Digital Content Editor, Eve Goode speaks exclusively with Nikolaos E Chatzovoulos, Founder and Principal Consultant of XN Consultancy about building an effective resilience strategy during times of uncertainty.
Can you tell me about your first steps into the security industry and how your previous experience led you into the role/roles you hold today?
My first professional steps in security began in 2005, working as a security guard in the private sector.
This gave me an important understanding of frontline security including access control, observation, communication, discipline and direct responsibility for people and property.
I later progressed into Security Officer and VIP protection roles, which introduced me to more demanding environments where preparation, discretion and rapid decision-making were essential.
My military service then became a defining part of my professional development.
I served in the Hellenic Army Special Forces and subsequently spent more than a decade with the Hellenic Air Force in Combat Search and Rescue.
These roles taught me how to operate under pressure, assess rapidly changing threats, coordinate teams and make decisions where human life could depend on the outcome.
After leaving full-time military service, I moved into international security, health and safety and crisis management positions.
I worked in Ukraine with an international humanitarian organisation and held senior security and safety responsibilities for mining operations connected with Greece, Cyprus and Madagascar.
These experiences expanded my understanding of security beyond protection alone.
I became increasingly involved in organisational resilience, emergency planning, authority liaison, incident management and business continuity.
Today, through XN Consultancy, my work combines security consultancy, crisis management, civil protection, training and operational support.
I also lecture on security and crisis-related subjects, while expanding our capabilities into pre-hospital and emergency response services through Salamis Ambulance.
A key part of this approach is the integration of private ambulance support into major security events, high-profile client movements and convoy operations.
By combining security planning with immediate medical response capability, we aim to provide a more complete and resilient operational framework.
Although these activities may appear different, they share the same objective: protecting people, supporting organisations and ensuring that critical systems remain effective under pressure.
How has the definition of security resilience changed over the last ten years?
Ten years ago, many organisations understood security resilience mainly as the ability to protect physical assets and restore operations following an incident and security departments often focused on guarding, access control, surveillance systems, emergency procedures and preventing direct losses.
Today, resilience is much broader as it involves the ability of an organisation to anticipate threats, absorb disruption, adapt to changing conditions and continue operating.
It includes physical security, cybersecurity, health and safety, supply-chain continuity, crisis communication, leadership, employee wellbeing and organisational culture.
The threats have also become more interconnected.
A geopolitical crisis can impact energy prices, supply chains, employee movements and public confidence simultaneously.
A climate-related event can create infrastructure failures, health emergencies and security problems.
A cyber-incident can quickly become a physical and reputational crisis.
Another important development is the recognition of the human factor.
Procedures and technologies are necessary, but resilience ultimately depends on people.
Employees must understand their responsibilities, leaders must remain effective under pressure and security personnel must be protected from fatigue and burnout.
My own research and professional writing have focused on the connection between the security environment and burnout because exhausted personnel cannot maintain effective situational awareness or sound judgement indefinitely.
This was also one of the main reasons I wrote my book, ‘Security Environment and Burnout Syndrome.’
I wanted to give something back to the security industry by sharing practical knowledge and raising awareness of the psychological and operational pressures faced by security professionals.
The aim was not only to support individuals, but also to help organisations understand that protecting the wellbeing and mental resilience of their personnel is an essential part of overall security resilience.
Modern resilience is therefore not simply the ability to recover, it is the ability to learn, adapt and continue functioning while the crisis is still developing.
In your previous job roles, you have worked across Europe and Africa. How do regional, political and social dynamics often shape security strategy differently?
Security strategies cannot simply be copied from one country and applied to another.
The same threat may require a completely different approach depending on the political environment, local culture, institutional capacity and relationship between communities and authorities.
In Europe, organisations often operate within relatively established legal and regulatory systems.
Security planning must therefore be closely aligned with compliance, data protection, labour regulations, health and safety requirements and cooperation with public authorities.
In conflict-affected European environments such as Ukraine, the situation can change rapidly.
Security planning must consider military developments, infrastructure disruption, movement restrictions, communication failures and the psychological pressure placed on employees.
In parts of Africa, including my experience in Madagascar, the operating environment may involve different challenges.
These can include limited infrastructure, long logistical distances, local economic inequalities, community tensions and variable access to emergency or public services.
Security managers must therefore understand not only the immediate threats but also the local social environment.
Community relationships are particularly important.
A technically strong security system can still fail if it creates resentment or ignores local expectations.
Effective security strategy must include stakeholder engagement, cultural awareness, authority liaison and respect for the communities surrounding an operation.
The central lesson is that security must be locally informed. International standards provide a useful framework, but the strategy must be adapted to the realities on the ground.
What are the biggest misconceptions that organisations currently have about crisis preparedness?
One of the biggest misconceptions is that having a written emergency plan means that an organisation is prepared, a document is only the beginning.
Unless the plan has been communicated, tested and understood by the people expected to implement it, it may have little value during a real crisis.
Another misconception is that crises can be managed entirely by the security department.
In reality, crisis management requires cooperation between senior leadership, operations, human resources, communications, health and safety, information technology, logistics and external authorities.
Organisations also tend to prepare for the incident they expect rather than for the consequences that may follow.
For example, they may prepare for a fire but not for the loss of a facility, prolonged operational disruption, employee displacement, reputational damage or communication with affected families.
There is also a tendency to underestimate confusion.
During a crisis, information is incomplete and sometimes contradictory.
Prepared organisations establish clear leadership structures, reporting channels and decision-making responsibilities before the emergency occurs.
Finally, some organisations see preparedness as an expense rather than an investment.
The value of preparation may not be visible during normal operations, but the absence of preparation becomes extremely expensive when something goes wrong.
What emerging risks do you believe organisations are still failing to take seriously?
Many organisations continue to underestimate the combined effect of several risks occurring at the same time.
They may assess geopolitical risk, climate risk, cyber-risk, employee wellbeing and supply-chain disruption separately, even though these risks increasingly interact.
The human factor is also not taken seriously enough.
Burnout, fatigue and psychological pressure can weaken judgement, communication and situational awareness.
This is particularly dangerous for security teams, emergency responders and senior leaders who are expected to make critical decisions under pressure.
Another emerging concern is overdependence on technology.
Surveillance, access-control systems, digital communication and automated reporting improve security, but organisations must also consider what happens when these systems fail or are compromised.
Climate-related disruption is another area where preparation often remains insufficient.
Extreme weather can affect transport, energy, communications, health services and the availability of personnel.
These effects can quickly become security and continuity problems.
Finally, organisations should pay greater attention to misinformation and reputational attacks.
A crisis is no longer defined only by what physically happens, it is also shaped by how information, images and allegations spread online.
What separates organisations that survive crises effectively from those that collapse under pressure?
The main difference is preparation combined with leadership.
Organisations that manage crises effectively usually understand their critical functions, have clear responsibilities and train their personnel before an emergency occurs.
Strong leadership does not mean that one person makes every decision. It means establishing a structure in which information reaches the correct level, decisions are recorded and responsibilities are understood.
Effective organisations also allow personnel to report problems without fear and this travels quickly during a crisis.
Adaptability is equally important.
No crisis plan will predict every development.
Organisations must be disciplined enough to follow established principles but flexible enough to change their approach when circumstances demand it.
Trust is another decisive factor.
Employees must trust leadership and leadership must trust trained personnel, while external stakeholders must believe the organisation communicates honestly.
Once trust is lost, even technically correct decisions can become difficult to implement.
Organisations collapse when they deny the seriousness of the situation, delay decisions, hide information or depend excessively on a few individuals.
Resilient organisations distribute knowledge, test their systems and learn from incidents and exercises.
As organisations continue to reshape their security infrastructure amid climate and geopolitical instability, what is one piece of advice that you would give to these organisations?
My main advice would be to build security as an integrated organisational capability rather than treating it as a separate support function.
Security should be connected with leadership, operations, health and safety, human resources, technology, communications and business continuity.
Organisations should identify their critical activities, understand the people and resources on which those activities depend and assess how different threats could disrupt them.
They should also test their assumptions regularly.
A strategy that was effective three years ago may no longer reflect the current geopolitical, technological or climate environment.
Exercises, audits and honest after-action reviews are essential.
Most importantly, organisations should invest in their people.
Technology and infrastructure can support resilience, but trained, trusted and mentally prepared personnel remain as the foundation of every successful security system.
