During the early days of the U.S. space program, NASA astronauts worked in very confined spaces for short periods of time.

Presently, with much more time spent on the International Space Station (ISS) and plans for a possible future mission to Mars, NASA is studying how best to manage conflicts amongst crew members. As Russian Cosmonaut Valery Ryumin observed, “All the conditions for murder are met if you shut two men in a cabin measuring eighteen feet by twenty and leave them together for two months.”

Four types of conflict have been identified:

1.) Task Conflicts (disagreements regarding views or opinions about tasks at hand)

2.) Process Conflicts (disagreements about how tasks should be completed)

3.) Relationship Conflicts (interpersonal tension)

4.) Hierarchy Conflicts (disputes regarding who’s in command)

It’s generally recognized that Task Conflicts are beneficial, as they improve decision making and performance. On earth, Relationship and Hierarchy conflicts can be lessened by avoidance, that is, taking a break from each other to “cool off.” But in an isolated and confined environment, seemingly small conflicts can build over time with repercussions for others in the group. NASA has some evidence that when interpersonal disagreements aren’t resolved, crew members direct their frustration at earth-bound Mission Control.

NASA is exploring how crew members handle the isolation of long duration missions with the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA), a 650-square-foot habitat with four volunteers, and Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog (CHAPEA) designed for a year or more.

NASA recognizes the vital importance of understanding conflict in space. It’s been suggested that crews work together beforehand to develop norms on how to handle disputes.

These confinement studies will certainly result in recommendations of better ways to handle conflicts, whether earth-bound or in outer space.

Mediators will tell you during many sessions one party will say, “I’ll drop this case if I can just hear an apology.”

Apologies are difficult for many simply because we’ve been taught it’s an admission of guilt. But there are several ways to say “I’m sorry.” For example, when a person is willing to say something like, “I’m sorry this dispute ever happened” or “I’m sorry what this argument has done to our relationship,” the doors to working toward an agreement are often opened.

Researchers identified the components of an effective apology and here are some to consider:

1.) A statement to frame the apology, for example, “I apologize”

2.) An expression of regret or sadness

3.) An identification of what happened

4.) Acknowledgement of responsibility for what happened

5.) An explanation of why the event occurred

6.) A promise that it will not reoccur

7.) An offer of repair

8.) A request for forgiveness or reconciliation

In one mediation when a party refused to apologize, I asked them in a private meeting how much they were willing to lose by not choosing to do so. It became evident that not being willing to say “I’m sorry” was very, very expensive. The party was then willing to consider what they could meaningfully apologize for without being perceived as the guilty party. Settlement was reached after a simple “I’m really sorry we couldn’t have worked this out earlier with less expense to both of us.”

That was enough to get the parties talking.