Space Case Such an Interesting

¶ … space case such an interesting and compelling example of organizational behavior is that the odd conditions of weightlessness, and all that anti-gravity entails, place tremendous strains on the team that would not be typically experienced in the workplace environment. For example, during Skylab 1 the astronauts' working conditions led to irritability among the team. The group managed to accomplish its goals but "the first crew never had a chance to settle in and experience life in space in a routine way," (p. 4). They had "rigid timetables" imposed on them from NASA management outside of the space capsule (p. 2). Therefore, NASA ran the Skylab experiments as a combination of a chain network and a wheel network. As a chain network, NASA ensured that teamwork was essentially sabotaged. The command line was hierarchical, as the members of the Skylab did not even know their conversations were being monitored. Their schedules were pre-ordained. As a wheel network, NASA remained solidly in the center and prohibited communication between its respective spokes. This is why the Skylab 3 members developed disjointed communication on board; they had never learned to work together as a team.

The Skylab 2 crew boasted "a number of close personal connections" that facilitated rapport (p. 4). Skylab 2 was therefore a type of circle network even within the hierarchical organizational structure of NASA. Like the first Skylab, the second crew dealt with intense stressors such as rigid working schedules and conditions. "The astronauts were selected by and large for their extraordinary military discipline and obedience and not for their capacity for creative, independent judgment," (p. 5). This underscores the type of hierarchical organizational structure that NASA relied upon. On the ground, NASA managers controlled the schedules of individuals who responded with "extraordinary military discipline and obedience." There was little room for independent thought, critical thinking, or collaborative decision-making. Likewise, NASA emphasized quantitative measures over the qualitative input of the astronauts. On the Skylab 1 and 2, the astronauts themselves operated as a circle network but NASA as a whole continued to combine the chain and wheel type structures. NASA was operating as an authoritarian and hierarchical organization.

Owen Garriot was an exception to the rule of regimentation in the sense that he brought a lighthearted attitude to the workplace environment. Garriot's "excitement," "enthusiasm" and "zealousness" made him a sort of unintentional leader for the Skylab 3 crew (p. 6). Thus, the astronauts were only able to create a circle network because of their extreme isolation -- from planet earth.

Unlike the second Skylab, the third was comprised of a team of rookies. Moreover, "none of the third crew shared any close personal connections with the first two crews," (p. 7). The problems in communication and lack of teamwork led the third crew to "play down the adverse effects of space travel to protect NASA's funding for future space programs," (p. 7). A lack of camaraderie solidified the wheel-chain combination strategy that NASA had come to rely upon as a means to control and monitor its employees.

The authoritarian nature of NASA leadership became evident especially in the third Skylab mission. Mission control on the ground had been monitoring the astronaut's conversations and they knew about the cover-up of the one team member's sickness. The reprimand "seriously strained the crew's relationship to mission control and made them feel defensive," (p. 8). The crew stopped following the rigid schedules set out for them, and exhibited "ridicule, exasperation, and hostility" as well as "unrestrained language" when talking with mission control (p. 8). Among themselves, the crew did not get along as well as the first two Skylabs, either.