Teams in isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environments: Review and integration

• Date: 01 July 2018
• Author: Chu‐Hsiang (Daisy) Chang,Simon J. Golden,Steve W.J. Kozlowski
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2288
• Published date: 01 July 2018

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Teams in isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environments:

Review and integration

Simon J. Golden |Chu‐Hsiang (Daisy) Chang |Steve W.J. Kozlowski

Department of Psychology, Michigan State

University, East Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Simon J. Golden, Department of Psychology,

Michigan State University, East Lansing,

Michigan, U.S.A.

Email: goldensi@msu.edu

Summary

Soon there will be a small but growing workforce beyond near‐Earth orbit, conducting

explorations to asteroids, the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Space teams will be subject to

difficult working conditions, persistent dangers, and a wide range of challenging

stressors. National Aeronautics and Space Administration and other entities have

sponsored research on teams in isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) environments

such as the Antarctic, the Arctic, and dedicated space simulations because they

represent a reasonable “analog”to the kind of working and living conditions in space.

The aim of this integrative review is to compile and organize the ICE literature on the

basis of concepts from the team effectiveness literature to identify what we know

and, most importantly, what we need to know—how ICE team research needs to

advance—to support the future workforce in space and in other extreme environ-

ments (e.g., polar, deep sea, and high‐altitude exploration). This effort helped us

identify important findings and themes surrounding how team members cope with

the extreme conditions. We conclude by discussing explanations for the persistence

of gaps, providing recommendations, and offering directions for future research.

KEYWORDS

dynamics, isolated,confined, and extreme environments, team effectiveness

1|INTRODUCTION

Over a half century ago, Apollo 11 landed on the Moon (July 20, 1969)

and Neil Armstrong (accompanied by Buzz Aldrin) became immortal-

ized as the first human to walk on the lunar surface. Five more Apollo

missions followed that also explored the lunar surface, concluding in

1972. Probes and robotic platforms have investigated the solar system

and beyond, but since those pioneering Apollo missions, human explo-

ration of space has been confined to near‐Earth orbit. Moreover, until

recently, space exploration has been the exclusive province of nation

states (e.g., the European Space Agency [ESA], the National Aeronau-

tics and Space Administration [NASA], and Russia's Roscosmos), but

that is beginning to change. We are on the cusp of the commercializa-

tion of space travel and exploration. As reported by CNBC, commer-

cial space exploration is a “white hot”start‐up sector (e.g., SpaceX,

Blue Origin, Deep Space Industries, and Planetary Resources, among

many others) with “a combined $324 billion, and what some argue

could become the first trillion‐dollar industry …poised for a quantum

leap.”

1

Indeed, Morgan Stanley estimates that the space industry will

grow into an economy worth more than $1.1 trillion by 2040.

2

In the not too distant future, there will be a small but growing

ESA, NASA, Roscosmos, and commercial workforce in near‐Earth

orbit, exploiting resources on asteroids and on the Moon, and—further

out—interplanetary exploration to Mars and beyond. As we push the

boundaries of human experience, this workplace of the future will

entail unique challenges relative to the mainstream organizational

work teams of today. Space work will be fully immersive, embedded

in a long‐duration mission lasting from months for the Moon or aster-

oid missions to years for an expedition to Mars. The workplace in

1

September 21, 2017: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/17/commercial‐space‐

companies‐pioneer‐the‐final‐frontier.html

2

October 12, 2017: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/12/morgan‐stanley‐how‐

to‐invest‐in‐1‐trillion‐space‐industry.html

Received: 16 February 2017 Revised: 21 February 2018 Accepted: 29 March 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2288

J Organ Behav. 2018;39:701–715. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 701