Group dynamics is defined as the behavioral and attitudinal characteristics of a group (Levi, 2007). Therefore, this paper is concerned with the analysis of the group dynamics of the group in Apollo 13. Basically, it highlights the effectiveness of the group, its leadership, the communication and how decisions were made. The paper is also devoted to the analysis of how the group handled conflict and controversies that were encountered in the course of pursuing the group goals and objectives. Similarly, the role of creativity in the overall group process of the group in Apollo 13 is illustrated.
According to LaFasto and Larson, (2001), the effectiveness of a team is determined by six factors. These are problem solving, experience, openness, supportiveness, personal style, and being action oriented. These attributes are leveraged under an incensed pressure in Apollo 13.
In the Apollo 13, teams had the ability to handle diverse scenarios. This was tested before the departure during the training sessions. Besides, the team members had a personal connection. This immensely contributed to the team effectiveness. In the opening scene of the movie, we watch the group members having barbeque jointly with their family members. It is vivid that team mates had developed friendship and relationships that is far beyond personal lives and work, including immediate families. This increased the level of the effectiveness of the group. This shows team effectiveness since most newly established teams always lack the luxury of knowing one another intimately as was in Apollo 13.
The mission of the Apollo 13 was planned to be a trip to the moon. Three astronauts, Fred Haise, Jim Lovell and Jack Swigert took the initiative to accomplish the mission. They were all knowledgeable and experienced about the mission. In particular, their captain Jim Lovell had a wealth of experience since he had been to the space on the Apollo 11. This experience contributed to the effectiveness of the group.
Both the ground control team and the crew in the Apollo 13 demonstrated higher ability of problem solving. Their ability to solve problems was combined with higher degree of trust for each other. This is tested at various points in the movie. At one time in the movie, the team effectively follows instructions on building carbon (IV) oxide filter from the available items in space craft. This typifies effective functioning of teams since the filter’s initial construction was done by the control team on the ground and thus had to be communicated to the space craft by radio. This was done successfully.
The team’s ability to solve a problem is also demonstrated in their problem with navigation equipment. This occurs where the team could not access the navigation tools. After realizing that the navigation tools could not be accessed, the crew worked together to ensure that their trajectory is not lost. To avoid losing trajectory of the Earth, they kept the moon centered in the window. Only a fully functional team could come up with such a quicker and effective response to arrest the situation.
Strong leadership is as well evident. Captain Lovell demonstrates strong leadership in the film. Basically, to enhance team building, Lovell allows his team to work on vast scenarios until desired results which they all felt acceptable are achieved. His ability to nurture trust and higher cohesion increased the team’s performance. In the film, team performance is accomplished members ability to predict each member’s moves and cultivate the trust which was of importance in the harsh environment they were about to face (Lafasto and Larson, 2001). Jim Lovell also showed the capability of making challenging decisions at critical times. Some days before the launch, it was assumed that Ken Mattingly was going to suffer measles during the flight. Captain Lovell was faced with a tough decision on whether to replace Ken with John Swigert or to let the whole team replaced and thus move back to a different mission. Jim’s decision to have a crew member replaced was indeed a tough one because of the longer time that had been taken in building the ability of the team to function together.
Equally, having a sick crew member was likely to make the mission unsuccessful. Since John Swigert could perform the task, adding him was a risk that Lovell had to take due to the budget cuts. Interestingly, Lovell went ahead to make the replacement. He had full ownership of the decision. This demonstrates Lovell as a true leader. A leader who was able to own his decisions that posed greater impacts to the group’s own experience.
In another instance, Captain Lovell notices that it was impossible to complete the mission and therefore landing in the moon would not be possible. To strongly show his appreciation to the team, Lovell leaves his seat to enable the crew take turn in seeing up close the moon. Basically, in the entire film, respect is given between fellow astronauts and Lovell. Both observed respect for one another.
The group demonstrated higher ability in handling controversy and conflict. Disagreement took place just two days before launching. The flight’s surgeon--Dr.Chuck--prediction of the likelihood of Ken Mattingly getting ill resulted in a disagreement between him and Jim Lovell. Lovell plainly disregarded the idea of replacing Ken with Jack Swigert. The conflict was however amicably solved through active listening. Jim actively listened to Dr.Chuck, the surgeon, and the NASA director and accepted their decision since it was best for everyone in accomplishing the mission.
Also, disagreement was noticed at a point when the astronauts got stuck in the space. Fred and Jack engaged in a direct disagreement about a re-entry plan. Fred notifies Jack that the only flight they had in order to get home was that of Aquarius. Jack perceives the statement differently. An argument ensures since he thinks that Fred implies that it is him who is responsible for other flight’s damages. Jim effectively solves the conflict by telling Jack to focus on the issue and not simply bad for himself. Generally, Lovell took ownership of the conflict. This put the team members at ease. The team was able to redirect their personal issues towards the solution and the situation. Lovell demonstrated the ability of solving conflicts by using basically two conflict resolution types, i.e. personal or soft and legitimated or harsh conflict resolution.
Creativity and risk-taking was also displayed in the film basically to assist in accomplishing the mission. The team creatively solved the problem posed by the navigation equipment. After noticing that the navigation tools were inaccessible, they creatively kept the moon centered in the window to avoid losing the trajectory of the earth. This basically aided in achieving the group’s mission--trajectory of the earth.
LaFasto, F. and Larson, C. (2001). When Teams Work Best. Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications, Inc.
Levi, D. (2007). Group Dynamics for Teams.2nd edition. Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications, Inc.
