Security does not begin with self-defence. It begins with attention.

Risks that, only a few years ago, seemed distant and abstract to much of society are becoming increasingly tangible. Geopolitical pressures, economic uncertainty, social tensions, cyber and information threats, and disruptions to systems we normally rely on are no longer confined to strategic documents – they are increasingly entering our professional, family and personal lives. The MSc. programme in Personal Security Strategy was created in response to this reality, offering a path towards greater preparedness, situational awareness and responsibility.

When people hear the term personal security, most imagine self-defence, pepper spray, a weapon or survival in the wilderness.

However, dangerous situations usually do not begin at the point when we have to defend ourselves physically. They begin much earlier – with a signal we failed to notice, a risk we assessed poorly, a lapse in attention, or a decision we did not make calmly and in time.

Personal security is a subject almost everyone has some idea about – but usually only until they begin asking specific questions.

What will I actually do if a situation starts to develop differently from what I expected? Will I recognise in time that something is changing? Can I maintain a sufficiently broad field of attention under pressure? Can I step back without allowing my ego to drive the decision? What changes when I am not alone and am also responsible for a partner, child, colleague or an entire team? And if leaving is no longer possible, will I be able to act appropriately?

This gap between a theoretical answer and real action is precisely what we focus on in the Personal Security Strategy programme.

The programme was created in response to a growing need

The programme was not conceived behind a desk, nor was it created simply because security sounds like an attractive topic.

It was developed in response to growing demand for the ability to navigate a world that is less predictable than the one to which we had long been accustomed.

The Security Strategy of the Czech Republic 2023 openly responds to the significant deterioration of the international security environment and to emerging threats associated, for example, with armed conflicts, cyberspace, influence operations in the information domain and strategic dependencies.

This does not mean that we should start treating our surroundings as permanently dangerous or viewing every person as a potential threat.

Such an approach would not be preparedness. It would merely be another form of losing control.

It does mean, however, that many situations we once regarded as distant or purely theoretical are now easier to imagine affecting us. War in Europe, disruptions to critical infrastructure, information manipulation, supply-chain breakdowns, economic shocks, violent incidents in public places, population displacement and emergencies are no longer matters only for crisis-management teams.

Their consequences may affect the functioning of businesses, communities and families.

And this is precisely where the difference between fear and preparedness becomes clear.

Fear seeks reassurance that nothing will happen.

Preparedness accepts that absolute certainty does not exist and asks: What can I do today to better find my bearings, make decisions and act if a crisis occurs?

Most conflicts do not begin with an attack

When security is reduced to physical defence alone, we begin telling the story far too late.

Conflicts are often preceded by subtle changes in the environment, in people's behaviour, in the atmosphere of the situation or in our own internal experience. We failed to notice something. We underestimated something. We did not want to admit that the situation had changed. Or we noticed the first warning signs but were unable to interpret them correctly or respond in time.

This is why I consider attention to be one of the fundamental tools of personal security.

This does not mean anxiously scrutinising every person in the street or living in a state of permanent vigilance. It means being genuinely present in the environment around me: perceiving the space, other people and my own body; noticing a change and interpreting it correctly.

Security does not begin with strength. It begins with acting in time.

Knowledge is not enough

Fourteen years in elite sport and seventeen years in management roles have taught me one uncomfortable but important lesson: under pressure, people do not behave according to what they would like to do. They behave according to what they have genuinely internalised, what remains accessible to them and what they have practised.

We may know the principles of crisis communication. We may know that we should remain calm in a crisis. We may have studied how to assess risk or provide first aid.

The question, however, is whether we can still access this knowledge when our heart rate rises, our attention narrows and the body begins searching for the fastest possible solution.

Stress is not merely an unpleasant feeling. It changes how we perceive a situation, process information and make decisions. It drives some people into hasty action and brings others to a standstill. Some begin trying to control everything around them; others unconsciously surrender responsibility.

None of these reactions is, in itself, evidence of personal weakness. They reveal how a person's system responds to strain. This is precisely why personal security cannot be taught through lectures alone.

Theory is nevertheless essential. It provides a map, names the principles and helps us understand the wider context. But it must be complemented by first-hand experience, through which people can discover how they actually behave in moments of uncertainty.

The programme is more than the sum of its disciplines

When we began building the Personal Security Strategy programme, the hardest task was not finding high-quality experts.

The real challenge was connecting their expertise so that we did not end up with eight interesting but mutually isolated subjects – or, if you prefer, training blocks.

You can bring together an outstanding security expert, psychologist, lawyer, self-defence specialist, information-security expert, emergency-medicine specialist or survival instructor. But if each of them merely passes on their own piece of the puzzle, students may leave with many useful tools and still not know when, why and in what order to use them.

As Programme Manager, I therefore focus above all on maintaining the programme's internal architecture.

The individual subjects must form a coherent path:

Notice. Assess. Self-regulate. Decide. Act. Protect others. Take responsibility. Integrate the experience into your own system.

This is why students in the Personal Security Strategy programme do not begin with physical conflict or a crisis scenario. They first work with a security mindset, prevention, risk perception and the ability to read their environment.

They then move into subjects such as communication, aggression, manipulation, psychological stress, urban security, and the protection of themselves and those close to them.

Just as important are an understanding of the legal context and the protection of property and finances.

Nor can we overlook the growing prevalence of information threats, travel-related risks, the ability to handle weapons, or different life-saving techniques.

The programme's aim is not to turn everyone into a specialist in all these fields.

Its aim is for every graduate to be able to connect the individual principles and turn them into a functional decision-making framework for their own life.

The individual, the team member and the leader

An important methodological insight into the programme's development came from PhDr. Ing. Vratislav Pokorný, MBA, Chief Methodologist at NEWTON University and a psychologist with many years of experience in the defence sector, working with stress and preparing people for demanding conditions.

He pointed out that personal security cannot be understood solely as a person's relationship with themselves. The same person moves through several levels of responsibility in different situations.

At the first level, they act as an independent individual. In Pokorný's terminology, they are a warrior who must be able to find their bearings, make decisions and act on their own behalf.

At the second level, they are a member of a team or another social system. This may be a family, work group, community or group of people in a crisis. Their decisions no longer affect only their own safety, but also the functioning and safety of others.

At the third level, they become a leader: someone responsible for leading the team and also externally accountable for the execution and outcome of the shared task or mission.

This is precisely where personal security connects with leadership.

It is one thing to move through an unfamiliar city alone. It is another to have a partner or child beside you. And it is something entirely different to lead a team, organise a large-scale event, run a company or bear responsibility for people during an emergency.

This is not simply a matter of carrying more responsibility. The very logic of decision-making changes.

As an individual, I can choose the fastest route to my own safety.

As a team member, I must coordinate my actions with others.

As a leader, I cannot think only about myself. I must consider the state of the people involved, the resources available, the differing abilities of individual members, how the situation is developing, communication with the outside world and the consequences of my own decisions.

To achieve safety, it is therefore not enough to practise only the question: ‘What will I do?’

We must also add the questions: What will we do together? What do others need from me at this moment? And what am I responsible for even though I do not have it fully under control?

This multi-level perspective is one reason the programme is relevant not only to individuals who want to protect themselves and their families more effectively, but also to managers, entrepreneurs, team leaders and anyone responsible for others.

Working with limits as a security competence

Within the programme, I also teach subjects related to adaptive capacity, working with limits and internal barriers, and attention.

At first glance, mental challenges may appear to fall outside the field of personal security. In reality, however, they provide us with a remarkably accurate mirror.

Where does a person direct their attention? How do they speak to themselves? Can they distinguish a real danger from an automatic fear response? Do they try to overpower the situation through sheer force? Are they swept along by the group? Or can they remain connected to themselves, their environment and their own decision?

Working with limits does not mean charging blindly through everything that stands in our way. That would not be resilience, but poor judgement.

A mature approach to limits means being able to distinguish when a particular boundary is an important protective mechanism and when it is merely a learned barrier that no longer corresponds to reality.

Sometimes the right choice is to take a step forward. At other times, competence is demonstrated precisely by the ability to stop.

The same applies to personal security. The aim is not to react at any cost. It is to choose an appropriate response.

Open attention instead of tunnel vision

One of the topics I have focused on for many years is open attention.

In everyday life, we tend to focus on one task, one person or one problem. This ability is useful because it enables us to concentrate. In a confusing or rapidly changing situation, however, it can become a limitation.

Our attention becomes fixed on the most prominent stimulus, and we stop perceiving the rest of the space around us.

We see an aggressive person but fail to notice their surroundings. We focus on the conflict but overlook a way out. We become absorbed in our own stress and fail to register the reactions of a partner, child or colleague. We cling to a pre-prepared course of action even though the situation now requires something different.

Open attention means being able to maintain a broader field of perception: to register the main events, the peripheral space, our own state and the options available.

The ability to work with attention is a practical competence that supports situational awareness, adaptation and decision-making. It can be trained through meditation, movement, breathwork and scenarios in which the situation gradually changes.

In a crisis, the decisive factor is often not how much information we have. It is whether we noticed the information that mattered for creating or maintaining safety.

Preparedness without paranoia

Discussions about personal security often move between two extremes.

The first says: ‘Nothing will happen to me. If something does, I will somehow manage.’

The second sees danger almost everywhere and tries to control every possible variable.

I do not consider either approach to be genuine preparedness.

The first rests on the illusion that improvisation can replace experience, skills and planning. The second can trap a person in constant tension and suspicion. Paradoxically, security then begins to become a source of fear.

Healthy preparedness means seeing reality without underestimating it or dramatising it unnecessarily.

Sometimes the right decision is to leave. Sometimes it is to de-escalate a conflict. Sometimes it is to ask for help. Sometimes it is to protect another person. And sometimes it is necessary to act quickly, decisively and without lengthy deliberation.

A person who is genuinely secure is not someone who is always ready to fight, but someone who has more options than fighting.

A personal strategy, not a universal manual

There is no single security procedure that works for every person and every situation.

A parent of young children will approach their security differently from someone who travels frequently, a business owner, a healthcare professional, a field worker or someone caring for a vulnerable family member.

Their environments, responsibilities, physical capabilities, experience, assets and risks all differ.

That is why students do not create a generic manual during the programme. They gradually build their own personal security strategy.

They map their environment, routines and vulnerabilities. They consider how to protect those close to them, their property and their information. They create decision-making frameworks for conflict, crisis and confusing situations. They test what they can actually use under pressure and identify the areas in which they need to develop further.

The final project is therefore not intended to be an academic document that ends up in a drawer after it has been defended. It is meant to become a living, tailored personal framework for real life.

Taking responsibility before a problem arises

As Programme Manager, I want the individual disciplines to form one coherent, comprehensible and practical whole.

As a lecturer, I want students to learn not only specific procedures, but also how they themselves respond when uncertainty, pressure or fear arise.

And as someone with many years of management experience, I know that responsibility does not begin only at the moment of crisis. It begins much earlier – in how we prepare, how we think about possible scenarios, how we work with people and whether we are willing to acknowledge our own weak points.

The ability to protect ourselves and others does not begin with courage or strength.

It begins with a willingness to see reality, acknowledge our own vulnerability and take responsibility for what we can influence.

The MSc. programme in Personal Security Strategy was therefore not created to turn people into fighters, survivalists or security professionals.

It was created to help them find their bearings, make decisions and act more effectively in a world that is not always predictable.

Independently. As part of a team. And, when necessary, as those who can take responsibility and lead.