|
Principal Investigator:
|
Judith M. Orasanu, Ph.D.
|
|
Organization:
|
NASA Ames Research Center
|
|
Project Ended:
|
2008
|
Successful long-duration space missions will depend on the ability of crewmembers to collaborate effectively under highly stressful conditions. Effective interpersonal relationships are critical as crews become more varied in terms of culture, gender and professional backgrounds. This research initiative by Dr. Judith Orasanu will provide techniques for predicting breakdown of team dynamics and performance; guidelines for effectively selecting, training, and assembling teams of astronauts; tools for self assessment and team feedback; and strategies for managing stress in multi-cultural and gender-mixed teams.
|
Principal Investigator:
|
Judith M. Orasanu, Ph.D.
|
|
Organization:
|
NASA Ames Research Center
|
|
Project Ended:
|
2008
|
Project Aims Since the beginning of human spaceflight, psychological and interpersonal aspects of crew behavior have jeopardized crew health, safety and mission success. The goal of this project is to optimize team psychosocial adaptation and performance in exploration missions. We aim to enhance the ability of crews to respond adaptively to unanticipated problems, to maintain positive social and task cohesion, and to collaborate effectively under stress. The research will:
- Develop and validate tools for monitoring team cohesion;
- Determine the effects of team composition and task and interpersonal stressors on team performance and cohesion;
- Determine individual differences in response to stressors;
- Identify effective team interaction strategies for managing stress; and
- Develop and validate a training protocol to assure effective team performance and high cohesion.
Approach
A teamwork simulation laboratory has been created to address the above goals. Teams consisting of four or five members, one of whom is assigned the role of Base Coordinator (BC), engage in Antarctic or Lunar search missions over three days. Social and task stressors, crew composition and team training protocols have been manipulated to determine their effects on team processes, cohesion and performance. Time-synchronized performance, video and physiological data, along with questionnaires tapping workload, team dynamics, personality and other individual characteristics, support analysis of team processes and outcomes.
Key Findings
During Year 4, we developed two new approaches for monitoring and measuring crew cohesionthe Group Diagramming Method (GDM) and Linguistic Analysis (LA) of team functioning. Using data from three experiments, we established the construct validity of these measures and determined their concurrent and predictive validities in relation to team performance.
Group Diagramming Method
Team cohesion is typically assessed using self-report measures such as the Group Environment Scale (GES) in which team members rate their team environment as a whole. In contrast, GDM characterizes group interactions along three dimensions (positive/negative; task-oriented/expressive; dominant/submissive) and provides a graphical representation of team climate. GDM was validated by comparison with the GES and ratings of social and task cohesion.
Team interaction behaviors were stable across GDM administrations at the end of mission Days 1 and 3, indicating good test-retest reliability and stability of group measures. Cohesion in the GDM is represented by clustering or low dispersion of team member scores on the group diagram plane (positive/negative and expressive/task-oriented dimensions) and a team Center of Gravity (COG) on the positive side of the group diagram. High ratings on the GES cohesion subscale were associated with the following GDM measures: an expressive team COG, equal team member participation, and a positive and expressive BC. In contrast, high levels of GES anger and aggression were associated with high dispersion of team scores and a negative and task-oriented COG. Similarly, high ratings on the social and task cohesion scales were associated with strong clustering of team scores and a positive team COG. The social cohesion scale was also associated with an expressive COG. Dispersion scores on both the task and social cohesion rating scales were highly correlated with dispersion scores on all three GDM dimensions.
Linguistic Analysis
Analysis of team communication involved three measures of cohesion: the inclusiveness, and symmetry of team members interactions and expressed affect. Interactions in cooperative teams involved more team members, indicating that these teams were more inclusive than competitive teams. Cooperation was also associated with balanced interactions and equal participation. Cooperative teams showed significantly more positive affect than competitive teams on Day 3, but no difference between groups was observed on Day 1. The extent to which team interactions were positive, symmetric and inclusive was also related to members perceptions of their teams communication efficacy and GES cohesion: the more symmetric and balanced their interactions, the higher team members rated their communication efficacy and cohesion. Fewer positive interactions led to lower efficacy and cohesion ratings.
The high correlations between alternative methods of assessing cohesion support the validity of both the GDM and LA approaches.
Cohesion Measures and Performance
Both the LA and GDM cohesion measures were related to team performance. Using the GDM, an expressive team COG and more equal participation correlated with higher performance as measured by missions completed, average mission score and higher levels of cooperation. LA communication analyses of high- and low- performing teams were consistent with GDM findings. Successful teams had more symmetric, inclusive and collaborative interactions, and team members were more positive and supportive. No team cohesion measures at Day 1 predicted team performance at Day 3 except for BC behaviors: lower BC dominance and higher expressiveness predicted more mission tasks attempted. However, team performance at Day 1 predicted cohesion at Day 3: number of missions completed and emergency task points predicted team positive COG and more equal participation rates, respectively.
Implications
Tools for monitoring crew cohesion will become more essential during long-duration space missions, when the risk of psychosocial problems increases. Communication delays and disruptions mean the crew will function more autonomously than at present. Providing them with valid and trusted diagnostic feedback concerning their interactions will be important for self-management of interpersonal problems. The monitoring tools validated in this study are one step toward developing automated crew self-monitoring systems.
|
Principal Investigator:
|
Judith M. Orasanu, Ph.D.
|
|
Organization:
|
NASA Ames Research Center
|
|
Project Ended:
|
2008
|
A substantial portion of work in industry, academe and government is conducted in teams. Better understanding of factors that contribute to effective and cohesive team performance will have benefits in many domains here on Earth, in addition to payoffs for space crews. These benefits will be especially important in high-risk industries such as medicine, nuclear power, chemical processing, aviation and the military. Potential benefits include greater efficiency, fewer errors, greater productivity and less time lost due to interpersonal friction or stress in the workplace.
The instruments that we are developing for assessing team cohesion and communication can help design work teams that are highly cohesive and productive. These instruments will also be useful for monitoring changes in team dynamics over time and for providing theoretically-grounded recommendations to improve team cohesion and performance. Ultimately, these tools will be automated and will give feedback in real time. Finally, this research will produce validated team training protocols that could be built into education programs in colleges, professional schools, medical team training and preparation for crisis-management teams (e.g., negotiators, firefighters, police or disaster relief teams). These protocols include team self-evaluation and debriefing skills that are helpful in all teams, but essential for maintaining adaptive behaviors in teams that operate in high-stress, high-risk dynamic environments.
Print