Index Fortune favors the boldZero defectGeneration gapThis article examines the trend towards risk aversion in the contemporary military, the lack of confidence in the military's decentralized decision-making capacity, field operators and the cumbersome and time-inefficient centralized approval process tend to hamper time-sensitive military operations. As the Army once again enters the zero-defects era brought about by the overall reduction of large-scale combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ripple effects of this mindset can be felt throughout special operations forces. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Fortune Favors the Bold"Fortis Fortuna Adiuvat" is a Latin phrase for "Fortune Favors the Bold," attributed to the Roman playwright Publius Terenzio Afer, known as Terenzio. This phrase is the guiding principle for many of the world's militaries, and the United States is no exception. Even today, several military units use this phrase as their motto. But as the U.S. military enters a new phase of the War on Terror, fought largely by special operations forces, these words are increasingly ignored. Risk aversion has permeated all levels of decision making, and failure is considered at the same level as mission success. Decision-making authority at the tactical level is increasingly being taken away from operational elements and now rests with higher command levels. The effects of this are felt across the spectrum of special operations, as even the simplest operations now require approval from the task force or higher levels. Zero Defects As the downsizing of the military continues, mistakes become less and less forgivable, regardless of the level at which they are made. they were busy. In 2015 the Army moved away from a two-decade-old policy of masking junior officers' evaluation reports to future promotion boards once they reached the level of captain or chief warrant officer three, Tice (2015). This is bound to have a profoundly chilling effect on the initiative of junior leaders, as the consequences of even a relatively insignificant failure can be potentially catastrophic to an individual's future prospects. As stated by Kissel (1999), "the subordinate, realizing or perceiving a cost (penalty) for having made a mistake, avoids taking risks by doing nothing or by deliberately abdicating most of his decisions to his superior." just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Generation Gap It can be argued that part of the propensity for risk aversion also lies in the generational attributes of the leadership involved in decision making. In the years of peace before 9/11, the Army moved toward standardization, and with this virtue it rewarded leaders who employed the “sensory judgment” personality style over those with the “intuitive thinking” style, being the first one who preferred to maintain tight control over the situation and minimize risk-taking situations, Moyardec, (2009). Those junior leaders of the late 20th century are now high-ranking officers in charge of task force-level commands and still prefer micromanagement rather than decentralizing their command and delegating decision making. On the other side of the spectrum are the current ones.