**1. Introduction**

An air force is termed as a high-risk organization within the taxonomy of Charles Perrow [1]. It has been argued that military operations and especially sharp operations can be described as dynamic, turbulent and competitive [2]. Norway, like many other nations, has applied "mission command" that aims to reduce the gap between plans and the actual chaos of war. Today's o fficers must be capable of autonomous decision-making in both rapidly changing and ambiguous situations. O fficers will even, early in their career, need a capacity for divergent thinking and problem-solving skills. Military o fficers can be put in command and control situations depending on their skills and experience, but also ones demanding improvisation [3]. Clausewitz (1832/1976, p. 119) [4] termed "friction" as a discrepancy between the plan and what was occurring on the battlefield [5,6]. Considering this, the United Nations Air Power Operation (UNAPO) is a fictional operation run as a paper exercise. The end of the exercise does not seek a "fixed" solution or "the school's solution" as it is pointed out in the start of the exercise. The cadets are presented with a mission and the intention of the commander. The commander is typically an operative o fficer. Then the cadets representing the di fferent nations pull back to develop a plan and present it in a plenary. The following tasks are performed in the exercise:


The Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy (RNoAFA) is a branch of the Norwegian Defence College responsible for educating o fficers for the di fferent branches of the Royal Norwegian Air Force. One of the key aspects is mission command and to be educated in, understand, and know how to use air power with its strengths and limitations. The cadets come from di fferent branches of the Air Force and understanding the di fferent concepts of the Air Force is important. It is also important to understand the interplay with other air forces as well for the understanding of air power. The cadets will serve as o fficers in positions both nationally and internationally as o fficers operating on the line or as sta ff officers. In 2011, the Royal Norwegian Air Force participated in the air campaign over Libya and played a very active role in the operation. This has called for a focus on the use of air power in an international context and for the sca ffolding of the experiences obtained in the operation.

The objective of this study is to investigate the structure for learning and the learning outcomes of such an exercise, report on experiences, and point to factors that might be relevant for crisis management. The theoretical foundation the article is based on is learning leadership, mission-based leadership, social interaction and concurrent learning. The current study might be a case example for contributing to the fight against pandemics, in particular COVID-19.

## **2. Theoretical Framework**

The theoretical section is divided into five sections:


#### *2.1. The Leadership Context*

Northouse [7] writes that leadership must be understood in the context in which one operates. Northouse [7] divides leadership competence into three parts:


A central aspect of leadership in the Armed Forces of Norway and allied nations is mission command. Mission command or "intention-based" leadership as it is termed in Norway is based on the commander given the objective or intent and the "why". The operative level must within the framework find out the "how". This implies decentralized decisions and task solving is based on the practical judgement of the commanding o fficer at the sharp end [8]. Information regarding the why is very important to determine [9,10]. Hence, the commander would form the "intent" of the mission, thus providing a framework and guidance. Within the framework the operative level is also able to

improvise on the battlefield to fulfil the mission, but in addition also exploit opportunities that occur from the friction in the war [11,12].

#### *2.2. Learning Leadership*

A central aspect of the RNoAFA is educating leaders that will operate within the context of air power. Learning leadership means that working and learning is as much a way of life at the RNoAFA for educating leaders, as it is among the sta ff [13]. The RNoAFA operates as a community of interdisciplinary practitioners with diverse expertise that must be aligned, and therefore a key characteristic is that each is valued for their contribution irrespective of rank and seniority. There is a focus on embracing diversity and celebrating heterogeneity [13]. This in everyday practice means that critiquing is a way of living and working. The sta ff at RNoAFA reinforce ongoing learning individually and collectively [13]. In "Global Competence in an Inclusive World" [14], the OECD writes: "Global competence includes the acquisition of in-depth knowledge and understanding of global and intercultural issues, the ability to learn from and live with people from di fferent backgrounds, and the attitudes and values necessary to interact respectfully with others" (OECD, 2016: 1) [14].

#### *2.3. Mission-Based Leadership*

The purpose of developing "mission-based leadership" in the Armed Forces is to better deal with uncertainty and to meet an unknown future with greater agility. This implies that education must include creating solutions; maintaining self-awareness and situational awareness and forming a comprehensive understanding, as well as exercising independent decisions and translating plans and intentions into action. With this, the Armed Forces have chosen a decentralized command system, where the operative level will be able to act independently and flexibly and independently within the commander's intention [9,10]. This requires leadership that emphasizes cooperative and relational skills to create common understanding as to why it should be done (commitment) and how to do it (interaction) [13]. The benefits of the UNAPO exercise should therefore be seen in light of mission command.

#### *2.4. Social Interaction (Samhandling)*

Herberg, Torgersen and Rundmo (2019) have identified social interaction and concurrent learning (CL) as key factors for meeting the unforeseen in a study conducted among military personnel [15]. Torgersen and Steiro defined "samhandling" as: "Samhandling is an open and mutual communication and development between participants, who develop skills and complement each other in terms of expertise, either directly, face-to-face, or mediated by technology or by hand power. It involves working towards common goals. The relationship between participants at any given time relies on trust, involvement, rationality and industry knowledge" [16]. Samhandling is not only reserved for senior managemen<sup>t</sup> and it typically takes place in production and common processes in which people work and act together. This action is based on shared and exchanged expertise which is often extensive, specialized, and used in a complementary manner [16,17]. Miles and Watkins [18] support the notion that interaction is more than the sum of its parts and focus on complementary competencies.

#### *2.5. Concurrent Learning*

As we saw, Herberg, Torgersen and Rundmo (2019) have highlighted CL in military organizations. CL can be defined as: "A deliberate and continuously functional and interacting learning process among actors that occurs simultaneously with the interaction" [17] (p. 335). Learning in this form does not merely take place by chance. CL is both intentional and purposeful. Stakeholders or participants need to be aware of this process and focus on the relationship between one's own and others' expertise and diversity and focus on the complementary. Samhandling and CL represent a mindset to tackle the challenges of flexible organizations [16]. Therefore, the utilization of complementary expertise and CL are important strategic measures for the e fficient development of flexible features for organizations [17]. This is also highlighted in Torgersen and Steiro [19]. The distinction between interaction, collaboration and teamwork is that interaction is an extra emphasis and awareness of the complementary:


They refer to the corresponding exchange of a number of knowledge structures combined with developing the ability to interact, and teach as an event occurs, as CL, and which is defined as: "A deliberate and continuously functional and interacting learning process among actors that occurs simultaneously with the interaction" [18] (p. 253).

In military contexts, CL can be compared to the principle of "train as you fight" [20,21] as we see it, but CL has a more systematic and combined learning content, which also includes the debrief phase. Therefore, CL competence will be important to develop in all types of emergency environments, both civilian and military. Heifetz, Grashow and Linsky [22] think of leadership in terms of "putting a hand on a thermostat". They argue that if the heat is too low, people will not make a decision. If the heat is too high, people might panic. This implies, as we see it, the need for CL. This could be assured by, for instance, the extensive use of debriefing [23].

#### **3. The Context of the Exercise**

The Air Force Academy of Norway has invested a grea<sup>t</sup> deal of resources in the education of cadets. The curricula are based on a blend of theory, practice and reflection [24]. The challenge is to ensure an appropriate mix of these factors and set them in a relevant context. The exercise is inspired by a human rights concept of the Air Force Academy in Italy, where an air operation is simulated and cadets from di fferent nations are challenged in San Remo to provide human rights answers to commanders in an air operation. The RNoAFA was inspired by the concept and has created its own exercise for cadets in Norway. The Norwegian version is based on a joint international air operation to protect a group of people from attack in one nation. The exercise is played out under a United Nations umbrella. However, points made in the exercise and expressed in this article must not be seen as the opinion of the United Nations. It is an exercise played out where the nations are labeled "Blue", "Black", and "Green" etc. Each nation is assigned air power capacities with individual descriptions. The first author played the role of nation "Green" with eight F-16 fighters, one Hercules air transport and a platoon of Special Operation Forces (SOF), meaning a medium-large player in the field. In addition, they were given a mandate of being o ffensive and were known to follow the line of the lead nation "Blue". Both "Green" and "Blue" nations had few caveats (restrictions mandated by the respectively politicians). The exercise demanded the cadets operate on a table (or paper-based exercise) in a complex environment, demanding heterogeneous competence and involving ethical consideration. The exercise can therefore be perceived as an example of Bennis and O'Toole's [25] suggestion for managemen<sup>t</sup> training. The airpower exercise lasts for five full days and ends in with a wrap-up and lessons learned in a session on day five. Antonacopoulou and Shea ffer's [26] account for why organizations and individuals fail to learn from failure and repeat the same mistakes again by embedding crisis in learning is a mode of learning they define as "learning in crisis" [26] (p. 4). This means that the UNAPO exercises should not be about finding the right solutions, but rather learning from experience and from mistakes.

#### **4. Methods and Materials**

The method applied was participant observation of the exercise. The first author participated in the exercise in 2015 as a participant playing the Green nation, as mentioned earlier. At that time research was not thought of as just being part of a learning area with the sta ff and cadets. The first author was working as an associate professor at RNoAFA, but with no participation in the planning and the execution of the exercise, only as a participant. After participating in the exercise, the first author discussed the experience with the second author and both agreed that the exercise would be of interest to explore in greater detail. The idea of conducting research was further discussed with the officer responsible for the exercise. He was positive and allowed us to conduct research. Having been part of the exercise was a major advantage for developing a questionnaire for conducting research the next time the exercise was performed with a new group of cadets in December 2015. It was decided to hand out the questionnaire to the cadets on the morning of day five (the last day of the exercise) before the "hot wash-up" and debrief of the exercise. "Hot wash-up" involves the immediate responses from the participants taking part in the exercise. This is unfiltered and can be seen as a "brainstorming" session. Next, a structural debrief is performed. By providing the questionnaire before these processes, the research material was not influenced by the processes. All 25 cadets were asked to fill out the questionnaire and all 25 gave their consent for the second exercise in 2015. Of the 25 cadets, there were five women and 20 men ranging from 22 to 32 years with a mean of 25 years. The questionnaire was taken directly from Berlin and Carlström [27] (p. 32), focusing on themes regarding:


In addition, some questions (items) from Torgersen and Steiros's 10-factor questionnaire for relational indicators for e ffective social interaction in organizations [16] were also included. The questions asked were:


All questions in the battery (*n* = 23) were based on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. In addition, we added a category "I do not know/no view" because we wanted this as a further option. No cadets used this category for any questions, implying that all questions could be seen as relevant.

The study will present the exercise in detail and assess the learning outcome. It will link the learning outcome to relevant operations. It will also argue that such an exercise plays a valuable role in meeting demands for training managers for performing of complex assignments in organizations [25]. The study will not only document responses but also investigate means for the improvement of the structure of the exercise and the learning output and potential benefits for other organizations.
