Astronaut organization in spaceflight missions

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.{{cite book|last1=Ball|first1=John R.|title=Safe passage: astronaut care for exploration missions.|year=2001|publisher=National Academy Press|location=Washington, D.C.|isbn=978-0-309-07585-5|url=http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10218|edition=[Online-Ausg.]|first2=Charles H.|last2=Evans, Jr.}}{{cite report|last=Hackman|first=RJ|title=Team performance in aeronautical and space environments|date=29 April 1996|series=NASA-CR-200947|url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960023036_1996046155.pdf|publisher=NASA|location=Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.}}{{cite journal|last=Helmreich|first=RL|title=Determinants of individual and group performance|journal=NASA-Ames Agreement NAD 2-137|date=31 May 1985|issue=NASA-CR-181178|url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870017072_1987017072.pdf|publisher=NASA|location=NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.}}{{cite journal|last=NASA|title=Effects of confinement, social isolation, and diurnal disruption of crew adjustment and performance in long duration space missions|journal=NASA Order T-1082-K: NASA/JSC-CR-188280|url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940005081_1994005081.pdf|publisher=NASA|location=Johnson Space Center, Houston}}{{cite report|last=Paletz|first=SBF|author2=Kaiser, M |title=Behavioral health and performance: technical gap analysis white papers|year=2007|volume=NASA-TM-2009-215381|publisher=NASA|location=NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.}}{{cite book|last=Vinograd|first=SP|title=Studies of social group dynamics under isolated conditions. Objective summary of the literature as it related to potential problems of long duration space flight|year=1974|publisher=NASA|location=Johnson Space Center, Houston|url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750007236_1975007236.pdf|edition=NASA/JSC-CR-2496}} 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.{{cite journal|last=Lautman|first=LG|author2=Gallimore, PL |title=Control of crew-caused accidents: results of a 12-operator survey|journal=Airliner|year=1987|volume=56|issue=10|pages=1–6|url=http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=251223|publisher=Air Line Pilots Association|oclc=2251072}}

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.{{cite journal|editor-last=Hollnagel|editor-first=Erik|editor2=Woods, David D. |editor3=Leveson, Nancy |title=Resilience engineering : concepts and precepts|journal=Quality & Safety in Health Care|volume=15|issue=6|pages=447–448|year=2006|publisher=Ashgate|location=Burlington, VT|isbn=978-0754646419|pmc=2464899|edition=Reprinted|doi=10.1136/qshc.2006.018390|last1=Wears |first1=R. L. }}

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.{{cite book|last=Dismukes|first=RK|title=The limits of expertise : rethinking pilot error and the causes of airline accidents|year=2007|publisher=Ashgate|location=Aldershot [u.a.]|isbn=978-0754649656|edition=[Online-Ausg.]|author2=Berman, BA |author3=Loukopoulos, LD }}

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.).{{cite journal|last=Rodriguez|first=Donna|author2=Patel, Rita |author3=Bright, Andrea |author4=Gregory, Donna |author5= Gowing, Marilyn K. |title=Developing competency models to promote integrated human resource practices|journal=Human Resource Management|year=2002|volume=41|issue=3|pages=309–324|doi=10.1002/hrm.10043}} 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.{{cite journal|last=Caldwell|first=BS|title=Multi-team dynamics and distributed expertise in imission operations.|journal=Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine|date=June 2005|volume=76|issue=6 Suppl|pages=B145-53|pmid=15943207|url=http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2005/00000076/A00106s1/art00020}}{{cite conference |last1=Galarza |first1=L |last2=Holland |first2=A. |title=Critical Astronaut Proficiencies Required for Long-Duration Space Flight |publisher=SAE International |conference=International Conference on Environmental Systems |issn=2688-3627 |date=July 1999|doi=10.4271/1999-01-2096|location=Denver, CO}}{{cite journal|last=Holland|first=A|title=Psychology of human spaceflight|journal=JHPEE|year=2000|volume=5|pages=4–20}}{{cite journal|last=Nicholas|first=JM|author2=Foushee, HC |title=Organization, selection, and training of crews for extended spaceflight: findings from analogs and implications.|journal=Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets|date=Sep–Oct 1990|volume=27|issue=5|pages=451–6|pmid=11537615|doi=10.2514/3.26164|bibcode=1990JSpRo..27..451N}} There has also been an analytical study to identify the skills necessary for long and short duration missions to inform the initial [http://astronauts.nasa.gov/default.htm 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.{{cite journal|last=McFadden|first=TJ|author2=Helmreich, RL |author3=Rose, RM |author4= Fogg, LF |title=Predicting astronaut effectiveness: a multivariate approach.|journal=Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine|date=October 1994|volume=65|issue=10 Pt 1|pages=904–9|pmid=7832731}}{{cite book|last=Santy|first=Patricia A.|title=Choosing the right stuff : the psychological selection of astronauts and cosmonauts|year=1994|publisher=Praeger|location=Westport, Conn. u.a.|isbn=978-0275942366|edition=1. publ.}}

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 manned 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.{{cite book|last=Kanas|first=N|title=Space psychology and psychiatry|year=2008|publisher=Springer|location=Dordrecht|isbn=978-1402067693|edition=2nd|author2=Manzey, D }} The empirical linking of personality factors to specific performance levels still eludes researchers.

• Select individuals who are more capable of performing well in a team {{cite journal|last=Barrick|first=MR|author2=Stewart, GL|author3=Neubert MJ|author4=Mount, MK|title=Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|date=June 1998|volume=83|issue=3|pages=377–391|url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-02893-003|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377}}
• Different team compositions better facilitate different types of performance {{cite journal|last=Mannix|first=E.|author2=Neale, M. A. |title=What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations|journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest|date=1 October 2005|volume=6|issue=2|pages=31–55|doi=10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x|pmid=26158478|doi-access=free}}
• Training individual team skills and training teams together encourages better individual and team performance {{cite journal|last=Hirschfeld|first=RR|author2=Jordan, MH |author3=Feild, HS |author4=Giles, WF |author5= Armenakis, AA |title=Becoming team players: team members' mastery of teamwork knowledge as a predictor of team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness.|journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology|date=March 2006|volume=91|issue=2|pages=467–74|pmid=16551197|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.467}}{{cite journal|last=Paris|first=CR|author2=Salas, E |author3=Cannon-Bowers, JA |title=Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis.|journal=Ergonomics|date=August 2000|volume=43|issue=8|pages=1052–75|pmid=10975173|url=http://web.mit.edu/16.459/www/Salas.pdf|doi=10.1080/00140130050084879|citeseerx=10.1.1.208.8301|s2cid=41152229}}{{cite journal|last=Salas|first=E|author2=Rhodenizer, L |author3=Bowers, CA |title=The design and delivery of crew resource management training: exploiting available resources.|journal=Human Factors|year=2000|volume=42|issue=3|pages=490–511|doi=10.1518/001872000779698196|pmid=11132810|s2cid=20526620}}
• Teams that are more cohesive demonstrate better performance than less cohesive teams {{cite book|last=Grice|first=RL|title=Cohesion in sports and organizational psychology: an annotated bibliography and suggestions for U.S. Army Aviation|year=2005|publisher=Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences|location=Arlington, Va.|url=http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA437003|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130408133011/http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA437003|url-status=dead|archive-date=April 8, 2013|author2=Katz, LC }}
• Better teamwork increases the likelihood of recovery and survival in the event of a malfunction or error {{cite journal|last=Baker|first=David P.|author2=Day, Rachel |author3=Salas, Eduardo |title=Teamwork as an Essential Component of High-Reliability Organizations|journal=Health Services Research|date=1 August 2006|volume=41|issue=4p2|pages=1576–1598|doi=10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00566.x|pmid=16898980|pmc=1955345}}{{cite journal|last=Shapiro|first=M J|title=Simulation based teamwork training for emergency department staff: does it improve clinical team performance when added to an existing didactic teamwork curriculum?|journal=Quality and Safety in Health Care|date=December 2004|volume=13|issue=6|pages=417–421|doi=10.1136/qshc.2003.005447|pmid=15576702|url= |pmc=1743923}}
• Members of more cohesive teams demonstrate better individual performance and report more physical and psychological resilience under duress {{cite journal|last=Kidwell|first=R. E.|author2=Mossholder, KW |author3=Bennett, N |title=Cohesiveness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis Using Work Groups and Individuals|journal=Journal of Management|date=December 1997|volume=23|issue=6|pages=775–793|doi=10.1177/014920639702300605|s2cid=204320831}}{{cite book|last=Palinkas|first=LA|title=Group adaptation and individual adjustment in Antarctica: a summary of recent research|year=1991|publisher=Springer-Verlag|location=NY}}{{cite journal|last=Podsakoff|first=PM|author2=MacKenzie, SB |author3=Ahearne, M |title=Moderating effects of goal acceptance on the relationship between group cohesiveness and productivity|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|year=1997|volume=82|issue=6|pages=374–383|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.374|s2cid=145303724}}{{cite book|last=Vallacher|first=R|title=Relationship between cohesiveness and effectiveness in small isolated groups: a field study|year=1974|publisher=U.S. Naval Research Center|location=San Diego, CA|url=http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA038375|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130408134230/http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA038375|url-status=dead|archive-date=April 8, 2013|edition=Report 74-50|author2=Seymore, G |author3=Gunderson, E }}
• 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 {{cite journal|last=Gunderson|first=EK|title=Adaptation to extreme environments: prediction of performance. Rep No. 66-17.|journal=Report - Navy Medical Neuropsychiatric Research Unit|date=March 1966|pages=1–41|pmid=5938304|url=http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/632996.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304003522/http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/632996.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 4, 2016}}{{cite book|last=Lugg|first=DJ|title=Physiological adaptation and health of an expedition in Antarctica, with comment on behavioral adaptation |volume=126|year=1977|publisher=Australian Government Publishing Service|location=Canberra, ACT, Australia}}{{cite journal|last=Riggio|first=Ronald E.|author2=Watring, Kristin P. |author3=Throckmorton, Barbara |title=Social skills, social support, and psychosocial adjustment|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|year=1993|volume=15|issue=3|pages=275–280|doi=10.1016/0191-8869(93)90217-Q}}
• Psychosocial factors that influence teamwork and performance in traditional work environments appear in the space exploration work environment {{cite journal|last=Kanas|first=N|author2=Salnitskiy, V |author3=Grund, EM |author4=Gushin, V |author5=Weiss, DS |author6=Kozerenko, O |author7=Sled, A |author8= Marmar, CR |title=Interpersonal and cultural issues involving crews and ground personnel during Shuttle/Mir space missions.|journal=Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine|date=September 2000|volume=71|issue=9 Suppl|pages=A11-6|pmid=10993303}}

• 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 {{cite book|last=Kanas|first=N|title=Space psychology and psychiatry|year=2003|publisher=Microcosm Press|location=El Segundo, Calif|author2=Manzey, D }}
• Interpersonal stressors, which are cumulative over time, pose a greater threat to performance and team success as work duration increases {{cite journal|last=Cropanzano|first=R|author2=Rupp, DE |author3=Byrne, ZS |title=The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors.|journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology|date=February 2003|volume=88|issue=1|pages=160–9|pmid=12675403|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160}}{{cite journal|last=Halbesleben|first=JR|author2=Bowler, WM |title=Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the mediating role of motivation.|journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology|date=January 2007|volume=92|issue=1|pages=93–106|pmid=17227154|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93}}{{cite journal|last=Rasmussen|first=Thomas H.|author2=Jeppesen, Hans Jeppe |title=Teamwork and associated psychological factors: A review|journal=Work & Stress|date=April 2006|volume=20|issue=2|pages=105–128|doi=10.1080/02678370600920262|s2cid=144948780}}{{cite book|last=Staal|first=MA|title=Stress, cognition, and human performance: a literature review and conceptual framework|year=2004|publisher=NASA|location=Johnson Space Center, Houston|url=http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/flightcognition/Publications/IH_054_Staal.pdf|edition=NASA/JSC-TM-2004-212824}}{{cite journal|last=You|first=JH|author2=Lee, SJ |author3=Lee, HK |title=The influence on individual's emotional characteristics on work-related burnout experience: the emotional intelligence as a mediator to experience burnout feeling|journal=Korean J. I/O Psychology|year=1998|volume=11|issue=1|pages=23–52}}

Long-duration space flights are so physically, mentally and emotionally demanding that simply selecting individual crew members who have the "right stuff" is insufficient.{{cite journal|last=Flynn|first=CF|title=An operational approach to long-duration mission behavioral health and performance factors.|journal=Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine|date=June 2005|volume=76|issue=6 Suppl|pages=B42-51|pmid=15943194}} Training and supporting optimal performance is more effective than simply selecting high performers.{{cite book|last=Holland|first=A|title=A review of training methods and instructional techniques: implications for behavioral skills training in U.S. astronauts|year=2007|publisher=NASA|location=Johnson Space Center, Houston|url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070022270_2007019808.pdf|edition=TP-2007-21372|author2=Hysong, S |author3=Galarza, L }} 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.

Group cohesiveness has been defined as the strength of members' motivations to stay in the group.{{cite journal|last=Festinger|first=L|title=Informal social communication|journal=Psychological Review|year=1950|volume=57|issue=5|pages=175–186|doi=10.1037/h0056932 |pmid=14776174}} 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 [https://web.archive.org/web/20120928001446/http://www.hqda.army.mil/ari/ 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.{{cite book|last=Thompson|first=JD|title=Organizations in action|url=https://archive.org/details/organizationsina0000thom|url-access=registration|year=1967|publisher=McGraw-Hill|location=NY|isbn=9780070643802 }} 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.

Psychosocial experts within the spaceflight community have articulated their concern that interpersonal conflicts and lack of cohesion will impede the abilities of crews to perform tasks accurately, efficiently, or in a coordinated manner during long-duration missions.

From the evidence, it cannot be said that lack of team cohesion is statistically likely to result in numerous performance errors or an observable failure, but it does seem likely that ignoring the relationship between cohesion and performance will result in sub-optimal performance. We know that many factors contribute to how cohesion is built and encouraged within a team, and we know that cohesion is positively related to better performance. Research cannot effectively determine in a reasonable amount of time what minimum level of cohesion is required to avoid catastrophic failure. Instead of investing research and time in such an endeavor, funding would be better used to test and identify effective means of building cohesion and promoting optimal performance in a long-duration mission context.

Although the [http://astronauts.nasa.gov/default.htm astronaut candidate selection process] screens for individuals with personality or mood disorders, certain disorders (i.e. poor psychosocial adaptation) may develop due to poor cohesion and/or support is a concern that could ultimately decrease performance in space flight crews.

Although spaceflight evidence regarding cohesion and performance is limited by the scarcity of objective team performance data, case studies, interviews and surveys have been conducted within the spaceflight community that have provided evidence that issues pertaining to cohesion exist and are perceived as threats to effective operations. For example, breakdowns in team coordination, resource and informational exchanges, and role conflicts (all common indicators of poor team cohesion) were mentioned as contributors to both the Challenger and the Columbia space shuttle accidents.{{cite book|title=Columbia accident investigation board report|year=2003|publisher=NASA|location=Washington, D.C.|url=http://caib.nasa.gov/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060105050618/http://caib.nasa.gov/|archive-date=2006-01-05}}{{cite book|title=Frontiers of space exploration|year=2004|edition=2|publisher=Greenwood Press|location=Westport, Conn.|isbn=978-0313325243|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/frontiersofspace00laun_0}} Likewise, interviews and surveys of flight controllers indicate that mission teams are commonly concerned with team member coordination and communications, and that interpersonal conflicts and tensions do exist.{{cite journal|last=Parke|first=B|author2=Oransu, J |author3=Castle, R |author4= Hanley, J |title=Identifying organizational vulnerabilities in space operations with collaborative, tailored, anonymous surveys|year=2005|journal=International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety Conference|volume=599|pages=577|location=Nice, France|bibcode=2005ESASP.599..577P}}

Because of a lack of empirical evidence from spaceflight research, much of the evidence surrounding cohesion and performance comes from non-space domains such as aviation, medicine, the military, and space analogs. Some reports have estimated that "crew error" in aviation contributes 65% to 70% of all serious accidents.{{cite journal|title=What ASRS incident data tell about flight crew performance during aircraft malfunctions|last=Sumwalt|first=R|author2=Watson, A |year=2001|journal=Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology|location=Columbus, Ohio}} The resulting accident investigations and mishap reports note poor teamwork, communication, coordination, and tactical decision-making as significant causal factors in mishap samples{{cite journal|title=A review of flightcrew-involved, major accidents of U.S. Air Carriers, 1978-1990|last=NTSB|journal=NTSB Report No. PB 94-917001, NTSB/SS-94/01|publisher=NTSB|location=Washington, DC}} and team breakdowns are repeatedly implicated in accidents.{{cite journal|title=Making sense out of team performance errors in military aviation environments|last=Merket|first=D|author2=Bergondy, M |journal=Transport. Hum. Factors|volume=1|issue=3|pages=231–242|year=2000|doi=10.1207/sthf0103_4}}{{cite book|chapter=Human error in aviation operations|last=Nagel|first=D|editor=Weiner, E |editor2=Nagel, D|title=Human factors in aviation|publisher=Academic Press|location=NY|pages=263–303|year=1988}} Interpersonal conflicts, miscommunications, failures to communicate, and poor teamwork skills have been shown to contribute significantly to the rate of errors in the medical field.{{cite journal|last=McKeon|first=LM|author2=Oswaks, JD |author3=Cunningham, PD |title=Safeguarding patients: complexity science, high reliability organizations, and implications for team training in healthcare.|journal=Clinical Nurse Specialist|date=Nov–Dec 2006|volume=20|issue=6|pages=298–304; quiz 305–6|pmid=17149021|doi=10.1097/00002800-200611000-00011|s2cid=21805022}}

Meta-analyses conducted in various industries and types of performance teams (work, military, sport, educational, etc.) provide additional ground-based evidence that cohesion is related to performance. The authors of these meta-analyses (Evans and Dion) {{cite journal|last=Evans|first=C. R.|author2=Dion, K. L. |title=Group Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analysis|journal=Small Group Research|date=May 1991|volume=22|issue=2|pages=175–186|doi=10.1177/1046496491222002|s2cid=145344583}} found a positive correlation between cohesion and individual performance, but did not include group performance criterion measures. Mullen and Copper {{cite journal|last=Mullen|first=Brian|author2=Copper, Carolyn |title=The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.|journal=Psychological Bulletin|date=January 1994|volume=115|issue=2|pages=210–227|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210}} found that cohesion positively affects performance. They also found that this relationship was stronger in real teams verses ad hoc teams, in small teams verses large teams as well as in field studies. Mullen and Copper also noted that successful performance also promotes cohesion and numerous performance outcomes including individual and group performance, behavioral health, job satisfaction, readiness to perform, and absence of discipline problems.

In the later meta-analyses, it was found that as work required more collaboration, the cohesion-performance relationship became stronger and highly cohesive teams became more likely to perform better than less-cohesive teams.{{cite journal|last=Beal|first=DJ|author2=Cohen, RR |author3=Burke, MJ |author4= McLendon, CL |title=Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations.|journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology|date=December 2003|volume=88|issue=6|pages=989–1004|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989|pmid=14640811|s2cid=1342307 }} This conclusion coincides with Thompson's cumulated field study finding that cohesion facilitates team processes and team coordination among work teams in various industrial settings.

A significant positive relationship between performance and the generalized beliefs of team members concerning the capabilities of their team across different situations.{{cite journal|last=Gully|first=SM|author2=Incalcaterra, KA |author3=Joshi, A |author4= Beauien, JM |title=A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships.|journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology|date=October 2002|volume=87|issue=5|pages=819–32|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819|pmid=12395807}} Although most research on team cohesion and performance concentrate on the positive aspects of team attitudes, some have investigated the level of conflict and negative attitudes concerning the team as indicators of cohesion. De Dreu and Weingart {{cite journal|last=De Dreu|first=CK|author2=Weingart, LR |title=Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis.|journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology|date=August 2003|volume=88|issue=4|pages=741–9|pmid=12940412|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741|s2cid=16345021 }} noted an important distinction between interpersonal conflict and task conflict (defined, interpersonal conflicts are about relationship issues, whereas task conflicts are about how to handle tasks).

Interpersonal conflict is generally detrimental to team cohesion, and, in turn, is destructive to team performance. While team members may correct each other, offer alternatives and argue about how to solve a problem, some level of task-related conflict can promote optimal performance.{{cite journal|last=Jehn|first=KA|author2=Mennix, EA |title=The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudunal study of intragroup conflict and performance|journal=Academy of Management Journal|year=2001|volume=44|issue=2|pages=238–251|url=http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_dynamic_nature_of_conflict-_a_longitudinal_study_of_intragroup_conflict_and_group_performance.pdf|jstor=3069453}} In contrast, interpersonal and task-related aspects of cohesion are generally found to influence performance positively. A study conducted with Canadian military groups showed that task-related cohesion was positively related to individual job satisfaction, interpersonal cohesion was negatively related to reports of psychological distress, and both types of cohesion were positively related to job performance.{{cite journal|last=Ahronson|first=Arni|author2=Cameron, James E. |title=The Nature and Consequences of Group Cohesion in a Military Sample|journal=Military Psychology|date=2 April 2007|volume=19|issue=1|pages=9–25|doi=10.1080/08995600701323277|s2cid=144041619}}

Research conducted on Antarctic space analogs investigated conflict, cohesion and performance. It was found that:

• Inter-member hostility was related to the poor ratings of member effectiveness
• Team members' perceptions of status contributed to conflicts and reduced perceptions of cohesion {{cite book|last=Dutta Roy|first=D|title=Role stress profiles of scientist and defence ersonnel in fifteenth Antarctic expedition |volume=13|publisher=National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, Department of Ocean Development|location=Goa.|url=http://14.139.119.23:8080/dspace/handle/123456789/473|author2=Deb, NC|date=21 November 2006|access-date=27 January 2023}}
• Positive team climate and cohesion helped to reduce interpersonal tensions, contributing to work satisfaction {{cite journal|last=Wood|first=J|author2=Schmidt, L |author3=Lugg, D |author4=Ayton, J |author5=Phillips, T |author6= Shepanek, M |title=Life, survival, and behavioral health in small closed communities: 10 years of studying isolated Antarctic groups.|journal=Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine|date=June 2005|volume=76|issue=6 Suppl|pages=B89-93|pmid=15943201}}

This last point was studied over a ten-year period, modeling individual and group effects on adaptation to life in an extreme environment using multilevel analysis (Category III).

The military and aviation industries have focused more on task cohesion and shared mental models (SMMs) in their cohesion studies. SMMs refer to implicit agreements in team member expectations concerning how things work and what behaviors will result in various conditions and were proposed to characterize cohesive work teams. Studies that compare performance during simulated operations and training note that

• Members of high-performing teams coordinate with one another frequently to establish, maintain and adapt SMMs as the situation evolves.{{cite book|last=Wech|first=Barbara A.|title=Team-member exchange and trust contexts : effects on individual level outcome variables beyond the influence of leader-member exchange|year=2002|publisher=UMI Dissertation Services|location=Ann Arbor, MI|isbn=978-0493329956}}
• Teams that have little to no training on developing or coordinating SMMs demonstrate more errors and are less productive as compared to teams that have received training on building SMMs

Leadership, or the ability to influence others toward achieving group goals,{{cite journal|last=Avolio|first=BJ|author2=Sosik, JJ|author3=Jung, DI|author4=Berson, Y|author5=Borman, WC|author6=Ilgen, DR|title=Leadership models, methods, and applications|journal=Handbook of Psychology |year=2003|volume=12|pages=277–307|doi=10.1002/0471264385.wei1212|url=http://nli.northampton.ac.uk/ass/social/ac/psy3006/Leadership%20models%20methods%20and%20aplications.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121224201511/http://nli.northampton.ac.uk/ass/social/ac/psy3006/Leadership%20models%20methods%20and%20aplications.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2012-12-24|publisher=John Wiley and Sons, Inc.|location=Hoboken, NJ|display-authors=etal|isbn=978-0471264385}} may also play a role in team cohesion. Although there is an abundance of research that exists for this topic, much of it is complex and conflicting and the findings are often mixed. Many studies are at the individual level and may not generalize to the spaceflight setting. Studies have shown a supporting relationship between different types of leadership styles, individual performance and morale.{{cite journal|last=Den Hartog|first=DN|author2=Koopman, PL |author3=Anderson, N |author4=Ones, DS |author5=Sinangil, HK |author6= Viswesvaran, C |title=Leadership in organizations|journal=Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol 2: Organizational Psychology|year=2002|volume=2|pages=166–187|url=http://www.sagepub.com/northouseintro2e/study/chapter/handbook/handbook4.1.pdf|publisher=Sage Publications, Inc|location=Thousand Oaks, CA|doi=10.4135/9781848608368.n10|isbn=9780761964896}}{{cite journal|last=Howell|first=Jane M.|author2=Avolio, Bruce J. |title=Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance.|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|date=1 January 1993|volume=78|issue=6|pages=891–902|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891}}

• Psychological and sociological issues affecting space travel

• Skylab 4

{{Reflist|2}}

{{NASA|article=Human Health and Performance Risks of Space Exploration Missions|url=http://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/evidence/reports/EvidenceBook.pdf|comment=NASA SP-2009-3405}}

{{Space medicine}}

Category:Human spaceflight

Category:Space medicine