What We Know About Team Dynamics for Long-Distance Space Missions: A Systematic Review of Analog Research

Abstract

Background: To anticipate the dynamics of future long-distance space exploration mission (LDSEM) teams, research is conducted in analog environments (e.g., Antarctic expeditions, space chamber simulations), or environments that share key contextual features of LDSEM such as isolation and confinement. We conducted a systematic review of research conducted on teams in LDSEM-analog environments to identify which factors have been examined with quantitative research, and to summarize what the studies reveal about team dynamics in LDSEM-analog environments. Methods: We used a comprehensive search strategy to identify research on teams that lived and worked together. Data on team dynamics were extracted where possible, and sources were coded for key contextual features. The data did not lend themselves to traditional meta-analysis. We used two approaches to summarize the data: a weighted averages approach when the study reported enough data to calculate an effect size, and descriptive figures when data across studies were directly comparable. Results: Seventy-two sources met our inclusion criteria, yielding 253 effect sizes and 1,150 data points. Results from our weighted averages approach suggested that the team cohesion and performance relationship may be operating differently in isolated and confined environments than other teams that lived and worked together (e.g., military teams), and that, given the available data, we can say very little about the magnitude and direction of the relationship. Our descriptive figures revealed important trends: (a) team members in longer missions generally spent less social time together than shorter missions; (b) consistent team efficiency over time was typical, whereas decreased team efficiency over time was atypical; (c) by 40% of mission completion or 90 days, all teams reported at least one conflict, (d) commanders' written communication with mission control decreased in length over time, and (e) team mood dynamics did not consistently support the third-quarter phenomenon. Conclusions: There are inherent limitations to our study, given the nature of the analog research (e.g., correlational studies, small sample size). Even so, our systematic review provides key insights into team dynamics in LDSEM-analog environments. We discuss the implications of our research for managing future space crews. Importantly, we also provide guidance for future research.

Advances in Space Medicine Applied to Pandemics on Earth

“…In general terms, astronauts in space live under stressful conditions and in a hostile environment, while being required to maintain high-level performance throughout a mission. Similar findings have been noted among crewmembers in a ground-based simulation of space missions where participants are selected with a less stringent requirement for physical and mental performance [3].…”

Applying Multilogical and Metamemetic Approaches to Understand How We Think and Feel in Space

“…In one sample regarding a group of 97 people, 54 were from the U.S., 30 from Russia, and 13 from other countries. 79 were male, while 18 were female [6]. Russia was ranked higher in industry, autonomy, and initiative than other countries, lowest in identity and integrity.…”

“…Observations are made about the effect of lack of circadian rhythms, spatial navigation, perception, interaction, performance stress. A question of disaster preparedness and relating to the unknown would be questionable [6].…”

The Evolution and Maturation of Teams in Organizations: Convergent Trends in the New Dynamic Science of Teams

“…Operationally, decisions need to be made about appropriate temporal granularity or resolution for measurement, and how this supports the valid measurement of different phenomena. This includes thinking longitudinally about teams existing and changing over very long periods of time [e.g., research on teams on long duration space exploration missions, (Bell et al, 2019 ); or functioning in other Isolated, Confined and Extreme (ICE) environments; (Landon et al, 2019 )], as well as looking at very “thin slices” of interaction across multiple streams of data (i.e., linguistic and paralinguistic communication, physiological activation, behavior; Rosen et al, 2018 ). There is exciting work in each of these ranges of timescales for team dynamics; however, there is very little that integrates them both.…”

“…Context matters, and certain industries have embraced the importance of team dynamics as the links between team functioning and valued organizational outcomes in that industry are particularly salient. Articles in this special address spaceflight (Bell et al, 2019 ; Pendergraft et al, 2019 ) military (Demir et al, 2019 ; Johnston et al, 2019 ), healthcare (Stevens et al, 2019 ), and isolated and confined environments (Landon et al, 2019 ). While this list of industries is by no means exhaustive of those pursuing team-based work strategies or engaged in research efforts to understand and improve team dynamics, it is representative of the key contributors.…”