adage goes, there is a time and a place for everything. And one need look no further than today’s headlines to understand that there are any number of situations that one might potentially find themselves in where having the latest in mobile technology at your fingertips, being decked out in a well-tailored suit, and being well versed in verbal de-escalation techniques might very well fall short of what is required to ensure the Principal’s safety. From rapidly organized demonstrations with violent underpinnings to the deliberate dissemination of public figure’s personal information (more commonly referred to as “doxing”), the spectrum of potential risks for many of those who are typically afforded protection is rapidly expanding. If and when the Principal perceives that the risks they face are expanding, their expectations with regard to the ability of those who protect them to perform effectively and efficiently when it counts the most are heightened as well.
With this in mind, the question quickly becomes whether or not the protection practitioner can live up to those expectations. More often than not the answer to that question revolves around the quality of the training that the practitioner in question has undertaken. More specifically, the answer tends to hinge on whether or not whatever training they participated in provided sustainable skills that are applicable to the conditions, situations, and circumstances within which they are likely to have to rely upon them. Having said all of that – and at the risk of beating the proverbial dead horse – it’s worth noting that should a protection practitioner find themselves having to fall back on hard skills to ensure the Principal’s safety, they’re much more likely to find themselves doing so while in or around a vehicle than at any other place or time. That’s a reality that has remained largely unchanged throughout the history of folks engaging others who are ostensibly more qualified and better suited to the task of keeping them safe than they themselves are. It is this longstanding reality as to where and when at-risk individuals are most likely to face increased safety or security risks which contributed to the fact that the very first private sector executive protection training courses here in the U.S. were, in reality, evasive driving courses. First among the exceptionally small group of forward-thinking professionals who designed, developed, and delivered those innovative courses was Tony Scotti, who founded the Scotti School of Defensive Driving in 1974, several years before “executive protection” schools began cropping up around the country.
From the earliest days of Tony’s groundbreaking foray into the realm of training those responsible for protecting executives, officials, and dignitaries, science was an integral part of the methodology and approach he pioneered. It’s where – and when – the objective performance standard that requires students to demonstrate the capability to use 80% of a given vehicles potential originated, as did the use of various technologies to measure the students ability to meet that science-based standard. As is often the case when it comes to those who lead the way into uncharted territory, in the years since a number of the those who followed behind the Scotti School adopted some semblance of that standard, with some disingenuously claiming this science-based approach, the performance standard, and the application of technology to the process as their own.
Unfortunately, as these training entities have come and gone through the years, the core concepts that provide the framework for that scientific, objective performance standard have been overlooked or, in some cases, simply ignored. In more than one instance, those have been lost under a growing pile of buzzwords and hyperbole. Just one glaring example of this is the use of the term vehicle dynamics, which the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines as the application of the laws of physics to a vehicle in motion. While there can be no mistaking the fact that vehicle dynamics is a science and, when properly applied, an exceptionally useful element of measuring driver performance, it is just one component of a much more complex framework. This phrase also has the dubious distinction of being one of the most overused and misused in the driver training lexicon. But regardless of just how often it is misused or misapplied, without considering the other elements of the framework that contributes to driver performance, the value of a performance standard based on the science of vehicle dynamics is greatly diminished, This is simply because such a narrowly defined standard lacks the context that is absolutely necessary for determining whether the student’s performance in the training environment is sustainable over time and transferable to the conditions, situations, and circumstances they must function in on a day to day basis.
As is the case with the often imitated “80% performance standard”, the paradigm which defines the critical elements that contribute to sustainable driver performance originated with the Scotti School some 46 years ago. At that time, Tony had the foresight to adapt an industrial safety model to the concept of training drivers to not only perform to an objective standard defined by science but to do so under conditions that closely replicate those which the student is likely to encounter beyond the training environment. In recognition of the three critical elements that contribute to the driver’s success or failure in what he defined as behind-the-wheel emergencies – ranging from potential accidents to security-related incidents – he referred to this model the Security Driving Triangle. The critical elements which form the triangle are the Driver, the Vehicle, and the Environment; and this model defines the relationship between those elements in the context of a behind-the-wheel emergency, in which the safety of both the Principal and the protection practitioner is in jeopardy.
While the concept of objectively measuring driver performance was pioneered by Tony Scotti in 1974 and has been copied by some training providers since then, in reality, it is the Security Driving Triangle that provides the framework necessary for maintaining a performance standard that provides sustainable skills which comport with the circumstances and conditions in which those skills are likely to be called upon beyond the training environment. And it is that framework which we will begin to explore in the next articles in this series, starting with the driver.
About the Author
Joseph Autera is the President and CEO of Vehicle Dynamics Institute, which has been carrying on the legacy Tony Scotti began in 1974 for more than 17 years. His practical experience includes freelance protection work focusing in large part on surveillance detection and secure transportation planning in semi-permissive environments in both moderate and high-risk locales as well as standing up the protective detail for a prominent technology concern. Additionally, he has also enjoyed tenures as Director of Global Security and Vice President of Global Security Operations for two different U.S. based multinational corporations. His articles on related topics have appeared in some of the professions most respected publications and he has presented on those same topics at a number of conferences and symposiums across the country.
Leave a Reply