In April 1910, President Theodore Roosevelt delivered a speech titled Citizenship in a Republic, which included his oft-quoted “man in the arena” passage. Roosevelt in this passage praises the notion of an individual who does not merely critique or stand idly by but “strives valiantly” and “spends himself in a worthy cause,” even if doing so results in failure. Such a mentality is essential for military success, especially in the context of war or deterrence. As retired Navy Captain Robert C. Rubel wrote in the Naval War College Review, “Risk permeates the fabric of war—from the actions of individual soldiers, sailors, and airmen to the policies, strategies, and decisions of national leaders.”1 The Sea Services, then, have a vested interest in enlisted leaders willing to embrace what Admiral Chester Nimitz called “calculated risk”—a willingness to be responsibly bold even in the face of potential failure.2 Risk aversion creates risks of its own. It undermines the ability to counter adversaries and threatens to create a stagnant culture.
Consequential Timidity
Unfortunately, a risk-averse culture has taken root in the Sea Services, and its consequences could be significant if global conflict materializes. In a 2014 article in Proceedings, Royal Navy Commander John Craig, commenting on his U.S. allies, noted that “the U.S. Navy has inadvertently created a situation whereby officers are potentially rewarded for surviving their command unscathed.”3 This same logic applies to enlisted leaders. The men and women of the Sea Services are by nature aggressive, intelligent, and motivated. But rather than directing those attributes toward boldness, the incentive structure of the Sea Services broadly encourages its personnel to avoid taking chances. Retired Captain Thomas R. Beall is right to note that the Navy promotes a zero-defect mentality that tends toward punishing or rejecting failure rather than celebrating responsible risk-taking, creativity, and boldness.4 In short, the Sea Services want and need bold leaders, yet in practice they promote and celebrate those who generally avoid boldness. To return to Roosevelt’s logic, the Sea Services know they want “the man in the arena . . . whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds.” But they cultivate its opposite, “the critic . . . who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.”
This discrepancy starts with the annual evaluation process. As Lieutenant Commander Andrew Odell noted regarding officer fitness reports, “The current fitness reporting system invites officers to look at their career as a game to be played, rather than as a process of developing experience, wisdom, and judgment.”5 The same is true of the enlisted evaluation process. If the Sea Services want to change the culture, enhance retention, and bolster military readiness, they can do no better than to start there. Enlisted leaders know what is expected of them and what it takes to promote. If the evaluation process favors risk aversion, they will be risk-averse.
What Is Boldness?
Boldness is not easy to define. It blends bravery, confidence, and decisiveness with creativity, risk-taking, and strategic thinking. At its heart, boldness is an antidote. Where the risk-averse sailor is paralyzed by the personal consequences of failure, the bold sailor is concerned with the collective consequences of mission failure. A bold sailor has the bravery to try something new, even if it means absorbing a degree of risk. A bold sailor may, and often will, fail. This failure is symptomatic not of their carelessness, but of their willingness to deploy new ideas, seek solutions, and advance new strategies. There is a difference, though, between recklessness and boldness. Recklessness can endanger people and negatively affect the mission. Boldness, by contrast, embodies Nimitz’s vision of calculated risk and reflects a willingness to take risks that are tempered by careful and strategic thought.
In the private sector, the willingness to take a chance drives innovative ideas that keep companies on the leading edge. The Sea Services are no different. Innovation and boldness will allow the U.S. Navy to continue as the world’s leading maritime fighting force.
Importantly, research suggests corporations that embrace calculated employee risk-taking and a culture of innovation have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.6 With the armed forces struggling with both lines of effort, this is a compelling argument for cultivating a culture of boldness.
The Evaluation Process
The Navy does believe in boldness. For instance, the Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority notes, “Our most junior teammate may have the best idea; we must be open to capturing and implementing that idea.” In practice, however, the enlisted evaluation process leaves little space for creative, innovative, and risk-oriented work. It is designed to see failure as a detriment—even failure after a carefully calculated risk. Higher scores, and thus higher promotion likelihood, are awarded to sailors who do not face failure during a given review period. The result is that sailors become programmed not to engage in bold leadership. Instead, they favor a zero-deficit mentality that either avoids risk altogether or refuses to see failure as a pathway to growth.
Consider the evaluation form’s narrative portion. Typically, sailors are encouraged only to report quantifiably successful actions. Most narratives include phrases such as “flawless,” “zero failures,” “100 percent success,” and related terms. Rarely is a sailor celebrated for taking a calculated risk or developing an innovative idea that was not measurably successful, even if that bold action resulted in personal growth and institutional learning. As a result, sailors are encouraged to embrace only those tasks in which success is inevitable.
Another example is the performance traits against which enlisted sailors are measured. None encourage risk-taking or a default posture of boldness. The closest, perhaps, is the attribute of “initiative.” However, looking at the descriptions used for this trait, it becomes clear that “initiative” means completing assigned tasks. This is essential for an enlisted sailor, but it is a far cry from boldness.
Evaluating Boldness
A prescription exists to turn back the trend: Place a performance trait titled “boldness” on the enlisted evaluation alongside the other essential traits. Doing so would send a powerful message to all leaders and their sailors that responsible risk-taking and cultivating innovative ideas will be celebrated—that such actions are a baseline expectation for sailors, just as professional knowledge and military bearing are. All current performance traits are essential, and adding boldness to them would not subtract from their importance. But it would help foster a culture of innovation and bold deckplate leadership.
In designing and articulating this performance trait, the Navy could delineate between boldness and recklessness. A sailor who scores low on boldness could be someone who avoids risk altogether, but it could also be someone who takes unnecessary or detrimental risks. By contrast, a sailor who scores high on this performance trait might be someone who studies problems and offers informed, creative solutions, or who accepts challenges even when the outcomes are highly uncertain. The narrative portion of the evaluation form for a high performer on boldness could acknowledge failures and mistakes but present them as emblematic of an innovative mindset that works to solve problems and make the Navy better, stronger, and more competitive.
The Navy needs innovation to maintain its superiority in a fast-changing geopolitical environment. But innovation requires a willingness to embrace risk and face failure. The Navy must unleash the boldness of its sailors so it can be translated into innovation. The Navy should consider making boldness a key performance trait against which sailors are evaluated. This seemingly minor change would likely have a meaningful, lasting, and widespread cultural effect.
1. CAPT Robert C. Rubel, USN (Ret.), “Deconstructing Nimitz’s Principle of Calculated Risk: Lessons for Today,” Naval War College Review 68, no. 1 (2015): 30–46.
2. Rubel, “Deconstructing Nimitz’s Principle of Calculated Risk.”
3. CDR John A. Craig, RN, “In Defense of Taking Risks,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 140 no. 2 (February 2014).
4. CAPT Thomas R. Beall, USN (Ret.), “There Is No Zero-Defect Mentality,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 149 no. 1 (January 2023).
5. LCDR Andrew Odell, USN, “The Navy Still Punishes Talented Risk-Takers,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 148 no. 5 (May 2022).
6. Alex Goryachev, “Winning the Talent War: How Innovation Attracts and Retains Employees,” HR Dive, 31 May 2018.