Preparing to lead in combat: Development of leadership self-efficacy by static-line parachuting

ABSTRACT

The current study examined whether a static-line parachute program could help prepare future military officers to lead in extreme situations by increasing leadership self-efficacy. Parachute training is commonly used for preparing to lead in combat since it presents a perceived threat to life which requires active mastery. Achieving such mastery facilitates the development of leader self-control efficacy and leader assertiveness efficacy. This assumption was tested in a real training situation within the Swedish Military Academy where two groups of cadets were included in the study. The group of cadets undertaking parachute training conducted repeated measures of assessment of their self-efficacy before and after the course as well as at a five-month follow-up. The results show that parachute training increased leader self-control efficacy when compared to a group of cadets who undertook different training. In addition, the training given contributed to increased leader assertiveness efficacy for both groups.

KEYWORDS:

• Parachute
• self-efficacy
• leadership training

What is the public significance of this article?---This study indicates that learning how to parachute can prepare future military leaders to better lead in combat. Specifically, the individual belief that they will be able to remain composure and make rational decisions even under severe, life-threatening stress. Parachuting is different from leading in combat but completing one difficult task can transfer the belief that tasks with similar or greater difficulty can be overcome the same way.

One of the main challenges in training military officers has always been to prepare them for leading in combat. The extreme stress of leading in combat and its inherent hardships has been well documented from the Napoleonic Wars (du Picq, 1946) to modern conflicts (King, 2013) and is considered a defining part of the military profession.

Military leadership is most significantly distinguished from other forms of leadership in the situational context that the extreme situation presents (Hannah, 2007). A failure to master the situational demands can lead to injury or even death for leaders or their subordinates (Kolditz, 2007). Because extreme situations and their inherent stress and dangers are normative for the military, being a natural part of the profession, training future officers to lead under such circumstances is vital (Fisher, Hutchins, & Sarros, 2010; Hystad, Eid, Laberg, & Bartone, 2011; Klann, 2003).

The capacity to cope with stress has been underlined as a core leader characteristic of military leadership, for example in the Developmental Leadership-model (Larsson, 2006a; Larsson et al., 2003). The importance for military leaders to have high tolerance against stress has also been emphasized as vital in maintaining cohesion and fighting spirit within military primary groups (Hamblin, 1958; Marshall, 1947; Shils & Janowitz, 1948).

During peacetime, it is almost impossible to expose individuals to the psychological stress and inherent dangers of actual wartime combat. Therefore, many military organizations have developed training courses that expose leaders to extreme conditions within a controlled environment. The aim of this training is to expose individuals to a level of stress that leads to the development of coping skills necessary to handle future situations (Meichenbaum, 1985, 2007). The activation of coping skills in potentially threatening situations is necessary for controlling efforts directed toward goal attainment in these situations (Hockey, 1997). Besides, coping skills in stress situation can reduce the risk of subsequent traumatological effects like post-traumatic stress disorder (Hourani et al., 2012). Military parachuting is one common type of such training (Boe & Hagen, 2015; Samuels, Foster, & Lindsay, 2010; Shalit, Carlstedt, Ståhlberg-Carlstedt, & Täljedal-Shalit, 1986).

Parachute training

Military parachute training presents a situation as extreme as possible within ethical limits (Ursin, Baade, & Levine, 1978). Jumping from an aircraft represents an intensely frightening situation where the subjects experience stress, anxiety, and fear (Epstein & Fenz, 1962, 1965; Fenz & Epstein, 1968). The situation presents a perceived threat to life that the individual will have to successfully master by executing the right procedures in the air (Basowitz, Persky, Korchin, & Grinker, 1955; McMillan & Rachman, 1988). By mastering a stressful situation, individuals establish an expectation of being able to handle future similar situations with a positive result (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004, 2010), and this mastering has been argued to lead to better actual performance in that situation (Fenz, 1975). In addition, parachute training can make individuals better suited for coping with stress in other challenging situations (Basowitz et al., 1955; Shalit et al., 1986). Consequently, the idea behind implementing parachute training courses in military education is to develop coping skills in difficult situations, and as a result make the cadets better military leaders (Kolditz, 2007). The purpose of this study is therefore to investigate if military parachute training is associated with increased potentials of leadership skills.

Military static-line parachute courses have been used for leadership development in military organizations for more than 60 years, however research is lacking on the relationship between parachuting and leadership competence (Bergman, 2016). Samuels et al. (2010) studied the effects of freefall parachuting, similar to civilian skydiving, but no studies have examined the relationship between leadership and the static-line parachuting which is more common in military training. Consequently, little is known about whether such training programs work as intended and what the mechanisms behind the possible effects might be.

Jumping from an aircraft and leading in combat represent two different contexts. Although the levels of stress and anxiety may be similar, successfully mastering one context does not automatically mean successful mastery of the other. Thus, a central aspect when discussing the relation between parachuting and leadership is how individuals assess their abilities to perform actions required in specific situations, i.e. the individuals’ self-efficacy (Bandura, 1978, 1986, 1997; Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977).

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is defined as the individuals’ “judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances. It is concerned not with the skills one has but with judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses.” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Self-efficacy has also been described as a mediator of coping skills, involving not only the individual’s ability to handle a stressful situation but also their belief in that ability as well (Ebner, Schulte, Soucek, & Kauffeld, 2017). Generally, increased self-efficacy within a specific domain leads to increased performance in that domain (Bandura, 1997; Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008). For example, having high self-efficacy in one’s ability to speak in front of large audiences will generally lead to better performance in such situations. Although correlational designs limit casual attributions regarding self-efficacy research (e.g. Hannah et al., 2008; Samuels & Gibb, 2002), few cognitive concepts have received as ample support toward performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Bandura (1997) argued that self-efficacy provides enhanced cognitive, emotional, and behavioral regulation and that increased beliefs are nearly always accompanied by an appropriate amount of ability. As such, self-efficacy could be a mechanism that makes it possible for future military leaders to prepare themselves for situations that cannot be safely simulated in peacetime.

Self-efficacy has been argued to be a context-specific construct (Bandura, 1997). For example, strong self-efficacy beliefs when it comes to speaking in front of large audiences do not automatically mean strong self-efficacy beliefs when it comes to the ability to drive a car in rush-hour traffic. However, in some situations increased self-efficacy beliefs in one domain can generalize to affect other domains (Bandura, 1986). This is referred to as domain transfer. Bandura (1997) argued that such self-efficacy generalization over domains can occur by several mechanisms, of which three might be important in explaining the relationship between parachute training and leadership competence in combat (Samuels et al., 2010): The first mechanism refers to when mastery of domains requires similar sub-skills. For example, the physiological fitness and athletic stamina required for running a marathon can transfer easily to endurance cycling. A second mechanism is when higher-order self-regulatory and general coping skills are involved, and there are clear links between domains. For example, the perceived threat to life and active mastery required for jumping out of an airplane involve similar coping mechanisms to leading in combat. The third mechanism is when mastery leads to a transformational restructuring of efficacy beliefs. According to Bandura (1997) strong personal triumphs can lead to self-efficacy transfer across highly disparate domains. Samuels et al. (2010) argued the third mechanism to be the most powerful in explaining the relationship between parachute training and leadership. The personal accomplishment of completing a parachute jump can lead to increased self-efficacy in other domains where performance was believed equally unlikely (Samuels et al., 2010). Simplified: successfully mastering one difficult task (e.g. parachute jumping) can increase the individual’s belief that other tasks with equal or greater difficulty can be overcome in the same way (e.g. leading in combat).

Samuels et al. (2010) investigated the development of leadership self-efficacy by examining individuals who undertook a parachute freefall-course where the parachutist jumps from a high altitude (e.g. <13,000 ft) and manually deploys a steerable parachute enabling precision landings. Participants in the freefall parachute course were measured for leader self-control efficacy and leader assertiveness efficacy before and after the course. In addition, a follow-up measurement was conducted 9 months later with three groups: cadets who had undertaken the freefall program, a soaring program (flying glider airplanes) and those who had undertaken none of the programs. The result from this study showed an increase in leader self-control efficacy (to maintain cognitive and emotional control) and leader self-assertiveness efficacy (the ability to make immediate and technically correct decisions when leading others) after completing the freefall program. There was also a significant difference in leader self-control efficacy and leader assertiveness efficacy between the freefall group and the other groups.

The freefall parachute method studied by Samuels et al. (2010) differs from the more common static-line parachute method in military units, where a round and non-steerable parachute is automatically deployed at the jump by a static-line attached to an airplane flying at a low altitude of 1,000 ft. (Wright & Greenwood, 2007). The static-line method distinguishes itself in several ways, two being of particular importance. First, the lower altitude paradoxically evokes an increased fear of heights since the perception of the ground is more palpable (Brandt, Arnold, Bles, & Kapteyn, 1980), thus increasing the demand on the individual to cope with the associated fear in jumping from the aircraft. Secondly, the highly automated static-line method requires fewer actions to master than the more active points of performance (stable body position, altitude check, manually deploying parachute, etc.) required to master freefall parachuting.

From parachuting to leadership self-efficacy

Given that higher self-efficacy generally leads to higher performance in a specific domain, it plays a central role in several aspects relevant to leadership (Bandura, 1997; Bandura et al., 1977). Leadership self-efficacy is the individual’s efficacy associated with the level of confidence in the knowledge, skills, and abilities associated with leading others (Hannah et al., 2008). It is not a specific style or model like the developmental leadership model (Larsson et al., 2003), but rather the persons’ belief in their individual capability to carry out that leadership. Leadership self-efficacy has been argued to affect how individuals carry out their leadership and shape their selection of strategy for a specific leadership situation (McCormick, 2001). The selected strategies then form how behaviors affect the environment (Wood & Bandura, 1989) and how they lead and persist despite resistance (Savard & Rogers, 1992). Leadership self-efficacy has also shown to be related to increased leadership performance (Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000).

Although several factors can affect a leader’s performance in extreme contexts, the two sub-components of leader self-control and leader assertiveness are of primary importance for performance under such conditions. Bandura and Locke (2003) describe these two aspects – how individuals motivate themselves when facing difficulties, and the choices they make when motivating others – as central to leadership self-efficacy. Similarly, Kolditz (2007) asserts that key aspects for successful mastery in an extreme context are the cognitive and emotional abilities to retain composure and the ability to make decisions. These sub-dimensions also correspond with other conceptualizations of leader efficacy (Hannah et al., 2008). Since parachuting is an activity native to the military that requires the individual to handle feelings of stress and anxiety (i.e. to exercise self-control) and where mastery requires immediate and correct decisions (i.e. to show assertiveness) this could be an activity that facilitates the transfer to those domains of leadership self-efficacy.

The present study

Despite the common use of parachute training as a means of making cadets better military leaders, as well as the life-and-death rationale that emphasizes the applications of such training, little research exists on this subject. Because static-line parachuting is the most common parachute method in military organizations it is important to investigate whether self-efficacy transfer occurs using this method, specifically leadership self-efficacy sub-dimensions of leader self-control efficacy and leader assertiveness efficacy. Based on the reasoning above, we formed the following hypotheses:

H1: Performing a static-line parachuting training course is associated with subsequent higher leader self-control efficacy

H2: Performing a static-line parachuting training course is associated with subsequent higher leader assertiveness efficacy

Method

Participants and procedure

The participants were 231 cadets from the Swedish Military Academy (Women = 11.3%, men = 88.7%, M_age = 24.9 years at the time each respondent started the course, SD_age = 3.1). Participants were recruited and involved in the study over a period of 3 years (N₁ = 69, N₂ = 86 & N₃ = 76). The training curriculum was identical and was conducted at the same time of year and at the same time in the training cycle of all participants. Participants chose branch of service when applying for the Military Academy.

The participants were categorized into a jumping and a non-jumping group based on branch of service and training. The jumping group included cadets from the Army (N = 152, women = 9.2%, men = 90.8%, M_age = 25.3 y, SD_age = 3.3) whereas the non-jumping group included members of the Navy and the Air Force (N = 79, women = 15.2%, men = 84.8% M_age = 24.2 y, SD_age = 2.5).

The jumping group undertook a 2-week-long static-line parachute course to learn static-line parachuting. To complete the course, participants were required to successfully perform jumps from a military transport aircraft.

The non-jumping group were assigned to a training ship to learn basic seamanship (Navy cadets) and to an Air Force base to learn basic airmanship (Air Force cadets). This training did not contain any evolutions including acute threat to life-stress as described present in parachuting (Basowitz et al., 1955).

The participants in the jumping group were subject to three mandatory separate safety tests to continue training and complete the course. These were 1) a written exam, 2) a jump from a 12 m jump-tower attached to a zipline simulating a stable exit from an aircraft and 3) a landing-swing simulating a landing and a parachute landing-fall. Those who failed were given supplementary instructions and a retry. Participants who failed their retry on a safety test were removed from the course (N = 18). The non-jumping group had no exclusionary tests.

The study involved three repeated measures of assessment before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) each respective training course as well as at a five-month follow-up (Time 3).¹ The response rates were 100%, 99% and 96% for each time of measurement. Thus, the analyzes included 221 participants (146 in the jumping group and 75 in the non-jumping group) that completed all three questionnaires.

The first two assessments (time 1 and 2) were conducted at the same time at each respective geographical training site (parachute training school, ship, air force base), whereas the follow-up (time 3) was completed when all participants were on a general course. The longitudinal match in assessments was accomplished by participants’ three-digit cadet-number assigned to them by the Military Academy.

Measures

Leadership Self-Efficacy with its two subscales was measured using a short version based on the Leadership Self-Efficacy Scale (LSES) (Samuels et al., 2010). First, the original LSES scale was translated into Swedish. In the translation, a few items were reformulated in order to fit the Swedish context. Second, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. The results of the EFA (Principal axis factoring, oblimin rotation, with Eigenvalue set to 1) indicated that all items did not pass the .4 inclusion criteria. The items that best matched the two original subscales, respectively, were selected for the shortened version of this study (see Table 1.)

Table 1. The Leadership Self-Efficacy Scale (LSES) with its 2 subscales.

Leader self-control efficacy

I can easily shift attention away from thoughts that scare me.

I can easily distract myself from thoughts that might interfere with my task at hand

I am always able to perform despite any fear brought on by thoughts that are frightening

Leader assertiveness efficacy

I can set a personal example for colleagues and subordinates

I can easily confront my peers when they go against regulation and correct or report them if need be

I can easily lead others, maintain the same high standards, and not be seen as hypocritical.

Leader self-control efficacy was measured using three items (see Table 1). All items were assessed on a 7-point response scale (1 = do not agree, 7 = do fully agree). Using the participants in the present study who completed both Times 1, 2 and 3 we obtained the following Cronbach’s alphas: time 1 = .70, time 2 = .75 and time 3 = .71. These Cronbach’s alphas could be compared to Samuels et al. (2010) results for leader self-control: time 1 = .72 and time 2 = .81.

Leader assertiveness efficacy was measured using three items (see Table 1). The first item (“I can set a personal example for colleagues and subordinates”) was reformulated in order to fit a Swedish context but still capture the core essence of the original item. The original item was very specific for the USAFA context (“I can exemplify all 4 pillars of the Academy in ways that encourage other cadets to follow my lead.”). Using the participants in the present study who completed both Times 1, 2 and 3 we obtained the following Cronbach’s alphas: time 1 = .62, time 2 = .74 and time 3 = .64. These Cronbach’s alphas could be compared to Samuels et al. (2010) results for leader assertiveness: time 1 = .73 and time 2 = .77.

Results

The statistical approach in the present study can be divided into two parts. First comparisons are made to address pre-existing group differences. Secondly, the results of the 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA to test the two hypotheses are presented, followed by separate more detailed reports of the findings.

Because random assignment of participants to groups was not possible, we compared the jumping and the non-jumping group at time 1 on the following variables: gender composition (chi-square), age (t-test) as well as self-efficacy (t-test) at time 1. There were no differences between the groups in gender composition, χ2 (1, N = 231) = 1.86, p = ns, or age t (144) = 1.93, p = ns. There were neither any group differences at time 1 between the jumping and the non-jumping groups mean values for leader self-control efficacy t (229) = − 1.84, p = ns, or for leader assertiveness efficacy t (229) = − 1.24, p = ns.

Additionally, because the parachuting courses started in three different years, a comparison was made of the mean values at time 1 for these three different groups by computing 2 one-way ANOVAs. The results indicated no significant difference between year collected for leader self-control efficacy (M_{year 1} = 4.95, M_{year 2} = 4.94, M_year 3 = 5.22), F (2, 244) = 3.12, p = ns or leader assertiveness efficacy (M_{year 1} = 5.33, M_{year 2} = 5.32, M_{year 3} = 5.51), F (2, 244) = 0.63, p = ns.

Finally, because dropouts in the jumping group could possibly influence the results, we compared completers versus non-completers ratings of self-efficacy at time 1. The results showed no significant differences for leader self-control efficacy (M_completers = 5.06, M_{non-completers} = 5.13), t (168) = − .31, p = ns or leader assertiveness efficacy (M_completers = 5.40, M_{non-completers} = 5.31), t (168) = .66, p = ns.

To test the Hypothesis 1 regarding leader self-control efficacy, a 2 (group) x 3 (time) repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were computed with group as the between-groups factor, time as the within-groups factor and leader self-control efficacy as the dependent variable.² The ANOVA showed a main effect for time, F (2, 216) = 15.89, p < .001, ŋ²_p = .13 indicating that leader self-control increased over time. There was no main effect for group, F (1, 217) = 0.24, p = ns, ŋ²_p = .03. More importantly, in line with Hypothesis 1, there was a Group x Time Interaction, F (2, 216) = 4.25, p < .05, ŋ²_p = .04. Figure 1 display all means and their 95% confidence intervals for the three time sampling points of each group. For the jumping group, the confidence intervals of time 1, 95% CI [4.93, 5.22] did not overlap with time 2, 95% CI [5.31, 5.57] or time 3, 95% CI [5.42, 5.66]. For the non-jumping group, the confidence intervals did overlap between all time sampling points, time 1, 95% CI [5.09, 5.48], time 2, 95% CI [5.13, 5.56], time 3, 95% CI [5.29, 5.64]. These results show that there was a significant increase in leader self-control efficacy between start and completion (time 1 and 2) for the jumping group when compared to the non-jumping group, and that the results were sustained at the follow-up measurement (time 3). The effect size was moderate for the main effect of time (.13), whereas the interaction was small (.04) (Lakens, 2013).

Figure 1. Means and 95% confidence intervals for self-control and assertiveness for jumping and non-jumping groups.

To test Hypothesis 2 regarding leader assertiveness efficacy, a 2 (group) x 3 (time) repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were computed with group as the between-groups factor, time as the within-groups factor and leader assertiveness efficacy as the dependent variable.² The ANOVA showed a main effect for time, F (2, 216) = 5.89, p < .05, ŋ²_p = .05, indicating that leader assertiveness increased over time. There was no main effect for group, F (1, 217) = 0.46, p = ns, ŋ²_p = .02, and, in contrast to Hypothesis 2, there was no Group x Time Interaction, F (2, 216) = .96, p = ns, ŋ²_p = .01. Figure 1 display all means and their 95% confidence intervals for the three time sampling points of each group.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether participation and completion of a military parachute training program was associated with higher levels of leadership self-efficacy. Two hypotheses were tested, the first if a static-line parachute program could enhance leader self-control efficacy, and the second if the same program could enhance leader assertiveness efficacy. Specifically, we examined whether successful completion of the program could facilitate self-efficacy transfer (Bandura, 1997) to leader self-control efficacy and leader assertiveness efficacy when compared to a group who undertook different training. It has been argued that jumping from an airplane represents a situation where the individual is required to retain composure despite inherent feelings of stress and anxiety (i.e. to exercise self-control) and that successful performance requires the individual to execute active points of performance in order to master (i.e. to show assertiveness). This could be an activity that facilitates transfer to those domains of leader self-control efficacy and leader assertiveness efficacy in the same way as found in the previous research investigating freefall parachuting (Samuels et al., 2010). The results partially supported the hypotheses.

Regarding the first hypothesis (concerning leader self-control efficacy), there was an interaction effect between time and group, implying that jumping from an aircraft and time combined to have a significant effect on the development of leader self-control efficacy. The non-overlapping confidence intervals indicate that the increase in self-control efficacy for the jumping group exists between time 1 and 2, in other words before and after the course. These results are consistent with previous research (Samuels et al., 2010), indicating that static-line parachuting can transfer to leader self-control efficacy in the same way as freefall parachuting. A possible reason for this effect is that the perceived threat to life associated with jumping from an aircraft (Basowitz et al., 1955; Fenz, 1975) is equally present in both styles in jumping despite differences in height (Brandt et al., 1980).

Granted, it is possible that the low initial value for the jumping group affected the results. It is hard to determine whether this was the result of within-group variance or the influence of contextual factors. However, when tested it was not significantly lower than the same value for the non-jumping group at the same time of measurement.

Regarding the second hypothesis (concerning leader assertiveness efficacy), there was a significant main effect of time but not of group, nor was there any interaction effect of time and group. Thus, assertiveness increased over the time of all three measurements and similarly for both groups. This was non-consistent with our second hypothesis as well as previous research (Samuels et al., 2010). One explanation for this could be that static-line parachuting requires the individual to execute fewer active points of performance than the more mastery-oriented freefall parachuting. Previous research has shown freefall parachuting to contribute to the development of leadership assertiveness efficacy to a greater extent than less mastery-oriented activities (Samuels et al., 2010). The lower number of actions required of the individual for successful mastery could possibly influence the level of assertiveness.

This is the second study known to examine the relationship between parachuting and self-efficacy, where the first was conducted in the US Air Force (Samuels et al., 2010) investigating possible effects of free-fall parachuting and the second studying possible effects of static-line parachuting in the Swedish Armed Forces. One possible explanation for the variations in results for self-assertiveness could be cultural differences. For example, the practice that the officer is always the first person to jump out of the aircraft door has been a common analogy for “leading by example”, and the reasons presented for the “follow me” practice (Gavin, 1947; Nordyke, 2005) are highly similar to the inspirational/motivation component presented as vital to transformational leadership by Bass (1985). However, those aspects have been disgusted as less valid by researchers such as Larsson et al. (2003) due, in part, to cultural differences. Although the effects of parachuting on self-efficacy have been indicated to be present in different cultures, future studies should examine cultural variations of those effects and their applications on leadership.

Limitations and future directions

There are a few limitations to the present study that should be mentioned. First, the subjects in the present study had limited leadership experience and were at least 2 years from a command position. Although the cadets may have the belief that they can perform in leadership situations to come, the present study has not tested whether they actually do so. However, the aim of the training as well of the present study was not to measure leadership but rather the individuals’ belief in being able to carry out that leadership, with the notion that efficacious beliefs and performance are mutually interdependent (Pajares, 1997). From previous research, there is evidence that increased self-efficacy increases performance (Bandura, 1986; Hannah et al., 2008), supporting the argument that cadets who increase leadership self-efficacy during training will have better leadership performance in future leadership positions.

Secondly, all participants from both groups were future military officers attending a three-year officer training program that placed high emphasis on leadership development. In the present study, this general effect could be exemplified by the fact that both groups increased similarly in leader assertiveness efficacy in all three points of assessment. Although not consistent with our hypothesis, we can clearly see that the jumping group indeed increased leader assertiveness efficacy, just not more than the non-jumping group. Context has been shown to influence leadership in military settings (Wong, Bliese, & McGurk, 2003) but despite being presented as a context-specific construct (Bandura, 1997), little research exists on how contextual factors influence the development of leadership self-efficacy (Eden, 2001). It is possible that parachute training, although indicated to have a positive effect, should not be overestimated with regard to the other training given to future military officers. Future studies should therefore involve additional training courses as well as the influence of contextual factors on the individual development of leader self-efficacy.

Thirdly, the measure of LSES in the present study was based on the original scale. The items of the original LSES scale (Samuels et al., 2010) could not be fully transferred to the context of the Swedish armed forces. Similar problems and adjustments have been foretaken in other studies of military leadership, for example studies transferring transformational leadership from an American context to a Swedish (Larsson, 2006b). The slightly lower internal consistency of the LSES scale in the present study (as compared to Samuels et al., 2010) may have occurred due to such contextual differences. Although we have used a subsample of items that compose a satisfactory fit, it should be noted that the results are interpreted with some caution.

For leadership training in general and within military organizations, there are numerous activities that aim to develop leaders. Some of which are implemented on institutional beliefs rather than on scientific research validating their effects. For example boxing (Samuels & Gibb, 2002), combative training (Morales-Negron, 2009), survival training (Schmied et al., 2015) and scuba-diving (Reil, 2006), all share similarities with the parachute training in that they are believed to increase leadership abilities. Future research could therefore investigate both effects and potential mechanisms like self-efficacy domain transfer in such training-courses.

Conclusion

This study examined whether a static-line parachute program increased leadership self-efficacy. Those who successfully completed the program reported increased leader self-control efficacy and leader assertiveness efficacy. However, the participants who did not undertake the parachute program also reported an increase in leader assertiveness efficacy. Thus, more knowledge is needed to investigate the specific effects of parachuting on leadership.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The procedure and questionnaire used were approved by Ethical Vetting, Regional board in Stockholm. Reference number 2014/582-32/5 and 2015/1032-32.

2. Because the gender compositions varied between groups and the small representation of women, we also recalculated the analyses for men only. These analyses indicated no differences from the results reported here.