A shocking act of violence against a prominent CEO has left the business world grappling with its implications. On December 4, Brian Thompson, a senior executive at UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in New York City as he walked to an investor meeting. The attack, carried out by a man with no personal or business connection to Thompson, has sent waves of concern across corporate America.

Thompson’s alleged killer, Luigi Mangione, is accused of targeting him as part of an anti-corporate manifesto. While the details of Mangione’s motivations are still unfolding, the incident underscores a disturbing trend: growing hostility toward corporate leadership, particularly among younger generations.

A Chilling Reaction

Perhaps most unsettling is the reaction from some corners of the public. An Emerson College poll revealed that 41% of individuals aged 18 to 29 found Thompson’s murder “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.” This troubling response reflects a generational divide in attitudes toward corporations. For many in Gen Z, large companies are often seen as oppressors prioritizing profit over people.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro condemned the violence, calling Mangione “a coward, not a hero,” and emphasizing that cold-blooded murder has no place in resolving societal grievances.

Generational Perspectives

Mangione’s alleged anti-corporate ideology, as outlined in a manifesto, aligns with a broader narrative embraced by some in Gen Z: a world divided between oppressors and the oppressed. This worldview has surfaced in various contexts, from debates about global conflicts to critiques of corporate practices.

By contrast, older generations, including millennials and baby boomers, tend to see corporations as contributors to societal progress, balancing profitability with creating value for stakeholders. However, dissatisfaction with industries like healthcare—where claim denials and high costs fuel public frustration—has led some to view corporate leaders as emblematic of systemic failures.

Security Challenges for CEOs

Thompson’s tragic death has forced corporate leaders to reassess their personal security. Many are now questioning whether they could become targets of similar attacks. The growing fear of “copycat” incidents has led companies to consult security firms on enhancing protections for executives and their families.

Key considerations include:

Expanding security measures beyond office premises to homes, public appearances, and travel routes.

Determining the extent of security for executives’ families and board members.

Balancing the desire for privacy and normalcy with the need for vigilance.

Preparing for emerging threats, including high-tech dangers like drones.


For many executives, the idea of constant security is deeply uncomfortable. Most prefer to interact with colleagues and the public informally, without the barrier of visible security teams. However, incidents like Thompson’s murder are challenging those preferences, highlighting the need for more comprehensive precautions.

Navigating a New Era

Thompson’s death is a wake-up call for corporate America. While security measures can mitigate risks, they cannot guarantee absolute safety. Executives must navigate this new reality carefully, balancing security concerns with their desire to live and lead openly.

At the same time, companies must address the underlying tensions contributing to anti-corporate sentiment. Building trust, demonstrating social responsibility, and engaging with younger generations are crucial steps toward bridging the gap between corporations and a skeptical public.

Ultimately, corporate leaders must resist the temptation to retreat behind walls of security. To do so risks alienating the very communities they aim to serve, giving ground to those who seek to sow division and fear.