R.Kass and J Kass
IAF/IAA-01-G.3.b.09
TEAM-WORK DURING LONG-DURATION ISOLATION R. Kass*1 , Ph.D., M.A. and J. Kass**, Ph.D. M.Sc.2 *1 Concordia University, Department of Applied Human Social Sciences, Montreal, Canada **ESA/Estec, Noordwijk, The Netherlands 2 PANKOSMOS GmbH, Medical and Space Technology, Munich, Germany
ABSTRACT During 1999-2000 a long-duration isolation experiment, SFINCSS, was carried out in Moscow at IBMP. Three groups were isolated over a span of 240 days: one group, over the whole period, and the second and third groups for 110 days each , one entering upon exit of the other. Thus, there were two simultaneously functioning groups at any given time, similar in structure to ISS flight. The authors carried out a team-work experiment on all 3 groups starting before the commencement of isolation, throughout the isolation, and ending after termination. The goal of the experiment was to study the behaviour of groups under such circumstances of isolation, and to test novel methods of observing their behaviour as a team as well as methods of intervention. The isolation experiments comprised several distinct and related parts. The key element of the experiment constituted what we called “Team-Talk Sessions” with a group meeting together as a team, followed by the administration of Reactionnaires filled out individually. These sessions were carried out regularly once a fortnight at a given time, for 1 hour, and were filmed on video. Instructions for these sessions were uplinked to the crew a few days in advance of the session. All told, a rich aggregate of qualitative and quantitative data was collected that will be very useful for future research application. The authors have concluded that the exercise was very useful, many lessons were learned, and much remains to be done in the future.
1. INTRODUCTION Background The International Space Station is now in its early stages of operation, and international teams of astronauts have already started continuous occupation of this ‘Island in the Sky’. Although international teams have manned the MIR station and flown on the Shuttle crew, this is the first time that a station in orbital space is truly international with the major players in the world of spaceflight jointly being responsible for running it. On the Earth, exploratory work has already started on preparing to conquer the next frontier, a manned mission to Mars. The importance of the psychological aspects of a team living and working together in isolation from the earth has come to be recognized and accepted1,2,3 indeed we have long underlined the importance of the psychosocial aspects of manned space flight, and the necessity for training in this area4,5. Much work has been done by national and international space agencies in the area of selection 6. Work regarding team composition and support for long-duration flight has remained mainly the domain of the Russians 7. Work on prophylactic measures is still in its infancy, the main research being carried out being observational rather than training as a counter-measure. Part of the groundwork has been research during simulations, where subjects are isolated and confined for extended periods under similar working and living conditions as expected in an orbital space station. A number of such simulations have been carried out during the last 10 years, such as ISEMSI8 (6 males, 30 days), Team-Work During Long-Duration Isolation v.3 (1).doc 2014-05-26
EXEMSI9 (3 males, 1 female, 60 days), HUBES10 (3 males, 135 days), ECOPSY11 (90 days). The most recent and longest simulation, SFINCSS, with by far the largest number of subjects, was carried out at IBMP, Moscow, in 1999200012,13,14. Overview of the Team-Work Experiment During the SFINCSS mission a Team-Work experiment was carried out by the authors, which had some distinct and unique features. In addition to the numerous inescapable questionnaires, and pre- and post-isolation interviews normally administered, some special exercises involving feedback were also implemented. Before the mission, a few team-building sessions were carried out with each crew. They were introduced to basic concepts of sharing with and sensitivity to other members of the team and were then given feedback on some of their questionnaires. (This methodology was also used in a previous short simulation, CAPSULS15,16 (3 males, 1 female, 7 days); moreover, all subjects were astronauts of the Canadian Space Agency. The approach combined pedagogical and observational methods with interaction and feedback being key elements. Thus training and data collection were carried out simultaneously. The philosophy behind our approach was that the strategic goal for our experiment was not only to understand the way such teams function under the stress of isolation and other accompanying sundry stressors, but also to test out methods of preparation, prevention and intervention. There certainly was not enough time before the mission for adequate team-building or sensitivity training, so instead, the chance was taken to introduce concepts and methods and, at least, bring some familiarity with and understanding of the tools used in the experiment. 1/5
Team-Work During Long-Duration Isolation The special interventional features were not only a part of the pre-mission curriculum, but were also incorporated as an integral part of the experiment during isolation. This turned out to be rather more difficult than planned because of the great difficulty in obtaining timely data collected. Nonetheless, each crew carried out a unique set of “TeamTalk Sessions” once a fortnight, for which they received instructions from the investigators. Because of the difficulty of communications, the instructions given to the crew could not reflect their actual current psychological state. Notwithstanding this impediment, these sessions, for the most part, turned out to be the only time the team met together with the specific goal of doing something as a group or sharing with one another. All told, a rich aggregate of qualitative and quantitative data was collected that will be very useful for future research and application. More important, there was an experiencial learning for each individual participant as a result of this experiment that they could take with them after the lengthy ordeal.
Post-Mission Phase This phase included Data Gathering (interviews and questionnaires) and Debriefing of methods used during the mission. This consisted of a guided round-table discussion with crew soon after their exit. Most of the session focused on the Team-Talk Sessions.
3. PRELIMINARY RESULTS The following overview of the results is based on a preliminary analysis of some samples of the data. Section (A) deals with Pre-Post Questionnaires, Section (B) Crew Diaries and Individual Logs and, Section (C) Team Talk Sessions. A. Pre- Post-Mission Questionnaires: Six questionnaires were used. Highlights from three are outlined below: i. Lead Self17
2. T HE EXPERIMENT In the following, the general methods used in the experiment are outlined, together with the goals during the various phases of this project. Methodology 1. The methods employed included: 2. Surveys and Reactionnaires 3. Discussion and Demonstration Sessions 4. Individual Interviews and Group Debriefing 5. Logs and Diaries 6. Team Building and data Feedback 7. Team Talk Sessions 8. Intra- and Inter-Group Simulation Activities 9. Videoing of Team Talk Sessions Focus was on key areas essential to diagnosing group problems and central to developing team effectiveness, such as: Morale, Norms, Decision-Making, Handling Conflict, Power and Leadership Struggles. The aspect of cross-cultural impact on all of these areas was an important part of the focus. Pre-Mission Phase This phase included team building, orientation to familiarize and instruct the crew with the tools and methods being used, data gathering (interviews and questionnaires) and data feedback. Mission Phase This phase included implementation of Team-Talk Sessions (group meeting together as a team), Reactionnaires ( short survey measuring reactions to Team-Talk Sessions), Crew Diaries and Individual Logs and administration of 7 short tests to assess team functioning and team development. All of these activities were done on a regular basis once a fortnight.
2/5
The Lead-Self instrument assesses the use of four leadership styles and the resulting effectiveness. The styles vary according to the structure provided for the task or support for relationships. Directing, Coaching, Supporting and Delegating styles are maximally effective if used in the preceding order that is correlated positively with increased skill and motivation levels. Diagnostic skills and use of appropriate choices for varying situations lead to effectiveness. High effectiveness scores suggest appropriate use and range of styles The Commanders indicated a more even range of styles than Crews, with Supporting the most frequent style for the Commanders and Coaching for the Crews. Least frequent for both Commanders and the Crews were Delegating. The Commanders’ effectiveness was higher than the effectiveness across all Crews. The more evenly distributed range of styles and higher effectiveness scores for Commanders than Crews suggests that in using a greater variety of styles, Commanders did so at appropriate times that would result in more effective leadership. Commanders’ effectiveness scores could be improved, particularly with respect to timely Directing and Delegating. This suggests that Situational Leadership Training for Commanders would be helpful. ii. Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode18 This tool, based on the premise that a range of styles is ideal, assesses the use of 5 conflict handling management styles: Competing (focusing on one’s own concerns) Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding and Accommodating (smoothing things over). Subjects’ primary and secondary conflict styles in combination with their least preferred style become the basis for analyzing the effective use of conflict handling in teams. Commanders and Crews both showed extremely high Accommodating as their primary style. Commanders’ secondary style was Compromising while Crews’ secondary style was Avoiding. The style consistently indicated as least preferred by Crews and Commanders was Collaborating, with scores in the low range. Team-Work During Long-Duration Isolation v.3 (1).doc 2014-05-26
R.Kass and J Kass
IAF/IAA-01-G.3.b.09
“Ability to listen to others in an understanding way” was the most frequently noted strength of Commanders and Crews with “Awareness of the feelings of others” equally indicated most frequently by Commanders. The lowest rated indicator by Crews, “Willingness to be influenced by others”, was never named as strength by either Commanders or Crews. This suggests ambivalence in relationship to decision-making and problematic control issues within the teams. Nor was “Willingness to discuss my feelings and emotions in a group” noted as strength by either Commanders or Crews. Given the potential intensity of interpersonal relationships during the isolation of a mission, the absence of this strength could be problematic. Crews most frequently cited “Reaction to difficult group situations, ability to make decisions or lack of leadership” as a weakness, with “My reaction to comments about my behaviour ranked second. “Willingness to discuss emotions” and “Reaction to conflict and antagonism in a group” were equally most frequently noted as weaknesses by Commanders. The combination of these weaknesses would not be ideal in an intensive team setting when dealing with feelings and conflicts is essential. For almost all indicators, there were no notable value shifts between Pre and Post, with shifts being slight and typically upward. This suggests that changes do not automatically occur and that training would be needed to support learning. Summary Results Pre – post questionnaires show that the inventories used could serve as a useful assessment and feedback tool to increase individual crew and team awareness. Data indicate the need for crew training in the areas of conflict management, interpersonal relations and collaborative team skills and commander training in situational leadership. They also show that some of these tests could
Team-Work During Long-Duration Isolation v.3 (1).doc 2014-05-26
Summary Results The logs and diaries show that internal and external supports do make a substantial difference in the crew’s abilities to cope with boredom and develop as well as build relationships intra–crew. They show that the commanders’ leadership style and abilities can contribute to stability or add stress to the isolation experience. Crewmembers’ ability to deal with differences has profound effect on crew dynamics. Crew relationships with mission control can vary toward helping or hindering of the mission and language barriers damage those relationships. Team-Talk Sessions A total of 32 Team-Talk Sessions were conducted between crews 1,2 and 3. These sessions lasted 1 hour, were conducted every 2 weeks, crew was responsible for electing a leader and instructions for each session was emailed a few days before the session. Information on these sessions was assessed on 3 levels: (1) Reactionnaires (questions measuring reactions), (2) Group Debriefing, and (3) Video Recording. There were 5 types of sessions: Training, where crew were asked to teach each other something; Problem-Solving, where crew were given a task to solve together; Active, where the crew created something together; Joint, where activities were conducted with the other crew; and Passive, where crew discussed Group-1:
Group-2:
Group-3:
Date
29
20-Jul-99
1
Johari
31
03-Aug-99
2
Community Living - I
1
Johari
33
17-Aug-99
3
Joint Session: "Building"
2
Joint Session: "Building"
35
31-Aug-99
4
Community Living - II
3
Community Living - I
37
14-Sep-99
5
Poster
4
Community Living - II
39
28-Sep-99
6
Game
5
Game
41
12-Oct-99
7
Theatre - Discussion*
6
Theatre - Discussion*
43
26-Oct-99
8
Decision-Making
7
Poster - Decision-Making*
45
09-Nov-99
9
Interim
8
Closure
47
23-Nov-99
10
Johari-2
49
07-Dec-99
11
Favourites
1
Johari-3
51
21-Dec-99
12
Joint Session: "Building-2"
2
Joint Session: "Building-2"
1
04-Jan-00
13
New Year
3
New Year
3
18-Jan-00
14
Chastooshka Challenge*
5
01-Feb-00
15
Poster-2
5
Poster-2
7
15-Feb-00
16
Closure
6
Theatre Visit*
02.07.99 - 20.02.00
23.07.99 - 10.11.99
Session
The instrument inventories 15 behaviours or reactions to group situations. Subjects rate themselves on each item on a scale from 0 to 7 with 0 indicating low and 7 high. Upon completion, subjects are asked to identify two strengths and two weaknesses. Areas most frequently cited serve to indicate the team’s level of maturity.
This data was in the form of diaries, logs and reports recorded by crewmembers and commanders of the 3 Crews. Most of these entries were weekly. Words and word patterns were noted for key themes and emotion indicators of how the Crews were doing. The three Crews were then compared and contrasted according to the following 5 themes: Resources, Commanders’ Leadership Style, Key Incidences and Behaviours by Crewmembers that Influenced the Crew’s Group Development, The Role of Mission Control, and Use of Bion’s Group Development Theory20 to describe Crew Behaviour.
Session
iii. Analysis of Personal Behaviour in Groups
19
B. Crew Diaries and Individual Logs
Session
The notably higher inclination towards Compromising and notably lower Competing profile of the Commanders than of the Crews would be orientations to reinforce in leaders. The high reliance of Crews on Accommodating others in reconciling differences is a concern, as excessive use of this method tends to hinder effective resolution of conflicts. Commanders’ decrease in Accommodating may indicate an understanding that this was less useful. That, combined with the importance of collaboration in the isolated context of a mission, suggests that training to develop collaborative skills and decrease dependency on avoidance and accommodating would be helpful.
be useful adjuncts to crew selection and crew composition processes.
Calendar Week
Commanders’ use of Collaboration compared to that of Crews’ shifted from being less initially to surpassing the Crews’ in the Post period. While still low, this suggests a growing awareness of the importance of Collaboration as well as a need to develop skills in using this approach.
03.12.99 - 22.03.00
4 Community Living Challenge*
9
29-Feb-00
7
Decision-Making
11
14-Mar-00
8
Closure
Figure 1: Schedule of Team-Talk Sessions
*Indicates sessions were changed either due to Crew request or PI decision something and reflected on certain issues (see below).
3/5
Team-Work During Long-Duration Isolation Reactionnaires were completed following each session. Crew were asked to evaluate their reactions along 7 dimensions: Productivity, Satisfaction, Air-Time Distribution, Atmosphere of Participation, Differences in Language and Culture, Individual Learning and, Group Learning. These 7 dimensions were rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being low and 5 being high. At the end of each Reactionnaire Crew were asked two open-ended questions that would identify the most and least effective part of each session. The Most and Least Productive Sessions were tracked and comparisons and contrasts of dimensions were drawn across the 3 Crews. Key Differences Between Crews 1, 2, & 3 When contrasting Dimensions across the 3 Crews, differences were observed in the areas of Language and Culture and Individual and Group Learning. Data from Crew-1 indicated that Language and Culture did not "contribute to any misunderstandings” amongst the Crew. This data is hardly surprising, as Crew-1 was a culturally homogeneous group with 3 out of 4 Crewmembers working in the same system and where all 4 Crewmembers came from the same national background and speaking the same mother tongue. On the other hand data from Crew-3 showed that these differences in Language and Culture “did contribute to misunderstandings”, illustrating some of the complexities and dynamics experienced in this multicultural heterogeneous group. Across the 3 Crews the pattern was consistent, the greater the Language and Cultural Differences, the Lower the Individual and Group Learning. This correlation suggests that Diversity and Human Relations Training can significantly increase openness to learning and feedback. In the dimensions of Individual Learning “I think I learned a lot”, and of Group Learning “I think in general group members learned a lot”, scores were higher for Crew-3 than for Crews-1 and -2. Group debriefing data indicated similar results with Crew-1 being the least open to participating and valuing the Team-Talk Sessions and Crew-3 the most open to such sessions. Differences in attitude may be linked to the format and purpose of the Team-Talk Sessions, which seems to have been more culturally acceptable to Crew-3 and thus may have contributed to their being more open to learning. Effect of Commanders The Team-Talk Sessions were designed to give maximum opportunity to Crewmembers to lead the sessions. This did not happen. The Commander # Commanders in Crews-1 Dimension 211 221 233 3.2 4.1 4 & -2 lead most of the Productiveness Satisfaction 2.8 4.1 4.1 sessions, while the Air time distribution 3 3.5 3.4 3.6 4.6 3.6 Crewmembers in Crew-3 Atmosp. Of Participation differences 4.6 4.4 4.5 took turns to lead most Cultural Individual learning 3 3.8 3.4 of the sessions. Table 1 Group learning 3 3.8 3.5 compares Commander Table 1: Comparison of Commander Averages across dimensions Averages for all the sessions. Overall scores for Commanders indicate that in Crew-1 the Commander consistently rated all the dimensions of all the sessions as
4/5
being less Productive than the Commanders of Crews-2 and -3. Group Debriefing Results When comparing the ratings of the Reactionnaires to the ratings during the group Debriefing Sessions, differences appear in the results. During the debriefing sessions, it became evident that when Crew were given an opportunity to reflect on their experience of a particular session and when they were able to clarify their understandings of these sessions, some ratings changed significantly in the area of Productivity and Usefulness. Score differences indicate not only an important learning for Crew, but also the importance of Crew being clear as to the purpose and function of why a particular session is being held. Video-recording The video tapes of the Team-Talk Sessions are being analysed using a model which looks at 5 Developmental areas: Climate (Physical and Emotional), Involvement, Interaction, Cohesion and Productivity. Results are in the preliminary stages of analysis, and will not be reported here. Summary Results Debriefing sessions and post-reactionnaires show that crew experienced the Team-Talk Sessions as useful and unique. They show that these sessions served as a vehicle to bring crew together as a team in a meaningful way. Usefulness and productivity of Team-Talk Sessions is related to timing, focus, frequency and duration. Data indicate that differences in language and culture contribute to misunderstandings in untrained multicultural crews in the areas of diversity and human relations. Commanders’ attitude toward Team-Talk Sessions influence crew involvement and participation. Crew training in the use of such sessions can influence problem-solving, the management of emotions and the building of supportive and constructive relations between crews. Recommendations for the Future Recommendations for the future are best made from lessons learned from the past. SFINCSS was indeed a major and challenging undertaking, but not without shortcomings. Despite this, it proved to be a very useful laboratory for studying crew dynamics under confinement and isolation. Most important, it exposed the necessity for further research in human dynamics in the domain of manned space flight. The short-term goals would be to understand and support operation of the ISS; the long-term goal would be to create a solid basis of knowledge and experience of the behaviour of groups under stress and isolation in preparation for the next major challenge, human conquest of Mars. The following are some recommendations for the future: 1.
Long duration simulations of manned missions should indeed be performed, but should be organized, managed, and operated on a multi-national, multiinstitutional basis.
Team-Work During Long-Duration Isolation v.3 (1).doc 2014-05-26
R.Kass and J Kass
2.
Consider using astronauts in simulations, thus also providing data that could evaluate such programs for possible application for regular training.
3.
Perform simulations of manned missions, but with a similar configuration of ground control reflecting the real-life situation in manned spaceflight.
4.
Perform pre-mission training in diversity and human relations with a focus on conflict management and learning to work with differences.
5.
Perform pre-mission training for comprehension and use of psychosocial tools employed in a mission
6.
Test the use of mission team sessions, (such as TeamTalk Sessions) as a method to build cohesion and team effectiveness
7.
Perform comparable research as suggested above, but using real life analogs, such as Antarctic research or submarines, which provide similar stress environments to space missions.
4. REFERENCES 1
Kanas, N. “Psychological Issues During Long Duration Space Missions.” Presentation at 12th MIS Symposium, Washington, DC. June 8-13, 1997.
IAF/IAA-01-G.3.b.09
12
Baranov, V.M., et. al., “Project SFINCSS-99 – Simulation of a Flight of International Crew on Space Station.” In Simulation of Extended Isolation: Advances and Problems. Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia, (2001), 17-24. 13
Gushin, V.I., et al. “Characteristics of Russian and Non-Russian Crew Members’ Communication with External Parties under Prolonged Isolation.” In Simulation of Extended Isolation: Advances and Problems. Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia, (2001), 85-100. 14
Kass, R.; and J. Kass. “Team-Work During Long-Term Isolation: SFINCSS Experiment GP-006.” In Simulation of Extended Isolation: Advances and Problems. Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia, (2001), 124147. 15
Kass, R.; and J. Kass. “Understanding Small group Behaviour with a view to Maximizing Team Effectiveness and Task Accomplishment.” In Capsuls, A 7-Day Space Mission Simulation, Final Report and Scientific Results (Sponsored by the Canadian Space Agency); Minister held on January 20-27, 1994 at the Defense and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine, Toronto. 16
2
Bishop, S.L. “Psychosocial Issues in Crew Selection: Finding the Right Mix of the Right Stuff.” Presentation at12th MIS Symposium, Washington, DC. June 8-13, 1997.
17
3
18
Manzey, D.; A. Schiewe; and C. Fassbender. “Psychological countermeasures for extended manned spaceflights.” Acta Astronautica, 35 (1995), 339-361.
Ibid. Kass & Kass, 1995.
Hersey, P. and K. Blanchard. Lead Self Instrument. San Diego, CA: Centre for Leadership Studies, 1976. Modified by R. Kass, Centre For Human Relations and Community Studies, Concordia University, 1982. Thomas, K. W., and R.H. Kilmann. Conflict Mode Instrument. Los Angeles, CA: Xicoms Inc., 1974. 19
4
Kass, R. and J. Kass. “Psychosocial Training for Man in Space”; Acta Astronautica, 45, 2, (1997), 115-118.
Kass, R. Analysis of Personal Behaviour in Groups Instrument. Montreal, QC: Centre for Human Relations and Community Studies, Concordia University, 1980.
5
20
Kass, R. and J. Kass. “Group Dynamics Training for Manned Spaceflight and the CAPSULS Experiment: Prophylactic Against Incompatibility and it’s Consequences? “ Acta Astronautica, 36, 8-12, (1995), 567-573.
Kass, R. “Bion’s work and emotion theory of group development.” In Theories of Small Group Development. Centre for Human Relations & Community Studies, Concordia University, Montreal, 2000.
6
Santy, Patricia A: Choosing the Right Stuff -The Psychological Selection of Astronauts and Cosmonauts; Praeger, 1994
The Authors
7
Kass, J., R. Kass, and I. Samaltedinov. Psychological Considerations of Man In Space: Problems & Solutions; Acta Astronautica Vol. 36, Nos 8-12, 65-660, 1995. 8
ISEMSI 1990. “European Confinement Study.” Advances in Space Biology and Medicine, 3, (1993). 9
Kass, J.; F. Ellmers, and J. Schiemann. “Advances in Space Biology and Medicine.” In EXEMSI '92: Operational Evaluation of the EXEMSI '92, 2, 5, (1996), 357-373. 10
Baranov, V.M.; E.P. Demin; and V.A. Stepanov. “Experimental studies on the problem of livability during long isolation in an environmental chamber [HUBES].” Aviakosm Ekolog Med., 31, 4 (1997), 4-5.
* Raye Kass is Associate Professor in the Dept. of Applied Human Sciences, Concordia University, 2085 Bishop Street, Montreal, QC, Canada, H1G 1M8; email
[email protected], phone/fax +1-514-932 0827/-932 3948.
** James Kass is resident contractor at ESA/ESTEC, Noordwijk, Postbus 299, NL-2200 AG, Noordwijk, seconded from H.E. Space Operations, B.V., Katwijk, The Netherlands, and Adjunct Assoicate Professor in the Dept. of Applied Human Sciences, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; email
[email protected], phone/fax: +31-565 3749/565 3141.
11
Vinokhodova, A.G.; A.F. Bystritskaia; Rosnet E.; and Z.H. Kazes. “Some peculiarities of group interaction and individual behavior under conditions of prolonged small group isolation [ECOPSY-95].” Aviakosm Ekolog Med. 31, 4, (1997), 20-3. Team-Work During Long-Duration Isolation v.3 (1).doc 2014-05-26
5/5
