The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Social influence
Social influence in military in military
leadership training training
Kristian Firing and Ragnheidur Karlsdottir
Department of Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 709
Trondheim, Norway, and
Jon Christian Laberg Received November 2008
Revised April 2009
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Accepted May 2009

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a renewed understanding of social influence in the
military by exploring officers’ decision-making processes in a stressful situation. The intention is to
develop self-awareness as a central leadership capability in authentic leadership.
Design/methodology/approach – During wintertime in Norway, standing half-naked and
blindfolded on a wharf, officer cadets were offered the choice of jumping or not jumping into the
icy ocean. From that starting point, a qualitative dialogue evolved in which the cadets reflected on
their decision-making processes and explored their reasons for making their decision. Finally, the
decision was executed by the cadets on whether to jump into the icy water or not.
Findings – The results from “the water jump” showed that most of the cadets jumped, indicating
that they preferred physical inconvenience over social inconvenience, and that officers are highly
influenced by their group and the military organization.
Research limitations/implications – The research was conducted with a relatively small group
and the findings may not generalize readily to other populations.
Practical implications – The “water jump” has been adopted by the Royal Norwegian Navy, and is
under consideration by the Army and Police in Norway. Using the physical environment as a
background to tap into the cadets’ thinking in action provides knowledge about the individual self and
social influence relevant to growth as leaders.
Originality/value – The paper is one of few to explore the role of social influence in the context of a
military real-world leadership training activity. Moreover, addressing social influence as a potential
drawback in decision making is done to enhance self-awareness as a central leadership capability of
authentic leaders in operations.
Keywords Armed forces, Decision making, Leadership, Training, Personality, Norway
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The intention of authentic leadership development could be to make leaders experience
growth by enhancing self-awareness and self-regulation (Gardner et al., 2005, p. 6).
Personal identity should be balanced against group or social identity knowing that
working in teams could be effective, it also makes individuals take on a social identity
(Hogg and Turner, 1985). Moreover, personal values should be balanced against social Leadership & Organization
or situational norms and authentic behavior should be privileged regarding others’ Development Journal
Vol. 30 No. 8, 2009
expectations. Authentic leadership, however, should not be interpreted as autonomous, pp. 709-721
cut off from context; the authenticity is a process taking place in the context in which q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
the leaders operate (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). DOI 10.1108/01437730911003885
LODJ The context in which officers operate has changed radically, particularly since the
30,8 end of the Cold War. The profession suddenly encompassed a variety of roles, ranging
from humanitarian worker to the traditional warrior, all in a rapidly changing context
(Battistelli, 1997). To meet the challenge of nonlinear and asymmetric methods of
operation, military organizations have decentralized responsibility and authority to
team and leaders at lower levels. The object of this study was to explore the tension
710 between the individual self and social influence as it came into play in an ambiguous
military situation.
To investigate how authenticity and social influence came into play in the military,
we gained access to officer cadets training in Norway. Traditionally, education in the
military has been built on a behavioristic perspective, training organization and
individuals to act properly according to a pre-planned scenario (Skinner, 1953). In the
Norwegian Armed Forces, a process in which the students’ thinking and emotions are
emphasized in the process of individual development (Piaget, 1977) has arisen. A
culture of coaching has become a supplement, in which experienced officers serve as
mentors in the process of growth and realization of the students’ potential as officers
(Vygotsky, 1978). In addition, the educational practice is based on the concepts of
learning from experience (Dewey, 1961).
Within this context, the Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy constructed a case
called “the water jump”. One by one, physically separated from the group, the cadets
stand half-naked and blindfolded on a wharf during the wintertime in Norway, and
were offered the choice of jumping or not jumping into the icy ocean. They were given
an offer; they were not forced to jump. However, most of the cadets decided to jump.
This is the background for the research question addressed in this paper; “how do
officers undergoing training experience the tension between the individual self and
social influence in a specific decision-making situation”. To explore such a tension, the
reflections from the wharf became more important than the actual jumping.
Social psychology studies have revealed knowledge about human nature and its
tendency to internalize social norms and be influenced by the current situation.
Milgram’s experiments, Obedience to Authority, are such examples. Subjects having
the role of a “teacher” were willing to go to extreme lengths in punishing their “pupils”.
They simply followed orders (Milgram, 1974). In the Stanford Prison Study, dividing
participants into “prisoners” and “guards”, the experiment had to be aborted after six
days – the role play took over (Zimbardo, 1972). The studies’ link to the military
context is clear, as Milgram’s studies were conducted on the basis of the Second World
War, while Zimbardo’s study received renewed interest, as US soldiers abused Iraqi
prisoners in Abu Ghraib (Zimbardo, 2007).
Later studies conducted within the military were investigating soldiers’ identity as
it develops during the cadet officer training (Bartone et al., 2007), or addressed social
identity by measuring group cohesion (Siebold, 2007). Moreover, social identification is
connected to collectivistic work motivation (Shamir et al., 2000). The authors argue that
a person whose conception of self is partly based on team or organization identities will
participate in activities of the collectivity. Even though they demonstrate empirically
how social identification correlates with discipline and potency, they discuss to a lesser
degree how such social identification will come into play in operative military context.
Situation awareness has been studied in military context, as in a shooting simulator
giving the participants different in-brief information for instance (Saus et al., 2006).
However, such studies are closely connected to cognitive views of perception (Endsley Social influence
and Garland, 2000). A number of reports from close accidents or real accidents point to in military
social context as a possible threat in military operations. One example is the friendly
fire accident, in which the US F-15 fighters shot down two US Army Black Hawk training
Helicopters over Iraq in 1994. In-depth investigation of this case addressed individuals’
perception, but also group and organizational factors (Snook, 2000). Despite such
investigations, relatively little research has been based on a situational perspective 711
(Mischel, 2004), exploring how social influence reveals itself in an operative military
context.
The officers’ profession unfolds in an operative military context, carrying dilemmas
from following orders to individual judgment, and from knowing when to act and
when to withhold certain types of behavior. Our experiences from military exercises
are that most often action was preferred rather than inaction, and most often leadership
and decision making were viewed as individual processes. The water jump challenges
this assumption. Even though the point of departure in this paper is the personal self, it
will include social aspects of the self as the group and the organization came into play.
Initially, each individual brings his or her thinking and emotions into the process of
evaluating a situation and making decisions. This paper is also based on a social view
of the self. Mead (1934) claimed that the individual and the social patterns of relating
develop together. Such a social view is also related to social psychology, which
emphasizes “the thought, feeling, and behavior of individuals as shaped by the actual,
imagined, or implied presence of others” (Allport, 1935).
Moreover, the soldiers always belong to a group when operating. In the military
context the concept of cohesion has been used to illustrate how individuals are influenced
when entering into a unit larger than themselves (Siebold, 2007). One of the consequences
of being part of a group rather than being an individual is that the individual dares to go
further in the use of power (Grossman, 1995). Therefore, being a member of a group
changes one’s identity into being affected by the interpersonal relations or even being
transformed into a social-being identity (Hogg and Turner, 1985).
Finally, the individuals and groups operate within an organization; in this particular
study the military. Hence, the military, recognized as a collective and masculine
culture, serves as the framework for the officer’s role. Military personnel are exposed to
expectations in connection with the role as an officer. This role carries norms of proper
behavior. Certain ways of standing, saluting, marching and language are recognized
among military personnel (Huntington, 1957). As there is a close relation between
language and thought (Vygotsky, 1986), this could lead to the anticipation that the
military organization, through its specialized language, also mediates officers’
thinking. We tapped into the cadets’ thinking through the case utilized within the
context of the Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy.

Context of the study

The Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy provides the cadets with a three-year
officers’ education program which awards a Bachelor’s degree in military studies
(Luftkrigsskolen (Air Force Academy), 2005). Today, officers are required to handle
situations in a wide variety of contexts, including participating in various kinds of
international conflict. Therefore the Academy is “more focused on educating the cadets
in how to think rather than what to think” (Luftkrigsskolen (Air Force Academy), 2002,
LODJ p. 6). The educational foundation for the leadership studies can be described through
30,8 three components: theory, practical training and reflection (Firing, 2004).
Theory in the field of leadership is taught in classrooms at the Academy. The
teaching varies from traditional lectures, through teacher-guided activities characterized
by dialog with the cadets, to group work. But, not all parts of the leadership course are
suited to classroom teaching. Hence, the cadets undergo practical training as well.
712 Practical training in leadership is facilitated through exercises. As the officers of
today will be exposed to different stress-related situations than previously, current
exercises are divided into many minor independent cases. The water jump is an
example of such a case, and has been chosen as the experimental context in this study.
The cases have limited value in themselves, they have to be followed up by reflection
(Dewey, 1961).
Reflection can be seen as a process in which a person looks back at what happened
in an attempt to learn from it. The first form of reflection is to write soon after the case
has ended, in which the cadets focus on their own thinking and emotions there and
then (Firing, 2004). The second form of reflection takes place in groups, led by an
experienced mentor who tries to help the cadets understand what they have been part
of, including their own behavior in relation to the other cadets (Firing, 2004). The third
form of reflection is a writing phase taking place about one week after the practical
part of the exercise has been completed (Firing, 2004). Here the cadets pick out some
cases which they find have the most learning potential and write about them in order to
construct experiences useful for the cadets’ leader development (Dewey, 1961).

Method
Case study was the method chosen to investigate the water jump as a case within the
military leadership program (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995). The case study gave time
and space to investigate the water jump using multiple in-depth data collection and
drawing on different theoretical perspectives. While pedagogy and leadership acted as
frames of the study, psychology and ethnography came more directly into play.
As the water jump is investigated to find out more about the individuals’ experience
from a psychological perspective, phenomenological methodology appeared central
early in the data collection (Creswell, 1998; Moustakas, 1994). The phenomenological
approach starts with what is experienced and develops meaning when the individual
judges and reflects on the experience. The conversations from the wharf gave insight
into the cadets’ thinking in the process of making his decision to jump or not, however,
they also pointed beyond the personal self.
The data collection revealed that the cadets also internalized group expectations and
cultural norms in the process of making their decision. Cultural membership and the
special culture associated with military exercises made us draw on ethnographic
concepts as behaviors and language in the process of exploring the case (Creswell, 1998).
However, as the interviews were taken in action, the cadets were not fully able to
provide a comprehensive enough description of their experience for us to develop the
essence of structures of the experience (Moustakas, 1994). Moreover, the ethnographic
perspective was not developed by extensive group studies or language analyses for
instance. Hence, neither the phenomenological approach nor the ethnographic
approach was further developed as independent approaches, but used as methods
within the main methodical framework of the case study.
Subjects Social influence
In all, 21 cadets from the Norwegian Air Force Academy participated in the study in military
during February 2004. They had two years of previous officer training and typically
2-4 years of work experience in the Air Force. They were all in their first of three years training
of academic training at the Air Force Academy.

Procedure 713
The data collection took place in cooperation with the Air Force Academy, in which
exercises are recognized as an important mandatory part of the cadets’ training to be
officers. As always during exercises, the exercise orders are given up front and the
leader of the exercise gives a briefing on the mission, plan, safety and related issues. In
this meeting, a staff member at the Air Force Academy gave a general motivation
speech convincing the cadets to participate fully in the exercise, referring to former
cadets who had chosen to act in a limited capacity during exercises, which they had
later regretted. The intention behind this was to get the cadets to raise their efforts and
open up to exercises as potential learning possibilities rather than influence the cadets
to act out to please the staff members or to avoid any disciplinary consequences.
The exercise started out as a regular two week long maneuver, the cadets operating
in their regular teams from a military field vehicle. After a few days, at a checkpoint,
the cadets were met by a staff member from the academy. More of the context of the
water jump is described in the following:
The cadets were commanded to undress, keeping on only their underpants and with a hood
covering their eyes. Furthermore, they were told to get into a car reserved for group members
only. They took a short drive around the area until the car stopped on the dock. One by one,
physically separated from the group, the cadets were commanded out of the car and led
through the snow to the edge of the wharf. Then each cadet was offered the choice of jumping
into the ocean or not. After they had decided to jump or not, they had to explain the reasons
behind their decision. Then they fulfilled their chosen alternative by jumping or not jumping.
Most of the cadets jumped (16 out of 21), a decision made without knowing who else had
jumped or would do so.

Data collection and analyses

First, interviews were conducted in the process on the wharf, in which the cadets were
to make a decision about whether to jump or not. These were brief interviews
capturing the process between the staff member offering the two choices and the cadet
whose choice was between jumping, or not jumping. Second, the cadets wrote in their
logbooks about their lived event of jumping or not jumping, from which they were to
construct a learning experience (Dewey, 1961). Their main focus was to explore the
reason for their willingness or hesitation to jump into the frigid water. Third, the cadets
were interviewed in-depth about the process on the wharf, the jumping/not jumping
and the process of meeting their co-cadets and reconnecting with the group.
In the process of analyzing the interviews it became clear that it was not sufficient
to have an understanding or intuition about how the water jump had been perceived by
the informants. We were left with a large number of transcripts from the interviews
and analyzed them from a systematic point of view (Moustakas, 1994). A thematic
analysis was chosen (Thagaard, 1998), revealing three main categories of how the
water jump had been perceived by the cadets.
LODJ Limitations
30,8 There are several limitations to this study. This research was conducted with a
relatively small group and the findings may not generalize readily to other populations.
Moreover, the context of the water jump could be difficult to apply to other military or
civilian situations. Possible generalization depends on whether or not one is willing to
transfer the situation beyond the physical environment utilized. Such a transformation
714 is the basis for the result section.

Results
The cadets’ perception of the process on the wharf revealed issues of personal identity
and social influence as interwoven parts of the cadets’ experiences. However, the
analyses of the experiences developed the following categories: personal level, group
level and organizational level.

Personal level
The Norwegian Armed Forces have had great confidence in individual-based
personality measurements in selecting new cadets and as a tool in the process of leader
development (Myers and Myers, 1995). Mead (1934) inspires us to take a different view
of thinking in which human consciousness is social. Mead’s concept of “I” and “Me” is
directed toward the dialog between the self and the surroundings, and emphasizes the
importance of significant others. Both the individual and the social perspective of the
self had significance during the water jump, even though the decision was made in
dialog with the staff member, cut off from the rest of the cadets. Here are two examples
from the personal level:
I will master it. I’m uncertain now, but I will certainly benefit from such a case in the future . . .
I think the learning is greater if I take a step forward and jump (Cadet number 4, p. 29).
I don’t think I can jump. I see nothing and I . . . No, I don’t want to jump . . . it’s too cold, I had
serious problems during the ice swimming yesterday . . . No . . . I struggled immensely getting
out of the water after swimming, I was hyperventilating, and it’s no warmer in the water now
and there’s seven meters to swim . . . the pressure is always there (Cadet number 2, interview,
p. 24).
From the first quote we see how the cadet reflects on the outcome of the decision
situation and states that “the learning is greater if I take a step forward and jump”. This
perspective about the possible learning effect of jumping relates to Higgins’ (2001)
concept of prevention versus growth. The decision to jump could genuinely give the
cadet a new experience to learn from regarding the stress related to height, coldness and
so on (Dewey, 1961). However, it is an open question whether this desire to learn has been
developed by the individual himself, the actual self, or if it is something he believes he
ought to be in relation to the social surroundings, the ought self (Higgins et al., 1997).
From the second quote we see how the cadet argues on the grounds of the physical
factors when he concludes that he will not jump into the icy water. He stated that he
had had “serious problems during the ice swimming” the previous day, and uses this to
judge the situation in relation to his own capacity. Why is this choice not simple? An
answer to this is suggested in the last part of the quote in the utterance “the pressure is
always there”. Our interpretation is that the cadet finds himself in a dilemma between
his physical prevention from jumping and a perceived social pressure to jump;
a pressure which can be understood by the “theory of planned behavior” (Ajzen, 1991). Social influence
In this theory attitude, subjective norms and behavior are seen in relation to each other. in military
First, one has an attitude toward a behavior, an individual belief about the
consequences of a particular behavior. Second, we have subjective norms, our beliefs training
about what others think we should do. Third, attitudes and subjective norms influence
behavior when we perceive the behavior to be within our control. In our case the second
factor, the subjective norms, seem to play a major role as the cadet assumes that the 715
others would like him to jump. As he does not find the ability to do it, he is left with
feeling “the pressure”.
The pressure addresses the emotions, which can be individual, as when the child
burns his hand on the fire. It hurts and does not need further explanation. Moreover,
emotions can be social such as when “the blush becomes the emotion of shame when a
person connects, in thought, an action he has performed with an unfavorable reaction to
himself of some other person” (Dewey, 1980, p. 42). In our case, the unfavorable reaction
to the cadet from some other person is not connected to an action he has performed, but
to the inaction of not jumping. Here we dwell on social-emotion interpretation of the
water jump, the tendency that the cadets jumped into the icy water to prevent themselves
from being shamed in front of the others. Such an influence is captured by Allport (1935)
and his concept of others’ imaginary presence. The pressure is created by the individual
himself in relation to his social surroundings; the self is social (Mead, 1934). We see that
the water jump took place in a context in which the cadets think, feel and act in a
situation, pointing toward the person and the situation in interaction (Mischel, 2004). It is
the cadets’ perception and appraisal of the situation, which influences the cadets and not
the situation itself, something which became clear at the group level.

Group level
For the first year of the officer training, the cadets are divided into groups of six to
eight, which remain stable units. Being part of such a group may expose the cadets to
interpersonal attraction to co-members (Cartwright and Zander, 1968; Turner, 1984),
and social identification with the group (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Hence, even though
the situation on the wharf is about each cadet making his own decision, the group may
be imaginarily present; a point which is reflected on by the cadets in the dialog on the
wharf and in their following writing process.
There is surely no point in asking, but have many others jumped (Cadet number 2, interview,
p. 2)? I didn’t want to be the only one not jumping . . . And because I didn’t want to feel outside
the group I jumped. I had confidence in the group that all the others would do it and therefore
I didn’t want to stand alone on the other side (Cadet number 6, logbook, p. 1).
Subsequently it is easy to say that rationally it was a very poor choice. As we know, the sea is
rather cold in late February and no reward was offered. Despite that, I didn’t need much time
for reflection before I said yes. I don’t believe I even thought about saying no. When I had
decided to jump, I felt a sort of resignation. I felt that this was something I just had to do . . . I
think that it was the group and my co-cadets’ respect for me that were most important (Cadet
number 8, logbook, p. 2).
The first quote shows how the cadet turns towards the others in the process of making
his decision. The question “have many others jumped” displayed an interest in the
others on the group. Even though this could be an interest in itself, it should probably
LODJ be turned around and seen as a question asked on the basis of the cadet’s thinking
30,8 about the offered choice of jumping or not in relation to the group. Further on in the
quote we see that the cadet turned towards the others in the group in the process of
choosing between jumping or not jumping into the cold water. He did not want to “be
the only one not jumping”, “feel outside the group” or “stand alone on the other side”.
The cadet thinks about the relationship between himself and his group, and makes the
716 decision on those grounds. Hence, the answer is not to be found in the action itself, but
in the relationship. The assumption that the others would jump led this cadet to jump
as well. The power of the relations seems to influence the cadets’ social identity and
make the individual group member take some kind of new identity in which he sees
himself as a group member more than an individual, and emphasizes the group as the
level from which to structure the thinking (Hogg and Turner, 1985).
In the second quote the cadet reflects on the choice of jumping into the cold sea but
he did not even think “about saying no”. The cadet is probably guided by his group, to
adjust his thinking, and behavior, in a way that is consistent with the group. He
conforms in relation to his group, a process taking place rather unconsciously. He
follows up by writing that he felt “this was something he just had to do”. Why? This
feeling that he had to do it is probably best understood at the group level. The cadet is
not merely an individual; he has taken on a social identity (Hogg and Turner, 1985), in
which the group and the co-cadet mediate thinking and action. The cadet prefers
physical pain over social pain; he follows what he perceives is socially appropriate to
do in the situation, mainly without thinking about it. To gain social acceptance and be
able to identify yourself as a member of the new group, you go through a process of
depersonalization, which means that unique individuals are transformed towards a
social prototype constructed by the group (Hogg, 2004), which in our case means to
transform behavior in the direction of the prototype of a soldier. Such a transformation
into a group member leads to a loss of personal identity (Zimbardo, 2007).

Organizational level
In this section, we begin with the role of the officer as assigned by society. In fact, it is
in this role that the soldier, given certain circumstances, is given permission to kill
without becoming a murderer. Moreover, the role is recognizable due to many norms
that are attached to being an officer (Huntington, 1957). These norms are reflected in
the language, in which some genres are privileged over others (Bakhtin, 1981). Finally,
the role, the norms, and the language lead to certain behavior or actions that are proper
when one is an officer. We will look into this, step by step:
I rely on the fact that there are many others who have jumped, and I prefer not to be one of
those who did not. And before the exercise, the leader of the exercise talked about all those
who had bitterly regretted that they didn’t do anything (Cadet number 1, interview, p. 2).
On exercises it seems like you put a haze over yourself, a mask, you get into a sort of exercise
mode. I think the group has its own culture, you say yes thank you, to everything. I think
there’s a little switch which turns on up in your head. I don’t think it’s very conscious; it just
happens (Cadet number 1, interview, p. 2).
In the first quote, we see how the role as an officer still has certain norms attached to it.
Considering that the water jump is an open situation, the cadet still “relies on the fact
that there are many others who have jumped, and I prefer not to be one of those who
did not.” This raises two points. First, as the norm can be seen as a guideline for Social influence
behavior, the cadet uses the norm as a navigation point to suggest to himself what to in military
do. By assuming-that many others have jumped, he tells himself what to do. Second, he
also tells himself what will happen if he does not jump; he will break with the norm, training
and be in the category of those who “didn’t do anything”; something he does not want
to do. The navigation is complete; he follows the norm.
Furthermore, in the first quote the cadet refers back to something the leader of the 717
exercise had said before the exercise; there were many cadets “who had bitterly
regretted that they didn’t do anything”. Even though the concept of regret is not
accompanied by any kind of disciplinary consequences, this kind of utterance reflects
some of the speech genres at the Air Force Academy. During exercises, two genres
appear to be dominant. The first is linked to the action itself, in which the expectations
are reflected in phrases such as “conducting leadership and individual mastering in
times of peace, crises and war” (Luftkrigsskolen (Air Force Academy), 2003, p. 1). The
second genre is linked to reflection, in which the cadets are given the “opportunity for
consciousness-raising based on their own behavior and how their own behavior affects
the others in the process of cooperation” (Luftkrigsskolen (Air Force Academy), 2003,
p. 2). The genres carry the culture’s centralizing forces against the individual’s creation
of decentralizing forces in relation to the culture (Bakhtin, 1986). With respect to the
genres during the exercises, about mastering and about raising consciousness, the
former seems to be privileged. Doing is perceived as more appropriate or necessary for
raising consciousness. Why are these genres so important?
The significance of the genres is to be found in the connection between language
and human thought. This is clearly illustrated by Vygotsky when he says; “thought is
not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them” (Vygotsky, 1986,
p. 218). Language is not only a tool used by humans, but also something which
mediates human thinking. Hence the language preferred by the academy, by the
genres, also delves into the mediation of thinking, and finally also into actions.
In the second quote we see how the cadet gets into what he calls “exercise mode”
during exercises. This exercise mode is reflected by the cadet and his group as they
develop their own culture, saying “yes thank you to everything”. The exercise mode
points back to the existence of a special culture in relation to exercises. This culture
shapes and mediates the cadets into a prototype of a soldier; it mediates the
depersonalization (Zimbardo, 2007). Such a culture is not something the cadet or the
group construct alone, it is shaped in relation to the leader of the exercise, exercises as a
phenomenon and the Academy as an institution. The culture may be suitable in
relation to mastering exercises, as action seems to be preferred to inactivity. However,
it may not be harmonized with the Academy’s focus in the matter of leadership in
which one goal is to address how the cadets think.

Discussion
What do the three levels tell us? As the categories have been presented, we have
experienced that they were difficult to separate; they co-exist (Brewer and Gardner,
1996). The individual was present in the group and in the organization, or inversely,
organization and groups were the foundation for internalization of knowledge by the
individuals. However, most often the development of the cadets’ thinking on the wharf
was following a certain line.
LODJ Initially the cadets have understood the water jump in relation to their performance,
30,8 their ability to break boundaries and potential learning. During the process the self
turns out to be an ongoing process between the individual as it is seen by himself and
the individual as it is seen by others (Mead, 1934), it appears that the force of implicit
others heavily influenced the cadets on the wharf (Allport, 1935). Finally, the water
jump is seen more like a social action in which most of the cadets volunteer to jump
718 because they want to gain acceptance both from their group of co-cadets and the Air
Force Academy. They prefer physical inconvenience over social inconvenience.
At first sight, one could think that the water jump is about jumping, which it is not.
The eventual jumping is no more than an instrumental consequence. This case is about
the process of interpreting the situation and deciding whether to jump or not, a process
reaching beyond the individual to social (Hogg and Turner, 1985) and situational
influence (Mischel, 2004). The process addresses self-awareness and self-regulation as
part of authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2005). Finding that groups and
organization made the cadets internalize an exercise mode in which saying “yes thank
you” to everything addresses the cadets’ thinking.
Kegan’s (1994) different levels of thinking have previously been used to investigate
the process of development of West Point cadets, during their officer education
(Bartone et al., 2007). The utterance “I think there’s a little switch which turns on up in
your head. I don’t think it’s very conscious; it just happens” points to the possibility
that the cadet is being held by the culture, and thus he is embedded in its assumed
values. The depersonalizing takes place as the cadets are “subject to” (Kegan, 1994) the
values held by the group and the organization, and thus cannot help but act in
accordance with their perception of such values. These findings make us reflect on the
doing aspect’s dominant position during military exercises, and the reality of necessary
changes.
Traditionally, the educational practice has taken place within an organization in
which behavioristic learning (Skinner, 1953) has been practiced by experienced officers
transmitting knowledge to new cadets about what to do and how to do it. Marching,
shooting, climbing, jumping, parachuting are examples of how “doing” has been
dominant during exercises and operations within a culture in which “doing” is the
brave thing to do. The “doing” mode could be seen as a remnant from traditional
operations, but is it still an “autopilot” into new rapidly changing operations?

Conclusion
The object of this study was to explore the tension between the individual self and
social influence as it came into play in ambiguous situations. The water jump
illustrated how the group and organization mediate the cadets’ thinking emotions, and
actions; how the cadets depersonalize into an exercise mode in which they say “yes
thank you” to everything. But what is the problem? The problem is if this is not seen to
be a problem (Sidorkin, 2002). By recognizing the point of losing oneself as a problem,
one may also see this as a point of discovery and learning.
Addressing social influence during exercises is done by intention. Through the
process of reflection (Dewey, 1961), the cadets address their own identity, the
relationship between their personal and social identity. Dwelling on the antagonistic
nature of identities can enhance self-awareness, with the potential of making a bridge
into self-regulation (Gardner et al., 2005). Knowing that authentic leadership is not an
either/or condition, but a matter of more or less authenticity, we focus on a process in Social influence
which leaders experience growth by becoming more authentic. However, authentic in military
leadership should not be interpreted as autonomous, cut off from context; the
authenticity is a process taking place in the context in which the leaders operate training
(Avolio and Gardner, 2005).
The costs of non-adaptive responses to stress can be devastating in new
postmodern scenarios. Jumping into icy water may be right or wrong, and it may be 719
right or wrong to pull the trigger, but when the process occurs unconsciously, it blurs
the difference. Reflection over personal thinking, emotions and behavior in contrast to
social influence in context may have revealed problems or weaknesses. The pleasant
view of Norwegian military personnel as independent thinkers may be supplemented
by an impression that they are subject to social influence. Addressing such problems,
turning them into learning experiences, is done to develop self-awareness and
self-regulation as elements in authentic leadership training. The purpose of addressing
humans’ natural ability to internalize social influence is to enhance officers’
qualifications to conduct authentic decentralized leadership in military operations.
However, the alternative is to believe that officers are immune to such influences and
always execute leadership within the best military code of conduct irrespective of
context.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.
Allport, G.W. (1935), “The historical background of social psychology”, in Lindzey, G. and
Aronson, E. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, Addison-Wesley, Reading:
MA, pp. 1-46.
Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 315-38.
Bakhtin, M. (1981), The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays, University of Texas Press, Austin,
TX.
Bakhtin, M. (1986), Speech Genres and other Late Essays, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Bartone, P.T., Snook, S.A., Forsythe, G.B., Lewis, P. and Bullis, R.C. (2007), “Psychosocial
development and leader performance of military officer cadets”, Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 18, pp. 490-504.
Battistelli, F. (1997), “Peacekeeping and the postmodern soldier”, Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 467-84.
Brewer, M.B. and Gardner, W. (1996), “Who is this ‘we’? Levels of collective identity and self
representations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 83-93.
Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (1968), Group Dynamics. Research and Theory, 3rd ed., Harper &
Row, New York, NY.
Creswell, J.W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing among Five Traditions,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dewey, J. (1961), Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education,
The Macmillan Company, New York, NY.
Dewey, J. (1980), Art as Experience, Berkley Publishing Group, New York, NY.
LODJ Endsley, M.R. and Garland, D.J. (2000), Situation Awareness. Analysis and Measurement,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
30,8
Firing, K. (2004), Prøver å forstå litt mer i stedet for å være så sinna. En kasusstudie om skriving
som refleksjonsform ved Luftkrigsskolen. (Trying to Understand a Little More instead of
Being so Angry. A Case Study of Writing as a Form of Reflection at the Air Force
Academy), Tapir akademiske forlag, Trondheim.
720 Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2005), “Can you see the
real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 334-72.
Grossman, D. (1995), On Killing. The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,
Little, Brown and Co., Boston, MA.
Higgins, E.T. (2001), “Promotion and prevention experiences: relating emotions to nonemotional
motivational states”, in Forgas, J.P. (Ed.), Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition,
Lawrence Earlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 186-212.
Higgins, E.T., Shah, J. and Friedman, R. (1997), “Emotional responses to goal attainment:
strength of regulatory focus as moderator”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 72, pp. 515-25.
Hogg, M.A. (2004), “Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior”, in Brewer,
M.B. and Hewstone, M. (Eds), Self and Social Identity, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Hogg, M.A. and Turner, J.C. (1985), “Interpersonal attraction, social identification and
psychological formation”, European Journal and Social Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 51-66.
Huntington, S.P. (1957), The Soldier and the State. The Theory and Politics of Civil-military
Relations, Belknap, Cambridge, MA.
Kegan, R. (1994), In over Our Heads. The Mental Demands of Modern Life, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Luftkrigsskolen (Air Force Academy) (2002), Studiehånbok for Luftkrigsskolen 2002-2003
(Studies Information Guide of the Air Force Academy 2002-2003), Luftkrigsskolen,
Trondheim.
Luftkrigsskolen (Air Force Academy) (2003), Ordre for øvelse ledelse og krisehåndtering (Order
for Exercise Leadership and Crisis Management), Luftkrigsskolen, Trondheim.
Luftkrigsskolen (Air Force Academy) (2005), Studiehåndbok for Luftkrigsskolen kull 56. (Studies
Information Guide of the Air Force Academy Class 56), Luftkrigsskolen, Trondheim.
Mead, G.H. (1934), Mind, Self, and Society. From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Milgram, S. (1974), Obedience to Authority. An Experimental View, Harper & Row, New York,
NY.
Mischel, W. (2004), “Toward an integrative science of the person (review)”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 1-22.
Moustakas, C. (1994), Phenomenological Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Myers, I.B. and Myers, P.B. (1995), Differing. Understanding Personality Type, Davies-Black
Publishing, Palo Alto, CA.
Piaget, J. (1977), The Development of Thought. Equilibration of Cognitive Structures, Viking
Press, New York, NY.
Saus, E., Johnsen, B.H., Eid, J., Riisem, P.K., Andersen, R. and Thayer, J.F. (2006), “The effect of
brief situational awareness training in a police shooting simulator. An experimental
study”, Military Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 3-21.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E. and Popper, M. (2000), “Leadership and social identification in Social influence
military units: direct and indirect relationships”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 612-40. in military
Sidorkin, A.M. (2002), Learning Relations. Impure Education, Deschooled Schools, and Dialogue training
with Evil, P. Lang, New York, NY.
Siebold, G.L. (2007), “The essence of military group cohesion”, Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 286-95. 721
Skinner, B.F. (1953), Science and Human Behavior, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Snook, S.A. (2000), Friendly Fire. The Accidental Shootdown of US Black Hawks over Northern
Iraq, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, in Austin, W.G.
and Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Cole,
Monterey, CA.
Thagaard, T. (1998), Systematikk og innlevelse (Systematism and Insight), Fagbokforlaget,
Bergen.
Turner, J.C. (1984), “Social identification and psychological group formation”, in Tajfel, H. (Ed.),
The Social Dimension. European Developments in Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Cambridge
University Press, London.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978), Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986), Thought and Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Zimbardo, P. (1972), “Pathology of imprisonment”, Society, Vol. 9, pp. 4-8.
Zimbardo, P. (2007), The Lucifer Effect. Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, Random
House, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Kristian Firing can be contacted at: Kristian.Firing@lksk.mil.no

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints