Selection, training, cohesion and psychosocial adaptation influence performance and, as such, are relevant factors to consider while preparing for costly, long-duration spaceflight missions in which the performance objectives will be demanding, endurance will be tested and success will be critical.
During the selection of crew members, throughout their training and during their psychosocial adaptation to the mission environment, there are several opportunities to encourage optimal performance and, in turn, minimize the risk of failure.
Individual selection and crew composition Evidence linking crew selection, composition, training, cohesion or psychosocial adaptation to performance errors is uncertain. Many NASA-backed studies regarding spaceflight, as well as space analogs, emphasize the need to consider these factors. The research on performance errors caused by team factors is ambiguous and currently, no systematic attempt has been undertaken to measure performance errors due to psychosocial team factors during space flight.
As a result, evidence does not help identify what is needed to reduce the risk of performance errors in space. Ground-based evidence demonstrates that decrements in individual and team performance are related to the psychosocial characteristics of teamwork. Also, there are reasons to believe that ground support personnel and crew members experience many of the same basic issues regarding teamwork and performance.
The study of performance errors implies that human actions may be simplified into a dichotomy of "correct" or "incorrect" responses. It has been argued that this dichotomy is a harmful oversimplification, and that it would be more productive to focus on the variability of human performance and how organizations can manage that variability.
There are two particular problems that occur when focusing on performance errors: errors are infrequent and therefore, are difficult to observe and record the errors do not correspond to failure
Research shows that humans are fairly adept at correcting or compensating for performance errors before such errors result in recognizable or recordable failures. Most failures are recorded only when multiple errors occur and are not preventable.
Selection
For NASA's purposes, a team is commonly understood to be a collection of individuals that is assigned to support and achieve a particular mission. One way of selecting for teams is to identify those individuals who are best suited to work in teams, ensuring that each individual team member possesses the qualities and skills that lend themselves to optimal teamwork. Many organizations use competency frameworks to select individuals utilizing a "team-working" competency that measures how an individual works with other team members (support, knowledge sharing, etc.). These "teamwork" competencies have been shown to help predict individual performance in teams.
Efforts have been made within spaceflight operations to identify factors that are important for selecting individual crew members for long duration spaceflight. There has also been an analytical study to identify the skills necessary for long and short duration missions to inform the initial astronaut candidate selection process. In this study, twenty experts (including astronauts) rated 47 relevant skills on criticality and another 42 environmental and work demands on their probability of occurrence.
This resulted in 10 broad factors that were deemed important for long-duration missions: performance under stressful conditions mental/emotional stability judgement/decision making teamwork skills conscientiousness family issues group living skills motivation communication skills leadership capabilities
These factors somewhat overlap with those identified in previous peer-rating studies which suggest both a job competence and an interpersonal dimension for astronaut performance.
There is a lack of data that related performance to team composition and cohesion due to the evolution of job duties and selection practices over the history of crewed spaceflight as well as the limited number of astronauts actually selected (340 U.S. astronauts to date). These issues are relevant to other space agencies as well. In 1990, a European astronaut working group reevaluated selection criteria for the selection of European astronauts as Russian researchers have collected personality data on cosmonauts for a number of years. The empirical linking of personality factors to specific performance levels still eludes researchers.
+Table 2-1. Summary of Findings Presented for SelectionSourcePredictorOutcomeContextEvidence TypeSandal, 1999Teamwork competenciesImproved individual performance in teamsSpace flightCategory IIIMcFadden et al., 1994 Teamwork competenciesImproved individual performance in teamsGround-basedCategory IIIJones et al., 2000 Factors: Skilled at training and articulating their roles to others, at compromising, and at helping other team members as well as understanding effective team processesHigher team performanceGround-basedCategory IIIBell, 2007 Average team general mental abilityHigher team performanceGround-basedCategory IBell, 2007 Big Five personality factorsHigher team performanceGround-basedCategory IBarrick et al., 1998 Team average general mental ability, and extroversion and emotional stabilityHigher team effectivenessGround-basedCategory IIChidester et al., 1991 "Right stuff" personality clusterIncreased teamwork abilityGround-basedCategory IIStuster, 1996 Personality characteristics (e.g., social compatibility, emotional control, patience, etc.)Increased teamwork abilityAnalogCategory III
Composition +Table 2-2. Summary of Findings Presented for Crew CompositionSourcePredictorOutcomeContextEvidence TypeAllen and West, 2005 Lack of members low in agreeableness or extroversionHigher-performing teamsGround-basedCategory IIBarry and Stewart, 1997 High proportion of members who were extrovertedHigher-performing teamsGround-basedCategory IIHarrison et al., 1998; McGrath, 1984 Deep-level similarityIncreased team cohesionGround-basedCategory IIEdwards et al., 2006 Deep-level similarityHigher long-term performanceGround-basedCategory IISchmidt et al., 2004 Perceptions of Leadership effectivenessImproved general satisfaction of team with work, performance, and each otherGround-basedCategory III
Influences on team performance
Positive influences on team performances Select individuals who are more capable of performing well in a team Different team compositions better facilitate different types of performance Training individual team skills and training teams together encourages better individual and team performance Teams that are more cohesive demonstrate better performance than less cohesive teams Better teamwork increases the likelihood of recovery and survival in the event of a malfunction or error Members of more cohesive teams demonstrate better individual performance and report more physical and psychological resilience under duress Individuals and teams perform better and maintain high performance and good health longer when they adapt more quickly and effectively to the stressors that are inherent in a psychosocial environment Psychosocial factors that influence teamwork and performance in traditional work environments appear in the space exploration work environment
Negative influences on team performances Negative consequences (e.g., incomplete objectives, lost time) that are related to interpersonal stressors such as isolation, confinement, danger, monotony, inappropriate workload, lack of control group composition-related tensions, personality conflicts, and leadership issues have been observed on previous long-duration missions Interpersonal stressors, which are cumulative over time, pose a greater threat to performance and team success as work duration increases
Training Long-duration space flights are so physically, mentally and emotionally demanding that simply selecting individual crew members who have the "right stuff" is insufficient. Training and supporting optimal performance is more effective than simply selecting high performers. Training team skills and supporting optimal performance entails more than educating astronauts about the technical aspects of the job, it also requires equipping those astronauts with the resources that are needed to maintain psychological and physical health during long-duration spaceflight missions.
Developing the right kind of training for team skills is further complicated by operational issues. Not all tasks that will or may be encountered can be anticipated. Unexpected tasks can, and have, arise suddenly. Team training needs to be broad and flexible enough to support these unexpected performance requirements.
Cohesion Group cohesiveness has been defined as the strength of members' motivations to stay in the group. Leon Festinger cited three primary characteristics that define team cohesion: interpersonal attraction, task commitment and group pride. Studies to determine the strength or willingness of individuals to stick together and act as a unit have most consistently assessed the level of conflict, degree of interpersonal tensions, facility and quality of communications, collective perceptions of team health and performance of the group, and the extent to which team members share perceptions or understandings concerning their operational context.
Researchers at the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) noted in their recent review of cohesion as a construct, that the definitions of cohesion is ambiguous; therefore, the means of measuring cohesion is complex. The ARI authors concluded that "cohesion can best be conceptualized as a multidimensional construct consisting of numerous factors representing interpersonal and task dynamics. There is a large body of ground-based evidence showing cohesion influences levels of performance, but this evidence is primarily correlational rather than causal.
Cohesive teams are more productive than less cohesive teams. This situation could be because more productive teams become more cohesive, or more cohesive teams become more productive.
Teams preserve their cohesion when they succeed rather than fail. Therefore, applied scientists advise it is important to promote three essential conditions for team performance: ability (knowledge and skills) - Team members need to have sufficient levels of interpersonal and technical skills to perform their jobs and to attain team objectives. motivation - Team members must also be motivated to use their knowledge and skills to achieve shared goals. coordination strategy - Team context (organizational context, team design, and team culture) must create conditions to avoid problems such as social loafing, free riding, or diffusion of responsibility. These kinds of problems undermine team performance and can have detrimental effects on team cohesion (Thompson, 2002).
Research shows that cohesive teams tend to sit closer to each other, focus more attention on each other, show signs of mutual affection, display coordinated patterns of behavior as well as give due credit to their partners. Non-cohesive teams are more likely to take credit for successes and blame others for mistakes and failures. It is important to differentiate between team cohesiveness and individual morale. An individual who has low morale can influence team cohesion, but it may be possible for a team to remain cohesive even with low-morale members.