FLOW AT WORK

Flow can be defined as the experience of being fully engaged with the task at hand,
unburdened by outside concerns or worries. Flow is an enjoyable state of effort-
less attention, complete absorption, and focused energy. The pivotal role of flow in
fostering good performance and high productivity has led psychologists to study
the features and outcomes of this experience in the workplace, in order to ascertain
the impact of flow on individual and organizational well-being, and to identify
strategies to increase the workers’ opportunities for flow in job tasks.
This ground-breaking new collection is the first book to provide a compre-
hensive understanding of flow in the workplace that includes a contribution from
the founding father of flow research, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. On a conceptual
level, this book clarifies the features and structure of flow experience, and provides
research-based evidence of how flow can be measured in the workplace on an
empirical level, as well as exploring how it impacts on motivation, productivity, and
well-being. By virtue of its rigorous but also practical approach, the book represents
a useful tool for both scientists and practitioners. The collection addresses a number
of key issues, including:

• Core components of how the idea of flow differs from experience in the work
context
• Organizational and task-related conditions fostering flow at work
• How flow can be measured in the workplace
• The organizational and personal implications of flow
• The relationship between task features and flow opportunities at work

Featuring contributions from some of the most active researchers in the field, Flow
at Work: Measurement and Implications is an important book in an emerging field of
study. The concept of flow has enormous implications for organizations as well as
the individual, and this volume will be of interest to all students and researchers in
organizational/occupational psychology and positive psychology, as well as prac-
titioners and consultants with an interest in employee motivation and well-being.

Clive Fullagar is a professor at Kansas State University, USA.

Antonella Delle Fave is a professor of psychology at the University of Milano, Italy.

Current Issues in Work and Organizational Psychology

Series Editor: Arnold B. Bakker

Current Issues in Work and Organizational Psychology is a series of edited books that
reflect the state-of-the-art areas of current and emerging interest in the psychologi-
cal study of employees, workplaces, and organizations.
Each volume is tightly focused on a particular topic and consists of seven to ten
chapters contributed by international experts. The editors of individual volumes are
leading figures in their areas and provide an introductory overview.
Example topics include: digital media at work, work and the family, workahol-
ism, modern job design, positive occupational health, and individualized deals.

Towards Inclusive Organizations

Determinants of successful diversity management at work
Edited by Sabine Otten, Karen Van Der Zee, and Marilynn Brewer

Well-being and Performance at Work

The role of context
Edited by Marc van Veldhoven and Riccardo Peccei

Employee Recruitment, Selection, and Assessment

Contemporary Issues for Theory and Practice
Edited by Ioannis Nikolaou and Janneke K. Oostrom

Idiosyncratic Deals between Employees and Organizations

Conceptual issues, applications, and the role of coworkers
Edited by Matthijs Bal and Denise Rousseau

The Psychology of Humor at Work

Edited by Christopher Robert
FLOW AT WORK
Measurement and Implications

Edited by Clive Fullagar and

Antonella Delle Fave
First published 2017
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2017 selection and editorial matter, Clive Fullagar and Antonella Delle
Fave; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of the editors to be identified as the author of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted
in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-84872-277-4 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-84872-278-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-31587-158-5 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
CONTENTS

Preface vii

1 Flow at work: the evolution of a construct 1

Clive Fullagar, Antonella Delle Fave, and Steve Van Krevelen

2 Measuring flow at work 28

Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

3 Capturing within-person changes in flow at work:

theoretical importance and research methodologies 50
Despoina Xanthopoulou

4 What predicts flow at work?: theoretical and empirical

perspectives 66
Evangelia Demerouti and Anne Mäkikangas

5 Redefining flow at work 81

Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

6 The consequences of flow 106

Susana Llorens and Marisa Salanova

7 Applications of flow to work 119

Giovanni B. Moneta
vi Contents

8 Flow in the context of industrial and organizational

psychology: the case of work motivation 140
Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples

9 Work, cultures, and the culture of work: flow across

countries and professions 157
Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

10 Will work ever be fun again? 176

Sam Spurlin and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

Index 190
PREFACE

The chapters in this book are examples of academic debates regarding flow and
research that attempts to address some of these issues. There are many questions that
still need to be addressed if flow is to find its way into the pantheon of variables
that are at the center of the work experience. Nonetheless, we feel that this book
constitutes a good start.
In Chapter 1, Clive Fullagar, Antonella Delle Fave, and Steve Van Krevelen out-
line the history, definition, and development of the construct of flow. We place the
conceptualization of flow into the psychological context of the time, pointing out
how flow shifted the focus of academic scrutiny away from trying to understand
why we engage in activities toward an analysis of the actual experience of absorp-
tion. The chapter describes how academic research has applied the construct of flow
to an understanding of intense and positive involvement in work. The chapter out-
lines congruent theoretical frameworks that broaden our understanding of flow in
the workplace and identifies organizational and individual predictors and outcomes
of the experience. We proceed to outline some questions that remain and need to
be addressed if flow is to establish itself as a central construct in the literature on the
psychology of work.
Chapter 2, by Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser, addresses the issue of mea-
suring flow. These authors start by discussing the many-faceted complexity of flow
that raises the issue of whether flow should be measured as a multi- or unidimen-
sional construct. Furthermore, there seems to be some confusion in distinguishing
between the preconditions, components, and outcomes of the flow experience. The
chapter considers the strengths and weaknesses of a variety of methodologies that
have been used to assess flow, including declarative (interviews, surveys, and experi-
ence sampling methods) and nondeclarative (neural and psychophysiological) mea-
sures. The authors point out how these methodologies have produced evidence that
both supports and refutes theoretical conceptualizations of flow. Specific examples
viii Preface

are provided of scales that have been used by researchers studying flow. The chapter
concludes with advice to researchers concerning which measurement approach is
most appropriate according to the research question being addressed.
In Chapter 3 Despoina Xanthopoulou addresses some of the challenges confront-
ing researchers wishing to capture the dynamic nature of flow at work. Although
flow has trait-like components, it is predominantly a state-like construct. The chap-
ter summarizes the empirical evidence that has indicated significant within-person
fluctuations in the experience of flow. This is contradictory to much research that
has studied optimal experience as a “trait-like” construct and analyzed flow from
a cross-sectional, between-individual perspective. Studying both the within- and
between-individual variance in flow has several important theoretical implications.
First, such research captures the entirety and complexity of the flow experience at
work. Second, it shifts the focus to understanding the proximal and situational trig-
gers of flow. The chapter concludes by outlining the advantages and disadvantages
of research methodologies that enable both the trait and state components of flow
to be captured in the workplace.
Evangelia Demerouti and Anne Mäkikangas (Chapter 4) elaborate on the nature
of the flow experience specifically as it relates to the work context. These authors
distinguish between the operationalizations of work flow and work engagement.
These authors expound on four theoretical frameworks that have been used to
understand the phenomenon of flow at work: (1) the job characteristics model
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980); (2) the job demands-resources model (Demerouti,
Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001); (3) the broaden-and-build theory of positive
emotions (Fredrickson, 1998); and (4) affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano,
1996). These theories are used to develop propositions regarding the relationships
between work and flow. Finally, Demerouti and Mäkikangas identify some personal,
work-, and task-related predictors of optimal experience at work and the implica-
tions these have for both researching flow and crafting the workplace to facilitate
the flow experience.
Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro (Chapter 5) emphasize a changing picture in how
we define and study flow at work. They describe work-related flow as a dynamic
experience that changes over time and from task to task. Using a nonlinear dynami-
cal systems (NDS) approach, the authors argue that cross-sectional, static studies of
flow fail to capture its ever changing and fragile nature. Flow needs to be investi-
gated intrapersonally and longitudinally because of its lack of stasis and homogeneity.
Based on chaos theory, a NDS model enables us to study the complex, fluctuating,
and nonlinear properties of flow at work. Defining flow as a dynamic experience
has practical as well as theoretical implications. Specifically the prediction and mea-
surement of flow become more difficult. The chapter outlines research strategies
that can be used to study the intrapersonal dynamics of flow over time and provide
an alternative knowledge of the flow process other than that generated by tradi-
tional linear models. The authors conclude the chapter with a description of how a
more dynamic understanding of flow at work enables the workplace to be crafted
to increase flow. The organizational and individual implications of this are discussed.
 Preface ix

The consequences of flow at the individual and organizational levels are dis-
cussed by Susana Llorens and Marisa Salanova in Chapter 6. The authors provide
an overview of the empirical literature on the topic of flow outcomes and conse-
quences at work. The studies described in the chapter converge in showing that in
the work domain flow promotes positive mood, active coping, task engagement, job
satisfaction, creativity, and energy at the individual level. At the organizational level,
flow supports a positive organizational climate, spontaneity, in- and extra-role per-
formance, and service quality, as well as team effectiveness and performance. These
outcomes are triggered by a process of positive cycles, or spirals, so that the positive
experience of flow enhances the onset of more positive personal and environmental
resources at work. From this perspective, the phenomenon of emotional contagion is
also discussed in relation to the transmission of flow experience at work among team
workers, both vertically or hierarchically, and horizontally among colleagues sharing
the same task and responsibility. Future research advancements are outlined, and the
potential of promoting flow at work is discussed in the twofold perspective of improv-
ing individual workers’ quality of life and organizations’ performance and service.
In Chapter 7 Giovanni Moneta explores the strategies that may be adopted by
organizations to foster employees’ flow at work. Taking into account the empiri-
cal evidence of the match between perceived challenges and skills as the core
antecedent of flow, Moneta highlights four basic strategies to support the onset
and maintenance of flow at work in the long run: the first one is the step-by-step
increase of challenges, allowing for a smooth and gradual enhancement of the
person’s skills; the second one is the promotion of teamwork, exploiting the con-
tagious properties of flow that have been identified in several studies. The third
strategy is the selection of “flow-ers” (people specifically showing flow prone-
ness on the basis of personality features); the fourth one is the promotion of flow
metacognition – that is, the individuals’ awareness of the specific conditions and
prerequisites that allow them to enter flow. The success of the strategy is closely
related to the constraints of the organizational context in which the intervention
to promote workers’ flow is conducted. The chapter ends with some reflections
concerning the necessity to avoid excessive flow at work, based on empirical evi-
dence showing that it can lead to lower job performance, as well as psychophysical
health problems. Future research directions are proposed, such as the importance
of studying other positive nonflow states, such as mindfulness, that do not require
the tunneling of attention typical of flow but were nonetheless found to foster
employees’ well-being and performance.
In Chapter 8 Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples focus their contribution
on the convergences between flow theory and the concepts and constructs elabo-
rated within the domain of work motivation. After pointing to the relative lack
of attention to flow within the domain of organizational psychology research, the
authors delve into the connections between motivational dimensions of flow – such
as perceived goals and intrinsic rewards – and the motivation theories prominently
taken as reference points in organizational psychology. Moving from the empirical
evidence showing that in order for flow to arise individuals must be engaged in
x Preface

a task performed in view of clear goals, the chapter discusses some of the constructs
that may be fruitfully matched with flow theory in order to attain a description of
motivation at work that encompasses the positive role of flow. To this purpose, the
chapter offers a thorough examination of the relationship between flow theory and
four constructs derived from work psychology: goal setting; goal framing; expec-
tancy theory; and self-efficacy beliefs. At the same time, as highlighted in other
chapters, the authors emphasize the need to take into account the intrinsic job
characteristics, and the worker’s flexibility in adjusting to the changing work envi-
ronment and conditions. In the final section, researchers are invited to more deeply
explore work-related flow, as a potentially fruitful area of investigation that could
shed light on the motivational processes of workers, and provide suggestions about
motivational strategies to promote performance.
Chapter 9, by Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi, addresses two topics that
have been substantially neglected within flow research and work psychology. The
first one is the work experience of people engaged in traditional preindustrial jobs.
The second topic is the interplay between the work experience and the long-term
developmental trajectory of the individual, exemplified through data collected
among immigrants who moved to Europe from non-Western countries. The chap-
ter emphasizes the cultural bias affecting psychological studies, which prominently
involve workers living in industrial and urban contexts, and generalize the find-
ings to the whole working population. Based on data collected across countries
and occupations, the authors highlight some peculiarities of the work experience
reported by people living in rural areas or engaged in small-scale craft produc-
tion. For example, the paradox of flow at work (low intrinsic motivation in spite
of engagement) detected in modern jobs does not emerge in traditional occupa-
tions, such as handicrafts and farming, that support higher levels of autonomy and
creativity. International findings also highlight the meaning and relevance of work
to the person’s long-term goals and social identity. This important component of
work can counterbalance the limited potential for flow characterizing some job
typologies, promoting the social identity of workers, especially migrant ones. These
issues are discussed in light of the current challenges faced by work economy at the
international level.
In the final chapter (Chapter 10) Sam Spurlin and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
provide a concise conceptual overview of the history, current challenges, and future
directions of flow at work. They describe the material and experiential dichotomy
between work and leisure as the by-product of the industrial transition, leading to
workers’ alienation, through the disconnection of individual actions from the final
outcome. The social problems generated by this process, including reduced perfor-
mance and productivity, promoted stakeholders’ awareness of the needs and ideal
role of the individual worker, leading to the large amount of studies focused on
job motivations and the development of models aimed at identifying the ideal fit
between job characteristics and human features. Increasing emphasis has been put
on the promotion of individual autonomy at work, and the studies on flow con-
firmed the pivotal role of this dimension in fostering workers’ well-being. Other
dimensions related to flow, such as challenge/skill balance, setting clear goals, and
 Preface xi

getting clear feedback about task progress, represent core aspects that should be con-
sidered in any intervention aimed at fostering the perception of work as a positive
force and resource in daily life. At the methodological level, the recent advances in
wearable technology allow for the self-monitoring of the experiential and physi-
ological dimensions in real time, thus providing invaluable information that can be
fruitfully used for crafting work to be more meaningful and fulfilling.
1
FLOW AT WORK
The evolution of a construct

Clive Fullagar, Antonella Delle Fave,

and Steve Van Krevelen

What motivates us to work? This is a question that has engaged humankind since
the earliest philosophers. Despite the interest in this fundamental question, there
have been almost as many answers as there have been thinkers who have considered
the issue. Even consensus on a definition of work motivation has been elusive, prob-
ably because the concept is so complex. Flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975),
one of the most original constructs developed in psychology during the previous
century, can partially help us answer such a challenging question. Its positive and
rewarding features, which include deep concentration, involvement, and enjoyable
absorption in an activity, may shed light on at least one of the driving forces leading
people to invest massive amounts of energies and resources in the work domain –
namely, intrinsic motivation.
The primary aim of this book is to gather the contributions of different research-
ers who have been trying to delve into the complex issue of flow experience at
work, its antecedents and its outcomes. In order to fully grasp the contribution of
flow theory to organizational psychology, we will start with the analysis of its dis-
tinctive motivational component, through a brief historical overview of the devel-
opment of the concept of intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

That individuals might engage in an activity because the activity is perceived as
rewarding, in and of itself, is a notion that has not always been prevalent in the moti-
vational literature (Deci, 1975). Early understandings of motivation were dominated
by mechanistic theories, such as psychoanalysis and behaviorism (Pinder, 1984).
Freud (1915/1927) believed that humans are driven to engage in behaviors by
basic instincts and the interaction of these instincts with environmental constraints.
Behavioral approaches emphasized the environmental contingencies that establish
2 Clive Fullagar et al.

mechanistic associations between stimuli, responses, and reinforcements (Skinner,

1953, 1971). Essentially behavior can be explained by the organism’s motivation to
seek out appetitive and pleasant outcomes and to avoid punishing and unpleasant
consequences. As Hunt (1965) pointed out, it was believed that “without the action
of such extrinsic drive-stimuli, organisms [would] presumably become quiescent
(Freud, 1915; Hull, 1943, p. 194).” The behaviorist emphasis on studying observable
phenomena, in the interest of developing a scientific psychology, largely excluded
internal processes as an explanation of what makes individuals engage in certain
behaviors (Watson, 1913).
Woodworth (1918, 1958), in his behavior-primacy theory, was the first psy-
chologist to postulate that behavior can be self-perpetuating. He proposed that
humans are active organisms that can engage in intrinsically motivated behavior and
that an activity can provide its own drive (Woodworth, 1918). Although Wood-
worth did not specifically study or describe an intrinsic motivational process, he
planted the seed for later theories, such as Allport’s (1937) notion of “functional
autonomy.” It was Allport who first stipulated that the drive to engage in an activity
may become independent from the motive that initiated the activity such that the
activity becomes self-motivating.
Despite Woodworth’s and Allport’s seminal theories of motivation, behavioral
and mechanistic frameworks dominated the field until the mid-1950s. It was at this
time that several studies conducted on animals began to recognize the intrinsic com-
ponents of motivation. Specifically, this research demonstrated that animals would
engage in certain behaviors purely out of curiosity or playful exploration, and in
the absence of any extrinsic reward or reinforcement (Berlyne, 1955; Butler, 1953;
Butler & Harlow, 1957; Montgomery, 1954; Myers & Miller, 1954; Welker, 1956).
These experiments indicated “an independent exploratory motive” (White, 1959,
p. 298). Over the course of the decade evidence began to accumulate that certain
kinds of behaviors were not motivated by extrinsic factors. Many animal behaviors
seemed to be driven by inquisitiveness and a need to explore and to effectively
interact with the environment (White, 1959). Furthermore, such inquisitive behav-
ior was more likely to occur in the absence of painful stimulation, homeostatic
needs, and appetitive drives (Hunt, 1965).
At about the same time humanistic psychologists, such as Maslow (1954), Rog-
ers (1961), and Laing (1967), were beginning to question some of the basic tenets
of psychoanalysis and behaviorism. This “third force” in psychology had its roots
in existential philosophical thought (e.g., Sartre, 1957). In contrast to the deter-
minism of the other two psychological approaches, humanistic psychology pos-
ited that individuals were capable of “free will,” and defined themselves through
the choices they made. The humanistic psychological perspective was essentially a
subjective one, attempting to understand behavior through the phenomenological
lens of the individual. Although many of the principles of humanistic psychology
were untested at the time, its theoretical framework provided the impetus for the
development of the notion of intrinsic motivation. For example, Maslow (1954)
distinguished between the basic motivational drives (“deficiency needs”) for sex,
 Flow at work 3

food, and safety, and the higher-order drives (“growth needs”) to actualize talents,
achieve understanding, and fulfill creative potential. Again, the distinction was made
between extrinsic and intrinsic forms of motivation.
It was within this psychological Zeitgeist that the first theories specific to intrin-
sic motivation began to evolve. Many of these theories drew on White’s (1959)
concept of the need to effectively and competently interact with one’s environ-
ment. The need for competence and self-determination was the basis for these
emergent theories. De Charms (1968), for example, believed that the main motivat-
ing force for individuals was the need to be in control of one’s fate and to be per-
sonally effective in changing one’s environment. Deci (1975) conducted research
indicating that people were motivated to engage in many behaviors out of a need
for (a) competence (i.e., to control one’s environment and experience mastery);
(b) relatedness (i.e., to interact and connect with others); and (c) autonomy (i.e., to
be self-determining and the causal agent of one’s life).
Despite the emergence of these theories of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic moti-
vation was still receiving attention, and researchers attempted to understand and
articulate the relationship between these two types of motivations (Deci, 1975).
Behaviorists would argue that extrinsic rewards enhance intrinsic motivation by
providing secondary reinforcement and increasing resistance to extinction (Aron-
freed, 1968; Keller, 1969). Early animal studies (Davis, Settlage, & Harlow, 1950)
partially supported this association by showing that monkeys’ intrinsic interest in
solving a puzzle was initially disrupted by the introduction of extrinsic rewards, but
then increased at a higher level than prior to the presentation of food. However, de
Charms (1968) proposed an alternative explanation to this phenomenon, hypoth-
esizing that extrinsic rewards would decrease intrinsic motivation because they shift
the locus of causality away from the individual to the reward. A series of experi-
ments conducted in the 1970s demonstrated that if individuals were offered mon-
etary rewards for performing an intrinsically motivated activity, intrinsic motivation
would decrease, particularly if the rewards were made contingent on performance
(Deci, 1971; Greene, Sternberg, & Lepper, 1976; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973;
Mellstrom & Johannesson, 2008; Rosenfield, Folger, & Adelman, 1980).
In the attempt to explain the overjustification effect, several theoretical frame-
works were developed. Self-perception theory (Bem, 1967) posits that people make
inferences about their behavior on the basis of external constraints. The use of
external rewards predisposes individuals to attribute the reason for their own behav-
ior to external contingencies, shifting their explanation from intrinsic to extrinsic
reasons. Alternatively, cognitive evaluation theory (Deci, 1975) suggests that extrin-
sic rewards, particularly monetary, are perceived as being coercive and detracting
from the individual’s sense of control. Therefore intrinsic motivation is inhibited
by external rewards. Consistent with self-determination theory (de Charms, 1968;
Deci, 1971), external rewards diminish perceptions of competence, increase external
perceived locus of causality, and promote disinterest in the activity (Deci & Ryan,
1985). However, certain kinds of external regulation, such as feedback and praise,
can facilitate perceived competence, increase a sense of autonomy, and positively
4 Clive Fullagar et al.

affect intrinsic motivation. Nonetheless, this research further made apparent the
distinction between intrinsically and extrinsically motivated behavior.

“Flow”
It was against this intellectual backdrop that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a PhD student
at the University of Chicago, began studying the psychology of creativity. While
studying artists Csikszentmihalyi became interested in why painters would engage
in art in the absence of extrinsic rewards, food, drink, and sleep, and despite consid-
erable physical discomfort (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In other words, he noticed that
the creative process of artists seemed entirely intrinsically motivated and he began
a systematic exploration of the associated experience. In the early 1970s Csikszent-
mihalyi and several graduate students began to interview individuals about their
subjective experiences in a variety of intrinsically motivated activities, including
rock-climbing, chess, dancing, basketball, and surgery. These studies were to form
the basis of flow theory.
Originally, the term autotelic state was used to describe this self-directed optimal
experience, from the Greek words auto (meaning ‘self ’) and telos (meaning ‘goal’).
The label ‘flow’ derived from the descriptions provided by several interviewees who
recurrently emphasized the fluid process of playful effort and concentration as like
being carried along on a stream of water. Csikszentmihalyi defined this dynamic
state as “the holistic sensation that people feel when they act with total involvement”
(1975, p. 36). Regardless of the activity surveyed, flow was consistently described as
a mental state of being totally immersed in, and absorbed by, an enjoyable activity.
Both qualitative and quantitative research over a variety of work and leisure activi-
ties indicated that the experience of flow consists of the following six components
(Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009):

1 An intense focus and concentration on the task at hand.

2 A merging of action and awareness in that the activity becomes spontaneous
and automatic.
3 A sense of control over what one is doing.
4 A loss of self-consciousness and a lack of concern for or about oneself.
5 A transformation of one’s perception of time passing.
6 A sense of enjoyment in the intrinsic motivation of the activity.

While these six experiential components are considered essential indicators of

flow and discussed as discrete entities, it is important to understand that an indi-
vidual experiencing flow is unlikely to be aware of any particular component. The
indicators of flow are experienced simultaneously, which is to say that flow is a
holistic experience, a by-product of an individual being consumed in an intrinsi-
cally motivating activity.
In line with theories of intrinsic motivation that emphasize regulatory com-
patibility between individual characteristics (e.g., skill level, need for achievement
 Flow at work 5

and dispositional factors) and situational characteristics (e.g., the demands of the
task, goal clarity, and resources; Keller & Bless, 2008), three preconditions were
identified as necessary to induce flow. These may be argued to be structural task
characteristics rather than components of the subjective experience of flow (Naka-
mura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). The first precondition – one of the core tenets
of flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997) – is represented by an optimal bal-
ance between the challenges that individuals perceive in the task and the skills that
they perceive to possess in performing the task. Typically, both skills and chal-
lenge must be at a moderate to high level to experience flow (Csikszentmihalyi,
1975; Massimini & Carli, 1988; Massimini, Csikszentmihalyi, & Carli, 1987; Sartori
et al., 2014). When the task is overly challenging, there is a greater likelihood that
individuals will experience anxiety and stress (Sartori & Delle Fave, 2014). Flow and
performance anxiety have been shown to be incompatible and mutually exclusive
states (Fullagar, Knight, & Sovern, 2013). On the other hand, if the task is too easy,
there is the tendency for the individual to experience boredom and apathy (Delle
Fave & Massimini, 2005). The importance of challenge/skill balance in flow theory
has been empirically supported by several studies (Bassi, Ferrario, Ba, Delle Fave, &
Viganò, 2012; Delle Fave & Bassi, 2000; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2004, 2005; Delle
Fave, Bassi, & Massimini, 2003; Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, & Ran-
dall, 2005; Engeser & Rheinberg, 2008; Fullagar et al., 2013; Haworth & Evans,
1995; Hektner & Asakawa, 2000). However, some of these same studies also showed
that relatively high levels of flow can be experienced when skills exceed challenge,
suggesting that the relationship between the challenge of a task and the skills nec-
essary to perform it may be moderated by certain task-related factors (Engeser &
Rheinberg, 2008; Fullagar et al., 2013; Hektner & Asakawa, 2000). Specifically, both
the volitional nature and the perceived importance of the task have been shown
to be essential moderators. Tasks that are engaged in voluntarily (e.g., practicing a
musical instrument, knitting, and cooking) may induce flow, even though they may
not be particularly challenging given the skill level of the performer (Fullagar et al.,
2013; Hektner & Asakawa, 2000). Also, flow can be experienced when the activity
is not particularly challenging but is important and meaningful to the actor (Eng-
eser & Rheinberg, 2008).
A second precondition of flow is that the task should have clear intrinsic and
proximal goals (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997). This is consistent with goal-setting
theory that stipulates that most human behavior is goal-directed (Locke, Shaw,
Saari, & Latham, 1981). A considerable amount of empirical evidence suggests
that goals are a crucial component of human motivation and are strongly associated
with the effort, persistence, and direction of work-related behavior (Pinder, 2008).
However, there is at least one important distinction between goal-setting theory
and flow theory relative to goals. Goal-setting theory has mostly focused on the
relation between extrinsic goals and task and extra-role performance (Ryan & Deci,
2000), while flow theory has mostly emphasized intrinsic goals and their relation
to constructs like satisfaction and well-being (e.g., Sheldon et al., 2004). Waples,
Knight, and Fullagar (2013) found that establishing extrinsic goals increased
6 Clive Fullagar et al.

performance on a task, but inhibited the experience of flow. These results cor-
roborate the overjustification effect (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999, 2001) in that
they suggest that goals may constitute an external constraint, similar to extrinsic
rewards that shift an individual’s attention away from the intrinsic enjoyment of
the task to achieving some external performance demand. Self-perception theory
(Bem, 1967) and cognitive evaluation theory (Deci, 1975) propose that extrinsi-
cally imposed goals shift attribution for behavior, and control of behavior, from
internal to external causes and constraints, and consequently decrease intrinsic
motivation (Waples et al., 2013). It would seem, therefore, that goals are an impor-
tant precondition to flow, but that these goals must be inherent in the task and not
externally imposed as a performance criterion. Other empirical evidences (Bassi &
Delle Fave, 2012b; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2005) further suggest the usefulness of
distinguishing between goal pursuit (the volitional component of motivation) and
activity desirability (related to the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic moti-
vation) in the assessment of flow. This aspect is specifically related to the so-called
paradox of flow at work, which will be discussed in detail in the following pages,
and in several chapters of this volume.
The final (and least researched) precondition to flow is that the task should
provide the individual with clear feedback, particularly with respect to how much
progress is being made toward achieving the goals inherent in the task (Csikszent-
mihalyi, 1990, 1997). However, to maximize the impact of feedback in facilitating
flow, it is important that the individual believes that it is his or her own skills, efforts,
and abilities that are instrumental in the successful performance of the task (Thomas &
Mathieu, 1994).

Flow and work

The first conceptualizations of flow were motivated by an interest in understanding
the enjoyment of creativity and play (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In the early 1970s
psychology, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi had just started a faculty position at the Uni-
versity of Chicago and realized that extramural funding would be necessary in order
to develop his program of research. He submitted a grant proposal to the National
Institute of Mental Health to study playfulness in the context of work satisfaction
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). The outcome of this project was Csikszentmihalyi’s first
‘flow’ publication, Beyond Boredom and Anxiety (subtitled Experiencing Flow in Work
and Play). In this book, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) argued that the distinction between
leisure and work activities is artificial and that there are many work-related activities
that are highly enjoyable and self-motivating. One of the objectives of the original
research on flow was to study both play and work activities to ascertain if the same
intrinsically motivating characteristics pertained to both domains (Csikszentmih-
alyi, 1975). The study included participants engaged in a variety of occupations,
including surgeons, musical composers, and teachers.
This early investigation produced several valuable insights about the nature of
optimal experience (a synonym of flow) at work. First, the reasons for enjoying
 Flow at work 7

work and leisure activities were remarkably similar. Consistently, and regardless of
domain, people reported to engage in an activity because it provided (a) a sense
of enjoyment; (b) the opportunity to use and develop skills; and (c) a structure or
pattern (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Second, the psychological characteristics (intense
concentration, action/awareness merging, sense of control, loss of self-consciousness,
time distortion, and enjoyment) and the preconditions (challenge/skill balance,
goal clarity, and feedback) of flow were relatively reliable and consistent across all
the types of activities studied. Third, and perhaps most importantly, regardless of
whether individuals were climbing mountains, playing chess, or performing surgery,
they tended to report enjoying those activities that enabled them to challenge the
limits of their abilities and provide opportunity for their expansion. These early
findings suggested that the dichotomy between work and leisure activities may be
arbitrary and perhaps even meaningless. The nature of enjoyable, intrinsically moti-
vating activities is the same regardless of whether those activities are performed at
work or at leisure.
There is growing evidence that workers tend to spend more time in flow during
work rather than in leisure activities. Some studies show that enjoyment, concen-
tration, activation, and creativity are higher in work-related flow than in leisure
activities (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2003; LeFevre,
1988). This may be due to work having a greater potential to offer tasks that pro-
mote the perception of an optimal balance between high challenges and high skills.
Nonetheless, an interesting paradox has been revealed about the quality of the flow
experience at work. Even though workers report experiencing flow more often at
work, they also report a desire to be doing something other than the flow-inducing
work activity (Bassi & Delle Fave, 2012a; Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi,
2007). It is possible that social conventions about work and the obligatory nature
of work may mitigate the positive experience of flow-inducing work (Csikszent-
mihalyi & LeFevre, 1989). Another possibility is that flow activities at work are
fatiguing. Debus, Sonnentag, Deutsch, and Nussbeck (2014) found that levels of
flow decreased steadily throughout the day for workers who started their workday
in a state of nonrecovery.
The paradox of flow at work has also been explained in terms of the two facets
of motivation described earlier – namely, goal pursuit and activity desirability (Delle
Fave, 2007; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2005; Haworth & Hill, 1992). Flow is often
described as an intrinsically motivated, self-determined state (Keller & Bless, 2008)
that is disrupted by external regulations and controls. However, work consists of
both extrinsic and intrinsic motivational conditions. Research has shown that the
occurrence of flow experience during required work activities is contingent on
whether individuals want to do them and would not rather be doing something else
(Haworth & Hill, 1992). Self-determination theory distinguishes between different
types of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and has been used to explain the paradox
of flow at work. Flow can be experienced in tasks that are compulsory and exter-
nally regulated, if individuals find the task to be meaningful, and to challenge their
professional abilities (Bassi & Delle Fave, 2012a, 2012b). Consequently, the paradox
8 Clive Fullagar et al.

of flow at work does not seem to be purely determined by the extent of autonomous
regulation that the work provides. Optimal experience in the workplace is more
contingent on the meaningfulness of the work and the opportunity it provides for
the expression of personal and professional skills. Both the structure of job tasks and
social dimensions play a role in this aspect, thus raising the issue of possible varia-
tions in the flow paradox based on the typology of occupation under examination,
especially its potential for creativity, self-expression and growth, social contribution,
and competence development. An extensive cross-cultural comparison between
different typologies of jobs highlighted that people involved in highly challeng-
ing, socially meaningful, and creative work activities, such as helping professions,
arts, and crafts, do not report the flow paradox in their work experience (Delle
Fave, Massimini, & Bassi, 2011; Delle Fave & Bassi, this volume; Delle Fave & Zager
Kocjan, 2017).

A developing framework for flow at work

Over the last forty years, there has been an increasing interest in the construct of
flow among both scientists and practitioners. Although the core components of
flow were found to be remarkably consistent across work contexts, different theo-
retical frameworks have been used to explain flow’s nomological network. The
most popular model used to identify the characteristics of tasks that generate flow
is Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) job characteristics model (JCM). This is not
surprising, given that the model identifies five core characteristics of work tasks
inducing critical psychological states (CPS) that in their turn influence affective
and behavioral outcomes (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1980). The first character-
istic is skill variety, which refers to the degree to which the job requires different
activities and skills to carry out the task; task identity is the extent to which the
job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work; task significance
indicates the degree to which the job has a meaningful impact on other people;
autonomy refers to the extent to which the worker has independent discretion in
determining the schedule and process of work; and feedback is the extent to which
the job provides the worker with information concerning how well he/she is per-
forming. The relationship between these core job characteristics and their affective,
motivational, and behavioral outcomes is mediated by three CPS: perceived work
meaningfulness, individual responsibility, and knowledge of results. Findings from
several studies highlighted both direct and indirect effects of job characteristics on
CPS and their affective and behavioral outcomes, and the partially mediating role
of CPS in the relationship between job characteristics and their outcomes (Renn &
Vandenberg, 1995).
Both flow theory and the JCM propose characteristics inherent in work tasks
that make work meaningful and foster positive experiences. As specified earlier,
flow preconditions are similar, if not identical, to those outlined by Hackman and
Oldham (1975, 1980). For example, both theories emphasize (a) that tasks should
require the exercise of skills, (b) that the activity should be goal-directed or have task
 Flow at work 9

identity, and (c) the importance of job-specific feedback. Some researchers suggest
that flow is a critical psychological state that mediates the relationship between core
job characteristics and several performance, motivational, and well-being outcomes.
For example, Demerouti (2006) found a positive relation between a global measure
of motivating core job characteristics and flow at work, as well as between flow and
both in-role, or job-specific, and out-of-role, or citizenship, behaviors. Subsequent
research (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009; Maeran & Cangiano, 2013; Nielsen & Cleal,
2010; Steele & Fullagar, 2009) has empirically validated that specific core job char-
acteristics, such as autonomy, skill variety, task significance, and feedback from the
task, increase the likelihood that people will experience flow at work. In addition
Nielson and Cleal (2012) identified role clarity as a stable job characteristic predic-
tive of flow, and planning, problem solving, and evaluation as specific work tasks
conducive to flow.
Another theoretical framework used to understand flow in the workplace is
the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014; Demer-
outi, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). The JD-R model classifies the char-
acteristics of jobs into two general categories: job demands and job resources.
Demands are physical, psychological, and organizational aspects that are depleting
and extoll a personal cost. Resources, on the other hand, are those aspects that
reduce job demands and enhance functioning and stimulate personal growth,
learning, and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Several studies have
established the positive relationship between job resources and flow. For exam-
ple, social support, opportunities for professional development, and supervisory
coaching have been found to be positively associated with optimal experience
(Mäkikangas, Bakker, Aunola, & Demerouti, 2010). Similarly, a longitudinal
study conducted among secondary school teachers highlighted that both personal
resources (self-efficacy beliefs) and job resources (social support and goal orienta-
tion) facilitate work-related flow, which in turn builds on personal and organiza-
tional resources, suggesting an upward spiral effect of flow (Salanova, Bakker, &
Llorens, 2006). This view is consistent with Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001) theory
proposing that momentary positive affective experiences (e.g., flow) have the abil-
ity to broaden thought-action repertoires and build personal resources, thus engen-
dering upward spirals of well-being.
Furthermore, because positive emotional experiences enhance personal
resources they also increase resilience. Recent studies showed that the daily experi-
ence of work flow impacts positively on resiliency by reducing the demands of the
job and facilitating the recovery process (Debus, Sonnentag, Deutsch, & Nussbeck,
2014). Nonwork recovery was also found to influence flow experiences during
subsequent workdays (Debus et al., 2014). These studies emphasize the importance
of blending personal resources and task characteristics as predictors of flow.
Much less research has been undertaken on the outcomes of flow. Recently
Landhäußer and Keller (2012) summarized some of the affective, cognitive,
and behavioral consequences of optimal experience. Flow, as an experiential
phenomenon, is characterized by positive affect (e.g., Clarke & Haworth, 1994;
10 Clive Fullagar et al.

Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009; Shernoff, Csik-
szentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2003). While flow features can be evalu-
ated through cross-sectional design studies, flow outcomes can be investigated
only through a longitudinal approach. Fullagar and Kelloway (2009) conducted
a longitudinal, repeated measures study that tracked architectural students over
the course of a semester in order to establish the causal, cross-lagged relation-
ship between flow and positive affect. The results of this study indicated that
flow was indeed a precursor to positive mood rather than mood being predic-
tive of experiencing flow. Finally, a longitudinal study that tracked fifty-four
older adults over seven consecutive days found that quality or intensity of
the flow experience (rather than frequency) was significantly and positively
associated with positive affect and life satisfaction (Collins, Sarkisian, & Win-
ner, 2009).
Several studies have investigated the consequences of flow in the context of work.
Engagement in flow-inducing work activities has been shown to affect worker
well-being and organizational functioning. For example, the experience of flow is
associated with job satisfaction (Bakker, 2008; Maeran & Cangiano, 2013) and posi-
tive mood (Eisenberger et al., 2005; Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009; LeFevre, 1988). Flow
has also been correlated with both in-role and extra-role performance (Demerouti,
2006; Eisenberger et al., 2005). However, these relationships were found to be mod-
erated by dispositional characteristics, such as the need for achievement (Eisenberger
et al., 2005), conscientiousness (Demerouti, 2006), and the ability to persevere and
stay focused on the task (Keller & Bless, 2008). Flow at work has also been found
to have nonwork repercussions. Specifically, the absorption and enjoyment aspects
of flow have been found to impact energy after work. Flow’s ability to buffer the
effects of stress and to facilitate recuperation is moderated by the individual’s ability
to manage work-related stress and to detach from work (Demerouti, Bakker, Son-
nentag, & Fullagar, 2012).
Of course, the ‘big’ question about the utility of flow in the workplace resides in
the notion of whether optimal experience is associated with optimal performance.
Flow has been correlated to athletes’ peak performance (Jackson & Roberts, 1992;
Jackson, Thomas, Marsh, & Smethurst, 2001; Stein, Kimiecek, Daniels, & Jackson,
1995). However, the relationship between flow and performance may be an indi-
rect one. For example, the association between flow and sport performance has
been found to be mediated by the motivation to practice athletic skills (Schüler &
Brunner, 2009).
A few studies have investigated the relationship between flow and per-
formance at work. In an academic setting, flow was found to be predictive
of successful performance by students in their area of specialization (Csik-
szentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993). More specific to the workplace,
flow was found to be associated with optimal performance (Demerouti &
Fullagar, 2013), as measured through work colleagues’ ratings of in- role (per-
ceived expertise) and extra- role (citizenship behaviors) performance (Demer-
outi, 2006). The relationship between flow and both types of performance
 Flow at work 11

was moderated by conscientiousness. Other studies detected a positive rela-

tionship between skill/challenge balance and supervisor ratings of individual
work performance. This relationship was moderated by need for achievement
(Eisenberger et al., 2005). It would appear that the impact of flow on work
performance may be facilitated by its positive affective components. Positive
mood has been shown to have a favorable impact on performance in a variety
of domains (Bolte, Goschke, & Kuhl, 2003; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005;
Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987). This is particularly so for tasks requiring
spontaneity and creativity (Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001; George & Brief,
1992). The experience of flow in computer interactions has been found to
foster greater communication effectiveness and other positive work outcomes
(Webster, Klebe Trevino, & Ryan, 1993). Similarly, a reciprocal relationship
was detected between the experience of flow and job resources (e.g., auton-
omy, performance feedback, opportunities for promotion) among workers in
an employment agency (Mäkkikangas, Bakker, Aunola, & Demerouti, 2010).
These longitudinal studies suggest that the relationships between flow at work,
personal and organizational resources, and positive work outcomes are recip-
rocal and dynamic, as well as convergent with the literature on positive emo-
tions at work, in spite of the conceptual and structural differences between the
experience of flow and positive emotions.
Experimental studies have also been conducted to explore the relationship
between flow and performance, but they prominently focused on video games, and
therefore their ecological validity as applied to performance on more complex
and extended work tasks is questionable. Moreover, these studies did not provide
clear-cut results. In one of them, a marginally significant and positive effect of flow
on performance was detected (Engeser & Rheinberg, 2008); in another, a negative
relationship between flow and performance goals (Waples et al., 2013), but in most
of the other studies flow was not associated with performance (Keller & Bless,
2008; Keller & Blomann, 2008; Schiefele & Roussakis, 2006). These mixed results
may be attributable to both the differences in flow operationalization across these
studies and the shared choice of task difficulty as primary manipulation, which
may represent a confounding variable when assessing performance (Landhäußer &
Keller, 2012).
In Chapter 8 of this book, Knight and Waples argue that imposing external
performance goals on a task may actually inhibit the flow experience and pro-
duce a negative relationship between flow and performance. The only experi-
mental study that has applied goal-setting theory to flow found that setting
external performance goals predictably increased performance on the task but
detracted from the performer’s experience of flow (Waples et al., 2013). This
raises the question as to whether flow is necessarily good for work organizations.
Absorption in a work-related task to the extent that one loses a sense of time and
is unconcerned about others’ opinions may not be appropriate in many work
environments, where deadlines are important and results can often be achieved
only in teams. There is evidence to suggest that flow has beneficial consequences
12 Clive Fullagar et al.

for the individual, but the organizational benefits are more uncertain. Further-
more, being engaged in a highly challenging task that requires high skill use for
extensive periods of time was found to be associated with negative stressful out-
comes (Hektner et al., 2007). More research is needed to ascertain the positive
and negative consequences of flow both for the individual and the organization,
and the task, situational, and personal moderators of the two different kinds of
outcomes.
Nonetheless, the predominance of research indicates that flow promotes opti-
mal functioning. Research with students suggests that those who experience flow
during academic work perform better and are more persistent in their academic
studies (Bassi, Steca, Delle Fave, & Caprara, 2007; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993).
Adolescents experiencing flow reported higher satisfaction with life, hedonic bal-
ance, and psychological well-being than their counterparts (Bassi, Steca, Monzani,
Greco, & Delle Fave, 2014). Flow has also been positively associated with work
satisfaction (Bryce & Haworth, 2002), in-role behaviors (Demerouti, 2006), and
extra-role behaviors (Demerouti, 2006; Eisenberger et al., 2005).
In sum, there is growing evidence that exposure to positive work experiences,
such as work-related flow, has beneficial consequences for both the individual
and the organization (Bringsén, Andersson, Ejlertsson, & Troein, 2012). A saluto-
genic emphasis that focuses on the positive promotion of health is an important
aspect of positive organizational scholarship and is complementary to the more
predominant pathogenic perspective that emphasizes stress reduction (Bringsén
et al., 2012). Researchers, employers, and stakeholders are increasingly aware that
work needs to be crafted so that individuals can frequently experience positive
states and increase the meaningfulness of what they do (Berg, Wrzesniewski, &
Dutton, 2010). Job crafting has been found to be beneficial for the meaningful-
ness of work and work identity (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), as well as to
improve job satisfaction, commitment, and performance (Ghitulescu, 2006). Fur-
thermore, job crafting was found to be positively associated with work engage-
ment (Bakker, Tims, & Dirks, 2012). There is some evidence that the process
of job crafting can induce the flow experience and consequently its subsequent
positive outcomes (Ko, 2011).
Such findings have important practical implications. Organizations wishing to
enhance employees’ intrinsic motivation and increase optimal work experience are
well-advised to enable workers to engage in tasks that require a breadth of skills and
that instill a sense of autonomy and control.

Some remaining questions

The early research on flow in the workplace has raised more questions about the
construct than it has resolved. This book is an attempt to provide some initial
answers to some of these questions. We would like to end this chapter with what
we see as the main issues confronting researchers if flow is to establish itself in the
lexicon of organizational psychological constructs.
 Flow at work 13

Flow: state or trait?

The overarching purpose of positive psychology is to develop a scientific under-
standing of what makes individuals thrive and life more fulfilling (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). It is not surprising therefore that the construct of flow
is relevant to the movement. Luthans (2002) has termed the application of posi-
tive psychology to the workplace positive organizational behavior (POB). He defines
POB as “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths
and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively man-
aged for performance improvement” (Luthans, 2002, p. 58). This definition includes
several criteria that are important in determining flow’s potential to contribute to
our understanding of behavior at work. Specifically any POB construct should be
(a) positive, (b) measurable, (c) useful to promote better performance, and (d) capa-
ble of being developed (Luthans, 2002). We have already established that flow is
both a positive and measurable psychological state. Later on we will outline research
that has established its association with optimal performance. To establish whether
flow is capable of being developed requires determining whether it is a state or a
trait construct.
The identification of the state-like or trait-like nature of flow has important
practical and theoretical implications. If flow is trait-like, then the implications for
organizations center around selecting individuals who have a predisposition for opti-
mal experience. If flow is a fluctuating state, then the focus becomes crafting jobs
to enable individuals to experience flow. It has long been acknowledged that a trait
is a reliably permanent internal disposition that has a limited potential for devel-
opment (Allport & Odbert, 1936). On the other hand, a state construct is more
variable and reactive to situational contingencies (Allen & Potkay, 1981). There
is some debate as to whether flow should be classified as a state or a trait. Con-
ventionally, flow has been defined as a transitory state of mind, existing at a given
moment in time, and reactive to the nature of the task that is being performed (Full-
agar & Kelloway, 2009; Delle Fave, 2013). Nonetheless, Csikszentmihalyi has made
reference to an “autotelic personality” (Czikszentmihalyi & Czikszentmihalyi,
1988, p. 31), hypothesizing individual differences in the propensity to experience
flow when engaged in challenging tasks. Some measures of flow, such as Bakker’s
(2005) WOLF inventory, and Jackson and Ecklund’s (2004) Dispositional Flow
Scale, instruct respondents to rate their tendency to experience flow “in general”
over a period of time, in an attempt to assess enduring levels of the experience
flow. However, flow has been prominently investigated as a temporary experience,
evaluated through real-time procedures, such as the experience sampling method
(ESM), whereby participants are required to respond to a short survey that assesses
their cognitive, emotional, and physical state at a particular moment in time (Hek-
tner et al., 2007). ESM is designed to capture the situational fluctuations in the
daily experience (inclusive of flow) with minimal recall bias. The experience
sampling approach presumes that flow is a dynamic state that fluctuates across
time and activities. One recent study (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009) that used ESM
14 Clive Fullagar et al.

to assess momentary vacillations in work flow among architecture students found

that within-individual variation accounted for nearly 75% of the overall variance
in flow. This suggests that flow is more susceptible to situational and task-related
characteristics compared to dispositional factors.
Studies of flow in a variety of cultures showed that 85% of the participants
reported flow in their life, regardless of demographic features, such as age, socio-
economic status, level of education, and occupation. No variations were detected
across groups in the psychological structure of flow experience, while differences
emerged in the typology of associated activities (for a review, see Delle Fave
et al., 2011). Another recent study investigating the relationship between flow
and personality among adolescents showed that, among the big five personality
traits, only openness to experience predicted flow occurrence, and no personal-
ity factors were predictive of the activity typologies that participants associated
with flow (Bassi et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, individuals may vary in their propensity to regularly experi-
ence flow (Asakawa, 2010; Jackson, Kimiecik, Ford, & Marsh, 1998). Personal-
ity characteristics such as inquisitiveness and aestheticism have been associated
with flow (Shernoff et al., 2003). Similarly, a relationship has been shown
between flow and intrinsic motivation orientations among teenagers and col-
lege students (Moneta, 2004, 2010) and among Internet chess players (Abu-
hamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). The joint investigation of both the trait and
state properties of flow has highlighted that individual dispositional character-
istics may also moderate the relationship between the nature of the task and
the experience of flow. For example, individuals who tend to persevere at tasks
are more likely to be sensitive to the balance between challenge and skill that
is an important component of flow-inducing tasks (Keller & Bless, 2008).
The need for achievement was found to moderate the relationship between
task-related flow and positive emotional and organizational spontaneity (Eisen-
berger et al., 2005). Specifically, tasks that matched challenges with skills were
associated with positive emotions (feeling energetic, enthusiastic, and happy),
greater interest in the task and increased involvement in the organization only
among individuals who had a high need for achievement. A study conducted
among workers from several occupations showed that conscientiousness mod-
erated the relationship between flow and both in-role and extra-role perfor-
mance (Demerouti, 2006).
Even though some evidence suggests the existence of an autotelic personality
type, in that some individuals are more prone to experience flow when confronted
with a challenging task, the majority of findings indicate that flow is predom-
inantly a task-related state. This has important practical implications for work
organizations. Because flow is a state-like construct, it dynamically changes across
time and situations. Therefore, it is possible to reshape the workplace and design
tasks that increase the likelihood of optimal experience. As we have argued earlier,
such crafting of work has beneficial consequences for both the individual and the
organization.
 Flow at work 15

Flow: a collective phenomenon?

Most researchers have studied flow at the individual level rather than in social or
collective settings (Walker, 2010). Typically, optimal experience is researched on
individuals engaged in isolated activities where they can focus their attention on the
task at hand, without external distractions interfering with their state of absorption.
However, in organizations much work is performed in groups or teams. Confronted
with the increasing complexity of the workplace technology and the need to com-
pete more efficiently and effectively in a rapidly changing global economy, organi-
zations have substantially implemented teamwork (Yang & Guy, 2011). Group work
represents a more effective way of dealing with complex information and knowl-
edge systems, at the same time increasing worker participation in decision-making
(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) and social validation theory (Cialdini,
2009) suggest that cognitions, attitudes, emotions, and behaviors are influenced by
comparisons with others in a group, such that there is a tendency toward norma-
tive compliance. Yet little research has been undertaken on understanding flow as a
collective or social phenomenon, and very few studies have investigated collective
flow in the workplace.
Although the preconditions of flow (i.e., challenge/skill balance, goal clarity, and
feedback) should be similar for both individuals and groups, three studies showed
that the experience of flow is qualitatively different between the two conditions,
being more enjoyable in a group rather than a solitary setting (Walker, 2010). This
was particularly evident for tasks that required group members to be interdepen-
dent, coordinated, and cooperative. Furthermore, in social flow participants reported
a heightened awareness of what was going on in the group environment, rather
than an attempt to exclude situational characteristics. This finding suggests that
in social contexts the individual’s awareness of self becomes subsumed under the
group awareness (Walker, 2010). There is also recent empirical evidence that flow
may be enhanced in collective settings by social facilitation and emotional conta-
gion effects (Páez, Rimé, Basabe, Wlodarczyk, & Zumeta, 2015). In the academic
context, flow has been found to cross over from music teachers to their students
(Bakker, 2005), and from students’ classmates and instructors in the classroom (Cul-
bertson, Fullagar, Simmons, & Zhu, 2015). Results from a recent longitudinal study
(Salanova, Rodríguez-Sánchez, Schaufeli, & Cifre, 2014) confirmed that collective
flow in work groups is associated with collective efficacy beliefs, including that the
group is skilled enough to meet the challenges of the task. These findings suggest
that the same preconditions that are necessary to experience solitary flow are also
predictive of collective flow, at the same time highlighting similarities and some
distinct differences between the two conditions at the experiential level. Collective
flow is “something more than the sum of individuals’ flow experiences” (Salanova
et al., 2014, p. 450). Given that work groups are an essential part of organizational
life, many more studies are required on collective flow, in order to understand the
conditions that foster it, as well as its individual and organizational consequences.
16 Clive Fullagar et al.

Flow: fad or folderol?

As early as 1927, Kelley warned against the “jangle fallacy” (p. 63) – the tendency to
use a different term to describe a construct that is no different from one that already
exists. Dunnette (1966) referred to this as folderol and cautioned against trivial ideas
packaged as new theories. A fad is a short-lived idea that has a short history and
is irreproducible. In order for flow to be recognized as a unique construct in the
field of work psychology, it is necessary to establish its theoretical consistency and
independence from other work-related variables, as well as its specific contribution
to the understanding of workplace behavior.
While research on flow has established that both its preconditions and core
experiential features are remarkably consistent across work, leisure, and academic
domains (Delle Fave et al., 2011; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Nielson &
Cleal, 2012), in the organizational domain perhaps the closest conceptual relative to
flow is work engagement. Indeed in the only published measure of work flow (the
WOrk-reLated Flow inventory or WOLF ), Bakker (2008) defines flow as consisting
of three core components: (1) absorption or concentrated involvement in the activity,
(2) enjoyment of the activity, and (3) intrinsic motivation, or the fact that the activ-
ity is rewarding in itself. These components have considerable conceptual over-
lap with the concept of work engagement that is defined as “a positive, fulfilling,
work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”
(Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). However, engagement
represents a chronic involvement in one’s job as a whole and all of the tasks that it
entails (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001), whereas flow is typically described as a
more acute and intense absorption and involvement with a specific work task (Csik-
szentmihalyi, 1975; Fullagar & Kelloway, 2013; Mills & Fullagar, 2008; Schaufeli &
Salanova, 2007). Furthermore, engagement is usually operationalized as a relatively
stable disposition that varies considerably between individuals (Christian, Garza, &
Slaughter, 2011). However, recent diary studies indicate that there is increasing evi-
dence that work engagement fluctuates considerably from day to day and that as
much as 50% of the variance in engagement is within person (Bakker, 2014; Son-
nentag, 2003). In comparison flow shows substantial within-individual variance
(74%) and relatively less variation between persons (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009).
This would suggest that flow is definitely a state-like variable that fluctuates within
the day, from activity to activity, and that work engagement may vary on a daily
basis and is a more enduring, and long-term, state.
Flow should also be conceptually distinguished from three measures of attach-
ment to job and organization – namely, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and job involvement.
Job satisfaction is regarded as an affective and cognitive evaluation about one’s
job (Weiss, 2002) and is considered an attitudinal variable. Typically it refers to
the extent to which people like facets of their job, such as their pay, coworkers,
supervision, working conditions, and so forth (Brief & Weiss, 2002). Even though
flow and job satisfaction share positive cognitive components, flow also includes
 Flow at work 17

behavioral components related to the task at hand, such as merging of action and
awareness in a state of effortless attention (Bruya, 2010). Job satisfaction refers to
a state of satiation whereas flow connotes a state of activation (Macey & Schnei-
der, 2008). Although flow and job satisfaction have been found to be moderately
correlated (Maeran & Cangiano, 2013), it is not contradictory for a worker to
experience flow in certain job-related tasks, and not to feel satisfied with his or
her job as a whole.
As for organizational commitment, it is predominantly defined as an affective attach-
ment to the organization as an entity (Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004). In
contrast, flow is a temporary experience of involvement in a specific task, in which
the referent of attachment is the particular task the individual is engaged in, rather
than the organization as a whole.
Finally, job involvement can be defined as “an individual’s psychological iden-
tification with a particular job” (Kanungo, 1982, p. 342). Like flow, it includes a
component of intrinsic motivation to engage in work. However, job involvement
is essentially a cognitive belief concerning the extent to which a job is central
to the individual’s identity. As such, individuals become involved in their jobs
out of a desire to fulfill self-esteem needs (Kanungo, 1982). On the other hand,
tasks that induce flow are intrinsically motivating because individuals enjoy utiliz-
ing and expressing skills that meet the challenges inherent in those tasks. More-
over, contrary to the notion of job involvement, flow is associated with a loss of
self-consciousness.
Both flow and job involvement have “dark sides.” Extreme levels of job involve-
ment have been termed “workaholism” (Piotrowski & Vodanovich, 2006), a particular
kind of intense work involvement that has been associated with obsessive-compulsive
tendencies (Mudrack, 2004; Naughton, 1987; Oates, 1971). Workaholics tend to
spend an inordinate amount of time at work, are preoccupied with work when not
at work, and are driven to work beyond the role requirements of the job (Mudrack &
Naughton, 2001). Empirical evidence has highlighted the dysfunctional nature of
workaholism through its association with increased job stress (Burke, 2001; Kanai &
Wakabayashi, 2001; McMillan, O’Driscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001), performance
problems at work (Mudrack, 2004; Porter, 1996; Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997),
impaired nonwork relationships (Robinson, 1999; Scott et al., 1997; Spruell, 1987),
and increased work-family conflict (Burke, 2000, 2001; Taris, Schaufeli, & Verho-
even, 2005).
The early work with surgeons did reveal a “dark side” to flow. Csikszentmihalyi
(1975) reports that “one surgeon mentioned that operating is ‘like taking narcot-
ics’; another, that it is like ‘taking heroin’” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, p. 138). The
detrimental role of flow also emerged in a study conducted among musicians suf-
fering from playing-related injuries. The flow-related dissociation from body and
time entailed the risk of engaging in excessively prolonged practice by virtue of
a lower perception of pain (Guptill, 2012). Musicians in this study described the
strategies adopted to interrupt or avoid flow in order to protect their own health.
Nevertheless, flow can be distinguished from workaholism in several ways. First,
18 Clive Fullagar et al.

workaholism as a form of addiction has been associated with obsessive-compulsive

tendencies (Mudrack, 2004), anxiety, and stress (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Flow is
instead characterized by positive emotions (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009), and at
the physiological level it is identical to joy (De Manzano, Theorell, Harmat, &
Ullén, 2010). Furthermore, empirical work has shown that flow and anxiety are
incompatible states. In a study of musicians, it was shown that when flow was at its
highest, performance anxiety was at its lowest and vice versa (Fullagar et al., 2013).
Second, a consistent association was detected between workaholism and impaired
nonwork relationships (see Piotrowski & Vodanovich, 2006, for a review). Flow,
on the other hand, is a functional type of work engagement and, as such, should
enhance both work and family roles (Bakker, Petrou, & Tsaousis, 2012; Marks,
1977; Sieber, 1974), and improve interpersonal relationships (McMillan, Brady,
O’Driscoll, & Marsh, 2002).
Despite these conceptual distinctions between work flow and other work-related
constructs, the incremental value of flow over and above these other constructs in
predicting behavior in the workplace has not been established yet. We see this as an
important focus for future research.
At the methodological level, further efforts are needed to understand the phe-
nomenology of flow in real time, through procedures such as ESM. More specifi-
cally, it is not yet clear how individuals enter flow moving from other experiences,
or move from flow to other states. Studies are also needed to evaluate whether there
are predictable patterns of experience fluctuation during a workday, and whether
there may be a “critical” experiential configuration leading to flow, as suggested by
preliminary evidence based on nonlinear dynamical system models (Ceja & Navarro,
2012, this volume). Moreover, in order to clarify the interplay among demographic
factors, environmental dimensions, traits, and state variables in the occurrence of
flow on the work context, studies should include multiple measures jointly evalu-
ating these aspects. Finally, more qualitative studies should be conducted, in order
to give voice to the workers, and to let them highlight components of the work
experience – especially those concerning job-related meanings – that have not been
explored yet, and that could be worth investigating. Although qualitative studies are
cumbersome and less popular and less scientifically fashionable than quantitative
ones, psychologists often forget that the reality of human experience is much more
complex and articulated than the information emerging from numbers.
At a more general level, flow research in the domain of work substantially ignores
a great variety of jobs that people are engaged in worldwide. Most studies on flow
at work involve office employees, and – to a lesser extent – teachers and health pro-
fessionals. Except for few and scattered studies (briefly summarized by Delle Fave
and Bassi, this volume) the experience of the vast majority of workers is completely
overlooked. Widespread and essential jobs, such as agriculture, handicrafts, animal
husbandry, arts, semiskilled works performed in factory and workshop contexts,
professional caregiving, domestic aid, and many other occupations, are ignored by
flow research, and overall by the psychological literature. The reasons for this mas-
sive neglect of the conditions of millions of workers are various, ranging from the
 Flow at work 19

low income and thus low business relevance characterizing many of these jobs
to their self-employment nature, not attracting the interest of sponsors. Another
related problem is the dearth of studies conducted in nonwestern countries, both
on flow in general and specifically on flow at work. In an increasingly globalized
world, these problems have to be addressed by psychology as a discipline concerned
with human functioning.

Some concluding remarks

After this brief overview of the research on flow at work, and before merging in the
related findings, we would like to challenge readers with a general warning. As most
disciplines, psychology provides a unique though specific perspective on human
behavior and experience, leaving other aspects in the background. Within psychol-
ogy itself, the focus on a single domain – such as work – leaves the other ones in the
background. This artificial dissection of the human experience may lead to distor-
tions of reality, and it should thus be interpreted with caution. Though important,
work is not the only relevant domain of individual life. According to WHO’s defi-
nition, quality of life is a multicomponential construct (WHOQOL Group, 2004),
and balance across life domains is a core component of well-being. From this per-
spective, people experiencing moderate levels of satisfaction from multiple – and
salient – life domains are likely to report higher levels of subjective well-being than
people experiencing high levels of satisfaction stemming from a single – though
salient – domain. In other words, it is better to be moderately happy and satisfied in
multiple life domains than to experience extremely positive feelings in one single
domain, to the detriment or neglect of the others (Sirgy & Wu, 2009).
Work’s contribution to people’s well-being may thus vary according to the job
itself, but also to individual values, aspirations, and engagement in different life
domains, as well as contextual features. The contents and values of a given culture
are the result of the combined action of individuals who find meaning and oppor-
tunities for self-expression in the most varied activities and tasks (Delle Fave &
Bassi, 2014). These people come from different educational backgrounds, have
different access to job opportunities in their life, may experience health, financial,
or social difficulties, and are exposed to changes related to life events that can sud-
denly modify their approach to daily activities and life as a whole. Any research
study or intervention program focused on well-being at work should not over-
look individual complexity and variability, perhaps the most fascinating and ever-
challenging dimension that researchers and professionals working with humans
have to deal with.

References
Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orienta-
tions in the competitive context: An examination of person–situation interactions. Journal
of Personality, 77, 1615–1635.
20 Clive Fullagar et al.

Allen, B. P., & Potkay, C. R. (1981). On the arbitrary distinction between states and traits.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 916–928.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological
Monographs, 47, 171–220.
Aronfreed, J. (1968). Conduct and conscience. New York: Academic Press.
Asakawa, K. (2010). Flow experience, culture, and well-being: How do autotelic Japanese
college students feel, behave, and think in their daily lives? Journal of Happiness Studies,
11, 205–223.
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44.
Bakker, A. B. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation
of the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 400–414.
Bakker, A. B. (2014). Daily fluctuations in work engagement: An overview and current
directions. European Psychologist, 19, 227–236.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. In P. Y. Chen & C. L.
Cooper (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide (Vol. III, pp. 37–64). Chichester, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Bakker, A. B., Petrou, P., & Tsaousis, I. (2012). Inequity in work and intimate relation-
ships: A spillover-crossover model. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 25,
491–506.
Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Dirks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The
role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65, 1359–1378.
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2012a). Optimal experience among teachers: New insights
into the work paradox. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 146,
533–557.
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2012b). Optimal experience and self-determination at school:
Joining perspectives. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 425–438.
Bassi, M., Ferrario, N., Ba, G., Delle Fave, A., & Viganò, C. (2012). Quality of experience
during psychosocial rehabilitation: A real-time investigation with experience sampling
method. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 35, 447–453.
Bassi, M., Steca, P., Delle Fave, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2007). Academic self-efficacy
beliefs and quality of experience in learning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36,
301–312.
Bassi, M., Steca, P., Monzani, D., Greco, A., & Delle Fave, A. (2014). Personality and optimal
experience in adolescence: Implications for well-being and development. Journal of Hap-
piness Studies, 15, 829–843.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance
phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200.
Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to chal-
lenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31, 158–186.
Berlyne, D. E. (1955). The arousal and satiation of perceptual curiosity in the rat. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 48, 238–246.
Bolte, A., Goschke, T., & Kuhl, J. (2003). Emotion and intuition: Effects of positive and
negative mood on implicit judgments of semantic coherence. Psychological Science, 14,
416–421.
 Flow at work 21

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307.
Bringsén, Å., Andersson, H. I., Ejlertsson, G., & Troein, M. (2012). Exploring workplace
related health resources from a salutogenic perspective: Results from a focus group study
among healthcare workers in Sweden. Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilita-
tion, 42, 403–414.
Bruya, B. (2010). Introduction: Toward a theory of attention that includes effortless attention
and action. In B. Bruya (Ed.), Effortless attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of
attention and action (pp. 1–28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bryce, J., & Haworth, J. (2002). Wellbeing and flow in a sample of male and female office
workers. Leisure Studies, 23, 249–263.
Burke, R. J. (2000). Workaholism and divorce. Psychological Reports, 86, 219–220.
Burke, R. J. (2001). Workaholism components, job satisfaction, and career progress. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2339–2356.
Butler, R. A. (1953). Discrimination learning by rhesus monkeys to visual exploration moti-
vation. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 46, 95–98.
Butler, R. A., & Harlow, H. H. (1957). Discrimination learning and learning sets to visual
exploration incentives. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 71, 591–593.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2012). ‘Suddenly I get into the zone’: Examining discontinu-
ities and nonlinear changes in flow experiences at work. Human Relations, 65 (9),
1101–1127.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S, & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology,
64, 89–136.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence, science and practice. New York: William Morrow.
Clarke, S. G., & Haworth, J. T. (1994). Flow experience in the daily lives of sixth-form col-
lege students. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 511–523.
Collins, A. L., Sarkisian, N., & Winner, E. (2009). Flow and happiness in later life: An investigation
into the role of daily and weekly flow experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 703–709.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. New York: Basic.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Preface to the 25th anniversary edition. In M. Csikszentmihalyi
(Ed.), Beyond freedom and boredom: Experiencing flow in work and play (25th anniversary ed.,
pp. ix–xxviii). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies
on flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: A longitudinal
study of their development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Culbertson, S. S., Fullagar, C. J., Simmons, M. J., & Zhu, M. (2015). Contagious flow: Ante-
cedents and consequences of optimal experience in the classroom. Journal of Management
Education, 39, 319–349.
Davis, R. T., Settlage, P. H., & Harlow, H. F. (1950). Performance of normal and
brain–operated monkeys on mechanical puzzles with and without food incentive. Jour-
nal of Genetic Psychology, 77, 305–311.
22 Clive Fullagar et al.

Debus, M. E., Sonnentag, S., Deutsch, W., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2014). Making flow happen:
The effects of being recovered on work-related flow between and within days. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99, 713–722.
de Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New
York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 627–668.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in
education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1–27.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Delle Fave, A. (2007). Individual development and community empowerment: Suggestions
from studies on optimal experience. In J. Haworth & G. Hart (Eds.), Well-being: Individual,
community, and societal perspectives (pp. 41–56). London: Palgrave McMillan.
Delle Fave, A. (2013). Past, present and future of flow. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, & A. Con-
ley Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 60–72). New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2000). The quality of experience in adolescents’ daily lives: Devel-
opmental perspectives. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 347–367.
Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2014). Work and the dynamics of development: An integrated
model. In C. Biron, R. J. J. Burke, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Creating healthy workplaces
(pp. 37–49). Franham, UK: Gower.
Delle Fave, A., Bassi, M., & Massimini, F. (2003). Quality of experience and risk perception in
high-altitude rock climbing. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 82–99.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2003). Optimal experience in work and leisure among
teachers and physicians: Individual and bio-cultural implications. Leisure Studies, 22,
323–342.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2004). Parenthood and the quality of experience in daily life:
A longitudinal study. Social Indicators Research, 67, 75–106.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal experience and apathy:
Developmental and psychosocial implications. European Psychologist, 10, 264–274.
Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011). Psychological selection and optimal experience
across cultures: Social empowerment through personal growth. Dordrecht: Springer.
Delle Fave, A., & Zager Kocjan, G. (2017). The challenges and rewards of creativity:
Well-being and the practice of arts and crafts. In L. G. Oades, M. Steger, A. Delle Fave, &
J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of positivity and
strengths-based approaches at work (pp. 508–526). London: Wiley & Sons.
De Manzano, O., Theorell, T., Harmat, L., & Ullén, F. (2010). The psychophysiology of flow
during piano playing. Emotion, 10, 301–311.
Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of
conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Sonnentag, S., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Work-related flow and
energy at work and at home: A study on the role of daily recovery. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 33, 276–295.
 Flow at work 23

Demerouti, E., & Fullagar, C. (2013). Experiencing flow in the workplace and what indi-
viduals and organizations can do to foster it. In R. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The
fulfilling workplace: The organization’s role in achieving individual and organizational health
(pp. 71–90). London, UK: Gower.
Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Fads, fashions, and folderol in psychology. American Psychologist, 21,
343–352.
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow experi-
ences at work: For high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 755–775.
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 728–741.
Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow performance and moderators of challenge-skill
balance. Motivation & Emotion, 32, 158–172.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2,
300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. A. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of atten-
tion and thought–action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313–332.
Freud, S. (1927). Instincts and their vicissitudes. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), Collected papers
(Vol. 4, pp. 60–83). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published in 1915).
Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). ‘Flow’ at work: An experience sampling approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 595–615.
Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2012). New directions in positive psychology: Implications
for a healthy workplace. In J. Houmount, S. Leka, & R. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary occu-
pational health psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice (pp. 146–161). Chich-
ester, UK: Wiley.
Fullagar, C. J., Knight, P. A., & Sovern, H. S. (2013). Challenge/skill balance, flow, and per-
formance anxiety. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 236–259.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the
mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329.
Ghitulescu, B. E. (2006). Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and
consequences of employee job crafting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pitts-
burgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Greene, D., Sternberg, B., & Lepper, M. R. (1976). Overjustification in a token economy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1219–1234.
Guptill, C. (2012). Injured professional musicians and the complex relationship between
occupation and health. Journal of Occupational Science, 19, 258–270.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Haworth, J., & Evans, S. (1995). Challenge, skill and positive subjective status in the daily life of
a sample of YTS students. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 109–121.
Haworth, J., & Hill, S. (1992). Work, leisure and psychological well-being in a sample of
young adults. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 147–160.
Hektner, J., & Asakawa, K. (2000). Learning to like challenges. In M. Csikszentmihalyi &
B. Schneider (Eds.), Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the world of work (pp. 95–112).
New York: Basic Books.
Hektner, J., Schmidt, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measur-
ing the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24 Clive Fullagar et al.

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.

Hunt, J. McV. (1965). Intrinsic motivation and its role in psychological development. In D.
Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 189–282). Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative
problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2004). The flow scales manual. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Jackson, S. A., Kimiecik, J. C., Ford, S., & Marsh, H. W. (1998). Psychological correlates of
flow in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 358–378.
Jackson, S. A., & Roberts, G. C. (1992). Positive performance states of athletes: Toward a
conceptual understanding of peak performance. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 156–171.
Jackson, S. A., Thomas, P. R., Marsh, H. W., & Smethurst, C. J. (2001). Relationship between
flow and self-concept, psychological skills, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psy-
chology, 13, 129–153.
Kanai, A., & Wakabayashi, M. (2001). Workaholism among Japanese blue-collar employees.
International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 129–145.
Kanungo, R. (1982). Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York: Praeger.
Keller, F. S. (1969). Learning: Reinforcement theory (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). Flow and regulatory compatibility: An experimental approach
to the flow model of intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
196–209.
Keller, J., & Blomann, F. (2008). Locus of control and the flow experience: An experimental
analysis. European Journal of Personality, 22, 589–607.
Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
Ko, I. (2011). Crafting a job: Creating meaningful experience at work. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation. Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and
teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.
Laing, R. D. (1967). The politics of experience. New York: Ballantine Books.
Landhäußer, A., & Keller, J. (2012). Flow and its affective, cognitive, and performance-related
consequences. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 65–86). New York: Springer.
LeFevre, J. (1988). Flow and the quality of experience during work and leisure. In M. Csik-
szentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow
in consciousness (pp. 307–318). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest
with extrinsic reward: A test of the ‘overjustification’ hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task perfor-
mance. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological
strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57–72.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3–30.
McMillan, L.H.W., Brady, E. C., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Marsh, N. V. (2002). A multifaceted
study of Spence and Robbins’ (1992) Workaholism Battery. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75, 357–368.
McMillan, L., O’Driscoll, M., Marsh, N., & Brady, E. (2001). Understanding workaholism:
Data synthesis, theoretical critique, and future design strategies. International Journal of
Stress Management, 8, 69–91.
 Flow at work 25

Maeran, R., & Cangiano, F. (2013). Flow experience and job characteristics: Analyzing the
role of flow in job satisfaction. TPM, 20, 13–26.
Mäkkikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., Aunola, K., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Job resources and flow
at work: Modelling the relationship via latent growth curve and mixture methodology.
Journal Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 795–814.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and
commitment. American Sociological Review, 41, 921–936.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B. & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 397–422.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily life. In M. Csik-
szentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in
consciousness (pp. 266–287). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Massimini, F., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Carli, M. (1987). The monitoring of optimal experi-
ence: A tool for psychiatric rehabilitation. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9),
545–549.
Mellstrom, C., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Crowding out in blood donation: Was Titmuss
right? Journal of the European Economic Association, 6, 845–863.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and moti-
vation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
991–1007.
Mills, M. J., & Fullagar, C. J. (2008). Motivation and flow: Toward an understanding of the
dynamics of the relation in architecture students. Journal of Psychology, 142, 533–553.
Moneta, G. B. (2004). The flow model of intrinsic motivation in Chinese: Cultural and
personal moderators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 181–217.
Moneta, G. B. (2010). Opportunity for creativity in the job as a moderator of the rela-
tion between trait intrinsic motivation and flow in work. Motivation and Emotion, 36,
491–503.
Montgomery, K. C. (1954). The role of exploratory drive in learning. Journal of Comparative
and Physiological Psychology, 48, 254–260.
Mudrack, P. E. (2004). Job involvement, obsessive-compulsive personality traits, and worka-
holic behavioral tendencies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 490–508.
Mudrack, P., & Naughton, T. (2001). The assessment of workaholism as behavioral tenden-
cies: Scale development and preliminary empirical testing. International Journal of Stress
Management, 8, 93–111.
Myers, A. K., & Miller, N. E. (1954). Failure to find a learned drive based on hunger:
Evidence for learning motivated by ‘exploration’. Journal of Comparative and Physiological
Psychology, 47, 428–436.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In C. R. Snyder &
S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 195–206). New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for career
counseling and research. Career Development Quarterly, 14, 180–187.
Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2010). Predicting flow at work: Investigating the activities and job
characteristics that predict flow states at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15, 180–190.
Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic. New York: World.
Páez, D., Rimé, B., Basabe, N., Wlodarczyk, A., & Zumeta, L. (2015). Psychosocial effects
of perceived emotional synchrony in collective gatherings. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 108, 711–729.
26 Clive Fullagar et al.

Pinder, C. C. (1984). Work motivation: Theory, issues, and applications. Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman.
Pinder, C. C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior (Second Edition). New York:
Psychology Press.
Piotrowski, C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2006). The interface between workaholism and
work-family conflict: A review and conceptual framework. Organization Development
Journal, 24, 84–92.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the
negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70–84.
Renn, R. W., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1995). The critical psychological states: An underrepre-
sented component in the job characteristics model research. Journal of Management, 21,
279–303.
Robinson, B. (1999). The work addiction risk test: Development of a tentative measure of
workaholism. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 88, 199.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rosenfield, D., Folger, R., & Adelman, H. F. (1980). When rewards reflect competence: A
qualification of the overjustification effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
368–376.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral
of personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 1–22.
Salanova, M., Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & Cifre, E. (2014). Flowing
together: A longitudinal study of collective efficacy and collective flow among work-
groups. The Journal of Psychology, 148, 435–455.
Sartori, R.D.G., & Delle Fave, A. (2014). First aid activities and well-being: The experience
of professional and volunteer rescuers. Journal of Social Service Research, 40(2), 242–254.
Sartori, R.D.G., Marelli, M., Garavaglia, P., Castelli, L., Busin, S., & Delle Fave, A. (2014). The
assessment of patients’ quality of experience: Autonomy level and perceived challenges.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(3), 266–277.
Sartre, J. P. (1957). Existentialism and human emotion. New York: Wisdom Library.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological
concept and its implications for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P.
Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management:Vol. 5. Managing social and ethical issues
in organizations. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measure-
ment of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Schiefele, U., & Roussakis, E. (2006). Die bedingungen des flow-erlebens in eine experimen-
tellen spielsituation. Zeitschrift für Psychologie mit Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie und
Sprache & Kognition, 214, 207–219.
Schüler, J., & Brunner, S. (2009). The rewarding effect of flow experience on performance
in a marathon race. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 168–174.
Scott, K., Moore, K., & Miceli, M. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences
of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287–314.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Wu, C., Demir, M., &
Sun, Z. (2004). Self-concordance and subjective well-being in four cultures. Journal of
Cross-cultural Psychology, 35, 209–223.
 Flow at work 27

Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psy-
chology Quarterly, 18, 158–176.
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39,
567–578.
Sirgy, M. J., & Wu, J. (2009). The pleasant life, the engaged life, and the meaningful life:
What about the balanced life? Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 183–196.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at
the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518–528.
Spruell, G. (1987). Work fever. Training & Development Journal, 41, 41–45.
Steele, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a
college setting. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 5–27.
Stein, G. L., Kimiecek, J. C., Daniels, J., & Jackson, S. A. (1995). The antecedents of flow in
recreational sport. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 21, 125–135.
Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005). Workaholism in the Nether-
lands: Measurement and implications for job strain and work-nonwork conflict. Journal of
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 37–60.
Thomas, K. M., & Mathieu, J. E. (1994). Role of attributions in dynamic self-regulation and
goal processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 812–818.
Walker, C. J. (2010). Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone?
Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 3–11.
Waples, C. J., Knight, P. A., & Fullagar, C. J. (2013). The role of goal setting in the emergence
of flow. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX, April 11–14.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.
Webster, J., Klebe Trevino, L., & Ryan, L. (1993). The dimensionality and correlates of flow
in human-computer interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 411–426.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and
affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173–194.
Welker, W. L. (1956). Some determinants of play and exploration in chimpanzees. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 49, 84–89.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
Review, 66, 297–333.
WHOQOL Group. (2004). Can we identify the poorest quality of life? Assessing the impor-
tance of quality of life using the WHOQOL-100. Quality of Life Research, 13, 23–34.
Woodworth, R. S. (1918). Dynamic psychology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Woodworth, R. S. (1958). Dynamics of behavior. New York: Holt.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active craft-
ers of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201.
Yang, S.-B., & Guy, M. E. (2011). The effectiveness of self-managed work teams in government
organizations. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 531–541.
2
MEASURING FLOW AT WORK
Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

Csikszentmihalyi (1975) was fascinated by artists who spent most of their time
working on paintings or sculptures while being completely immersed in the activ-
ity. The artists had the feeling that painting and sculpturing were the most impor-
tant things in the world. However, as soon as they had finished their projects they
lost all interest in their work, put it in a corner, and started a new painting or
sculpture. How was this possible? Why did they spend most of their time working
on a project and then lost all interest after they were done? When Csikszentmihalyi
asked the artists what kind of reward their behavior drove, whether they wanted to
become rich or famous, they denied it. It seemed that the reward of painting or
sculpturing came from the activities themselves (Engeser & Schiepe-Tiska, 2012).
After this observation, Csikszentmihalyi tried to capture the phenomenon in
more detail by conducting in-depth interviews with other groups of people who
also reported doing activities without obvious external rewards, such as soccer and
hockey players, chess players and rock climbers (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). When
analyzing the interviews, Csikszentmihalyi found characteristics that were shared
by the different activities and thus started to describe the common experience as
the experience of flow.

1 The flow state and its components

Flow is a state “in which people are so intensely involved in an activity that noth-
ing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do
it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p.
4). Flow has been conceptualized as a “holistic sensation that people feel when
they act with total engagement” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1998, p. 36). In this sense, it
is a multifaceted experience, which reflects a combination of different experien-
tial states whose co-occurrence increase the likelihood of the emergence of flow
 Measuring flow at work 29

(Engeser, 2012b; Engeser & Schiepe-Tiska, 2012). The state is characterized by

six components: (a) merging of action and awareness, (b) centering of attention
on a limited stimulus field and a high level of concentration, (c) loss of reflective
self-consciousness, (d) high sense of control of one’s actions and the demands of the
environment, (e) experience of coherent and noncontradictory demands for action
(goals) and clear, unambiguous feedback, and (f ) autotelic nature in the sense that
there is no need for external goals or rewards and the activity is performed for its own
sake (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; see also Engeser & Schiepe-Tiska, 2012,
for a discussion of the components).
Sometimes, the distortion of temporal experience is added as an additional
component, which can go in two different directions: typically, experiencing
flow comes in line with a feeling of time passing faster than normal, but some-
times it can also entail a feeling of time passing slower than normal (Nakamura &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). These two different directions might be one explana-
tion for the finding that distortion of temporal experience seems to be a less
reliable indicator of flow as compared to the other components (cf. Jackson &
Eklund, 2002).
The components of flow are linked together and depend on each other. For
example, when managers experience flow while they are negotiating a business deal
they may be aware of their actions – presenting numbers and arguments, convinc-
ing their counterpart, using rhetorical strategies – but they are not aware of the
awareness itself; that is, they are not thinking about anything else besides the tasks
they are accomplishing. This merging is accompanied by a loss of reflective self-
consciousness and managers feel completely involved in and absorbed by the situ-
ation. Their full attention is concentrated on closing the deal. Managers may not
even notice the vibration of their cellphone or the brief presence of their coworkers.
They feel strong and in control and forget about personal problems. Time flies by,
and retrospectively, they report that they enjoyed the negotiation itself indepen-
dently of whether they won or lost the deal.
As a multifaceted experience, flow cannot be represented by one of these
components only (Engeser, 2012b; Engeser & Schiepe-Tiska, 2012; and Sec-
tion 2.2.3’s questionnaires assessing most/all components of flow). This may be
further illustrated by the following example. Imagine a doctor who has a patient
who is always tired. The patient sleeps badly because he/she has problems fall-
ing asleep and wakes up several times a night. The doctor could diagnose a
sleeping disorder, prescribe medicines, and send the patient home. However,
a good doctor may also ask how the general state of his/her health is, and whether
the patient experiences a loss of interest or pleasure and a lack of drive. When the
patient states these two symptoms in addition, the doctor may consider an affec-
tive disorder as the diagnosis, which would result in different medicines and
treatments. In this regard, doctors always consider different symptoms in order to
make a diagnosis. One symptom only may indicate several diseases but the com-
bination of symptoms forms a specific diagnosis. The same applies to flow. For
example, the component of centering attention on a limited field of stimuli
30 Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

is also characteristic of a state of high anxiety (Eysenck, 1992). Thus, taking this
component as a single indicator into account would not clarify what kind of
state a person experiences. Only the combination with other components would
explain whether the person experiences flow or anxiety.
In addition, some components of flow are repeatedly considered as precon-
ditions of flow instead of components (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2012; Keller &
Landhäußer, 2012; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). According to Csik-
szentmihalyi (1975), the most important precondition is the balance between
the demands of an activity (i.e., action opportunities) and the perceived com-
petencies of the person (i.e., action capabilities) to accomplish a task. Most flow
models are based on this precondition (Moneta, 2012). Empirical data confirm
that individuals experience more flow in optimal balance conditions com-
pared to easy and difficult conditions (e.g., Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi,
2009; Engeser & Rheinberg, 2008; Keller & Bless, 2008; Keller & Blomann,
2008; Moller, Csikszentmihalyi, Nakamura, & Deci, 2007). However, studies
also reveal that a balance does not determine flow per se, but makes it just more
likely (Baumann, 2012; Engeser & Rheinberg, 2008; Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi,
1996). For example, individuals do not necessarily experience a high sense of
control even when demands and skills match. Consequently, we would recom-
mend assessing the component of control as part of the experience of flow in
order to assure that this component of flow is indeed experienced (cf. Engeser &
Schiepe-Tiska, 2012).
Another flow component often considered as a condition of flow is that a
task has clear goals and provides immediate, unambiguous feedback about one’s
actions (Mannell & Bradley, 1986). Hence, the task provides a structure without
forcing the individual to reflect on the behavior, and thus a person knows exactly
what to do next (cf. Engeser & Schiepe-Tiska, 2012). However, as for challenge/
skill balance, this characteristic makes flow more likely, but does not determine
it. Individuals do not necessarily experience highly coherent, noncontradictory
demands for a task that has clear goals and immediate, unambiguous feedback.
Consequently, we recommend including the experience of coherent, noncontra-
dictory demands as a component of flow as well in order to evaluate if a person
is experiencing it. The same applies to all other components of flow.
In the following sections, we will describe different ways to measure flow. First,
declarative measures are introduced, beginning with the interview method, which
was the very first approach to assess flow. However, along with interviews, Csik-
szentmihalyi (1975) already started to develop short questionnaires that captured
flow. Hence, second, we present questionnaires assessing (a) primarily demand-skill
balance, (b) selected components and/or additional components of flow, and
(c) most/all components of flow. Finally nondeclarative measurement techniques
will be outlined, such as neural and psychophysiological measures. For each mea-
surement technique, we will present its strengths and weaknesses.
 Measuring flow at work 31

2 Declarative methods to assess flow

2.1 Interview studies

When Csikszentmihalyi started with his research on autotelic activities, he used
a phenomenological approach by conducting qualitative interviews. His start-
ing point was to explore activities that offered no obvious external rewards. The
first interviews were conducted with hockey and soccer players, spelunkers, and
explorers, as well as with a highly trained and successful mountain climber, a
handball player, and a long-distance swimmer (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Inter-
views were chosen as the method in order to give the respondents enough space
to answer the questions and to give them the feeling of being in a normal con-
versation. From the wealth of textual descriptions, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) used
some of the most common, clear, and insightful passages to describe the nature of
flow experience.
For example, with regard to the work domain, surgeons were asked about their
flow experience during surgeries (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Surgeries are episodes
with a clear beginning and end. They provide a set of action opportunities within
a limited stimulus field. The activities offer immediate feedback, unambiguous
criteria of doing right or wrong, and, at the same time, they require high levels of
concentration. Therefore, the structural characteristics of a surgery increase the
likelihood of flow. For example, a surgeon who was specialized in corneal trans-
plants described his experience as being “completely absorbed – never bored or
distracted . . . Everything is important – if you don’t close it the right way, the
cornea will be twisted and vision will be impaired. . . . It all rests on how precisely
and artistically you do the operation” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, p. 128).
Another example for the use of the interview method in the workplace is the
“good work in business” project (Csikszentmihalyi, 2004). Csikszentmihalyi and his
colleagues interviewed visionary leaders who showed high achievement in combi-
nation with strong moral achievement (i.e., leaders who followed long-term goals
with a social commitment to the society). The interviews lasted two hours and
participants were asked about their general goals and purposes, beliefs and values,
and work processes as well as about their formative background, community, and
family, and how leaders and organizations could support workers to make flow a
more likely experience at work.
Strength: The interview technique produces informative insights with regard
to the description of flow and the shared characteristics. Moreover, the subjective
view of participants is assessed. A description of flow is not predefined and thus
people can describe their individual flow experience (and other experiences) in
their own words.
Weakness: Qualitative data do not easily allow for comparisons between indi-
viduals, and it is more difficult to quantify the influence of the context and other
variables. Furthermore, in interviews participants report about flow retrospec-
tively. However, flow is characterized by a loss of reflective self-consciousness and
32 Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

people are absorbed by the activity. Therefore, it may be hard to remember every
detail afterwards. A retrospective story may not convey the actual experience as a
whole that had taken place during the activities. In order to capture flow better,
a measurement technique is needed that allows for assessing flow more closely to the
situation in which it is experienced (see the experience sampling method ahead).

2.2 Questionnaires
Questionnaires with a closed answering format are more structured than inter-
views and ask specific questions about the experience of individuals. An important
differentiation among self-report flow measures is which components of flow are
represented within the items. Three approaches can be differentiated. First, the com-
ponent of challenge/skill balance is central in the questionnaire. Based on the flow
channel model (see ahead), the demands and skills are assessed in order to quantify if
individuals are experiencing flow. Second, flow is assessed by selected components.
Typically, with this approach, new components beyond those presented earlier are
included in a questionnaire in order to form what the constructors define as flow.
Third, flow is measured by most or all of its components. In the following, each
approach will be presented and examples as well as references are provided.

2.2.1 Questionnaires assessing flow on

the basis of the demand-skill balance
Most of the questionnaires that assessed flow through the demand-skill balance were
based on traditional flow models. For example, the flow channel model (Csikszent-
mihalyi, 1975) states that flow occurs when the demands of a situation are in bal-
ance with the perceived skills of a person. When there is a mismatch and demands
compared to skills are too high, the individual experiences anxiety. In the case of
too-low demands, the experience of boredom is expected. A refinement of the
model proposes that flow occurs only when demands and skills match on a high
level (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). This model is known as the
quadrant model as it specifies four qualitative different states of experience (anxi-
ety, flow, boredom, apathy). A further refinement was provided by Massimini and
colleagues (Massimini & Carli, 1988; Massimini, Csikszentmihalyi, & Carli, 1987),
differentiating eight sectors or “channels” (for a review on these models see Moneta,
2012). Irrespectively of how many states of experience are specified, the match
between demands and skills indicates whether flow occurs.
The measure of flow via the demand-skill balance is primarily applied in studies
using the experience sampling method (ESM). The ESM was developed in order to
feel the “pulse of an inner experience” and to study flow patterns in everyday life
(Csikszentmihalyi, Larson, & Prescott, 1977). With this method, individuals receive
signals at random times during waking hours of a usual week. Every time they get
beeped, participants complete a short questionnaire (see ahead). The ESM provides
rich, ecological valid data that are assessed in an economic way as researchers can
 Measuring flow at work 33

study people’s behavior and emotions directly at work or in their leisure time. ESM
is particularly valuable when one is interested in how flow is changing across time
at a within-person level (e.g., Debus, Sonnentag, Deutsch, & Nussbeck, 2014; Eng-
eser & Baumann, 2014; Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009). As a dynamic, fluctuating state,
flow can be better captured when it is assessed over a period of time as compared
to measuring it only once during an activity. Hence, the ESM has become a highly
valued research method within flow research (cf. Moneta, 2012) as well as for other
kinds of research questions (e.g., Shiffman, Stone, & Hufford, 2008).
The ESM can be used with all kinds of questionnaires (of flow). Besides its great
advantages, it has the drawback that the assessment as well as the data handling and
analyses can be time-consuming and labor-intensive. However, after the develop-
ment of new technologies for collecting the data, such as smartphones, or multilevel
techniques for analyzing them, it has become more convenient. In addition, indi-
viduals get beeped during the day (normally seven times that are randomly selected)
over a defined period of time, and thus researchers are likely to miss low frequent
activities (Scollon, Kim-Prieto, & Diener, 2003).
The questionnaire that has been originally used with the ESM is the Expe-
rience Sampling Form (ESF; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). It
assesses the activity (e.g., the main activity a person is doing), the context (e.g.,
place of the activity, companionship), aspects related to interest and motivation
(i.e., reasons for engaging in the activity), and affective experiences (e.g., strong,
happy). Moreover, as depicted in Figure 2.1, items that capture aspects of flow
more closely were also included, and demands (here referred to as challenge) and
skills are measured. To date, slightly different versions of the ESF exist (see Delle Fave,

not at somewhat quite very

all

How well were you concentrating? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Was it hard to concentrate? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

How self-conscious were you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Did you feel good about yourself? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Were you in control of the situation? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Indicate how you felt about your activity.

low high

Challenges of the activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Your skills in the activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

FIGURE 2.1 Flow-related items of an example of the ESF (adapted from Csikszentmih-
alyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, pp. 257–258)
34 Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

Massimini, & Bassi, 2011). These versions also have different scale ranges, and
researchers have to adjust for this if they want to compare the results of studies
that use different forms of the ESF.
Asking individuals about concentration, self-consciousness, and the feeling of
control assesses three components of flow. Moreover, feeling good captures the
autotelic nature of flow. Although the ESF taps some aspects of flow, the decision of
whether a person experiences flow is based solely on the match between challenge
and skills (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). To establish this match, for
example, Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989) transformed a person’s responses to
individual z-scores. When the reported challenges and skills were greater than the
respondent’s average they were classified as being in the flow context. This kind of
measure of flow is predominantly found in ESM studies. But not only ESM studies
rely on measuring flow with the match of demands and skills. For example, a recent
experimental study by Ulrich, Keller, Hoenig, Waller, and Grön (2013) also assumed
that flow is experienced when demands and skills match.
To date, numerous studies provided rich data that support the flow models (e.g.,
Aellig, 2004; Bassi & Delle Fave, 2012; Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987; Csik-
szentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2005; Fullagar & Kelloway,
2009; Massimini et al., 1987; Rheinberg, Manig, Kliegl, Engeser, & Vollmeyer, 2007;
Schallberger & Pfister, 2001). The match of demands and skills is associated with
distinct changes in the components of flow (measured with the ESF), and other
aspects that are additionally assessed with the ESF. Therefore, the balance – as pro-
posed by the models – is highly relevant for subjective experiences.
Besides this main finding, other propositions of the models were not supported
by empirical data. Further, as demands and skills do not entirely determine the expe-
rience of flow, researchers do not know if individuals indeed experience flow when
both challenges and skills match (at a high level). For example, when according to
the flow models individuals were expected to experience boredom, they repeatedly
reported experiences that were associated with positive feelings and with qualities
related to flow. Moreover, the reliance on only two items in order to assess the bal-
ance is psychometrically problematic, and the calculation of a match is not easy to
handle (cf. Moneta, 2012). Furthermore, with the ESF, participants rate the challenge
of a task instead of the demands as it was originally intended by Csikszentmihalyi
(1975). This is misleading because challenge already implies a subjective assessment
on the basis of the skills. Thus, a challenge would be a task in which the demands
match or exceed the skills. These critical points are discussed in depth elsewhere
(e.g., Delle Fave et al., 2011; Ellis, Voelkl, & Morris, 1994; Engeser & Baumann,
2016; Keller & Landhäußer, 2012; Moneta, 2012; Rheinberg & Engeser, in press).
Strength: The demand-skill balance is an important dimension with strong rela-
tions to various kinds of subjective experiences that are especially relevant in the
work context, too. Measuring this balance provides simple but highly relevant
information. Assessing the two dimensions allows researchers to relate their results
to the rich body of existing results as most of the studies in the tradition of Csik-
szentmihalyi used this approach.
 Measuring flow at work 35

Weakness: The demands and skills do not entirely determine the experience of
flow. Thus, relying on the demand-skill balance to measure flow is problematic.
Moreover, the reliance on two items in order to assess the balance is psychometrically
problematic and asking for challenges (instead of demands) could be misleading.

2.2.2 Questionnaire assessing selected

and/or additional components of flow
The measures presented in this section rest on assessing some components of flow
via items in a questionnaire. An argument for this approach is that some compo-
nents may be the core of flow and measuring other components would make the
assessment less valid. A related argument is to keep the questionnaire short. Assess-
ing only some components is also sometimes justified by the finding that the com-
ponents of flow are highly correlated (see Section 2.2.3’s questionnaires assessing
most/all components of flow). However, these questionnaires have the inherent risk
of missing important aspects of flow and thus capturing something else.
Other measurement approaches assess aspects of flow that are not directly rep-
resented by the components of flow. These aspects are included in the question-
naires in order to distinguish between the components and consequences of flow.
For example, one aspect that is commonly included in the assessment of flow is
happiness. Flow is an autotelic experience. It is a task-intrinsic incentive (Rhein-
berg & Engeser, in press), and individuals do activities in order to enter the flow
state. However, flow is not the same as happiness. Csikszentmihalyi himself stated,
“when we are in flow, we are not happy . . . if a rock climber takes time out to
feel happy while negotiating a difficult move, he might fall to the bottom of the
mountain” (1997, p. 32). Flow itself is not defined through an affective state (see
components of flow listed in Section 1). Empirical data confirm that flow and
happiness are not necessarily experienced at the same time (Engeser & Baumann,
2016; see also Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009). Aellig (2004; cf. Rheinberg & Engeser,
in press) showed that flow experience while climbing goes along with the feeling
of happiness afterwards. Hence, experiencing more flow should go along with a
happier life in general (cf. Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009).
Furthermore, Schallberger and Pfister (2001) found a strong association of flow
with the state of high activation (i.e., arousal) rather than with emotions of hap-
piness (cf. Engeser & Baumann, 2014; Rogatko, 2009). Silvia (2008) found similar
results and proposed a close link between the curious emotion of interest and the
concept of flow.
An example of a questionnaire that includes happiness is the WOrk-reLated
Flow inventory (WOLF; Bakker, 2008). As the name indicates, the questionnaire
has been designed to assess flow in the work context and it measures absorption,
work enjoyment, and intrinsic work motivation with several items (Figure 2.2).
The items that assess absorption may be best understood as a measure of merging
of action and awareness and a loss of reflective self-consciousness. Other compo-
nents, such as clear goals and the experience of noncontradictory demands, are not
36 Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

Please indicate how often you experienced each of the statements.

When I am working, I think about nothing else. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Absorption

I get carried away by my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

When I am working, I forget everything else around me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I am totally immersed in my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

My work gives me a good feeling. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Work enjoyment

I do my work with a lot of enjoyment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel happy during my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel cheerful when I am working. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I would still do this work, even if I received less pay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Intrinsic work motivation

I find that I also want to work in my free time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I work because I enjoy it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

When I am working on something, I am doing it for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I get my motivation from the work itself, and not from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
reward for it.

FIGURE 2.2 The WOrk-reLated Flow inventory (WOLF; adapted from Bakker, 2008; 1 =
never, 2 = almost never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = regularly, 5 = often, 6 = very often 7 = always)

included. Work enjoyment assesses the experience of the affective quality of work
(including happiness), which, as we have argued, is not strictly a component of flow.
Finally, intrinsic work motivation reflects the autotelic part of flow. Irrespectively of
whether enjoyment should be included in a measure of flow, enjoyment as well as
intrinsic motivation are represented more strongly in the WOLF than would have
been expected on the basis of the flow components. The original WOLF started
to ask individuals to evaluate their experience of work in a summative way on a
general level. Individuals were thinking about their general work experience when
answering the items (Bakker, 2005, 2008). This can be problematic because for
the individual answering the questionnaire the experience of flow and the experi-
ences after flow (consequences – e.g., happiness) cannot easily be separated (see also
Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009, for a similar argument). Take for example that when
answering the item “My work gives me a good feeling” it may be unclear for the
respondent whether this is a feeling that appears after work or whether it means that
someone generally feels good while working. Other items of the original WOLF
refer more clearly to an activity itself (e.g., “When I am working, I forget every-
thing else around me.”). Later, the items have been modified such that they refer
to a corresponding day and thus could be used, for example, in diary studies (e.g.,
Demerouti, Bakker, Sonnentag, & Fullagar, 2012).
 Measuring flow at work 37

Assessing flow in a summative way relates to the discussion of assessing flow on

a trait level. Here, trait means not the readiness to respond in a certain way but how
often flow is experienced in a certain domain; people who experience higher frequen-
cies of flow are expected to have a disposition for experiencing flow (e.g., Jackson,
Martin, & Eklund, 2008). Assessing flow on such a general or trait level instead of the
state level has the same drawback as interviews: participants are asked to report about
their flow retrospectively and this could result in some recall bias. The research of Ful-
lagar and Kelloway (2009) suggests that flow is predominantly a state that varies across
time and situations rather than a trait. Therefore, it results from an interaction between
incentives in the environment and personal dispositions, such as implicit and explicit
motives (cf. Schiepe-Tiska & Engeser, 2012) that may also more closely capture what
Csikszentmihalyi (1975) referred to as an autotelic personality (see also Baumann, 2012).
Another example of assessing flow with selected components is the question-
naire used by Keller and Bless (2008). The questionnaire measures the perceived
control over an outcome, involvement, and enjoyment. Perceived control is assessed
with items such as “I had the necessary skill to play the game successfully,” “I knew
exactly what I had to do,” and “I think I performed well in the game.” The first
two items represent components of flow, but the last item is more an evaluation
of performance rather than the experience of the activity itself. Involvement and
enjoyment are measured with items such as “I was strongly involved in what was
happening in the game,” “I was thrilled,” and “I would consider buying the game
for private use.” Involvement represents flow while doing the activity, but buying the
game may have different reasons besides the experience of the activity itself.
Further examples for selective inclusions of components in a flow measure could
be added (e.g., Schiefele & Raabe, 2011; Ulrich et al., 2013). However, regardless of
whether readers share the merits and problems we have implied here when assessing
flow with only some and/or additional components, the aim was to provide some
basic orientations that enable them to evaluate flow questionnaires by themselves.
Strength: Questionnaires concentrate on selected aspects of flow. This allows for
more tailored or shorter measures, especially for researchers interested in these spe-
cific aspects. If some components of flow are considered as more central than others,
assessing these components exclusively would warrant higher validity (because less
central aspects do not affect the scores).
Weakness: The main risk is that the measure of flow does not fully represent the
experience of flow. Moreover, selected components may dominate the assessment
of flow. If additional components are incorporated, the concept of flow is extended
beyond its original understanding.

2.2.3 Questionnaires assessing most/all

components of flow
The final approach to the assessment of flow tries to capture all components. An
example is the Swedish Flow Proneness Questionnaire (SFPQ; Ullén et al., 2012).
This questionnaire assesses the subjective sense of concentration, challenge-skill
38 Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

When you do something at work, how often does it happen that…

. . . you feel bored? 1 2 3 4 5

. . . it feels as if your ability to perform what you do completely 1 2 3 4 5

matches how difficult it is?

. . . you have a clear picture of what you want to achieve, and what 1 2 3 4 5
you need to do to get there?

. . . you are conscious of how well or poorly you perform what you 1 2 3 4 5
are doing?

. . . you feel completely concentrated? 1 2 3 4 5

. . . you have a sense of complete control? 1 2 3 4 5

. . . what you do feels extremely enjoyable to do? 1 2 3 4 5

FIGURE 2.3 Swedish Flow Proneness Questionnaire for flow at work (SFPQ; adapted
from Ullén et al., 2012; 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = every day
or almost every day)

balance, explicit goals, clear feedback, sense of control, lack of a sense of bore-
dom, and enjoyment. Although most components presented earlier are included,
the merging of action and awareness and the loss of reflective self-consciousness are
missing. As the name already implies, the questionnaire measures flow in a sum-
mative way with regard to household maintenance, work, and leisure activities (see
Figure 2.3 for questions with regard to work activities).
When looking at the items, two critical aspects need to be noted. First, the
absence of boredom does not necessarily imply that individuals experience flow;
respondents could also be stressed all the time when being at work. Second, hav-
ing a clear picture of what to achieve and how to achieve it could mean that the
individual is permanently reflecting on his/her behavior which is incompatible
with the component of loss of reflective self-consciousness. A similar point could
be made for the monitoring of performance. In addition, the questionnaire tries to
assess flow in a summative way (cf. Section 2.2.2).
When questionnaires try to assess all components of flow, they also test whether
the components reflect one or several dimensions that underlie the flow concept.
The most comprehensive work to examine whether flow is a single or a multi-
faceted experience has been done by Jackson and colleagues (Jackson & Eklund,
2002; Jackson & Marsh, 1996), who developed a questionnaire that was theoreti-
cally grounded in the multifaceted concept of flow. They started with developing
a measure of flow state and later they measured flow as a trait as well. The Flow
State Scale (as well as the Flow Trait Scale) assesses all components by separating the
component of coherent, noncontradictory demands and feedback into two com-
ponents, and additionally including the demand-skill balance and transformation of
 Measuring flow at work 39

Demands-Skill Balance I feel I am competent enough to meet the high demands of the
situation.
Action-Awareness Merging I do things spontaneously and automatically without having to
think.
Concentration I am completely focused on the task at hand.
Loss of Self-Consciousness I am not worried about what others may be thinking of me.
Sense of Control I have a feeling of total control over what I am doing.
Clear Goals I have a strong sense of what I want to do.
Unambiguous Feedback I have a good idea while I am performing about how well I am
doing.
Transformation of Time The way time passes seems to be different from normal.
Autotelic Experience The experience is extremely rewarding.

FIGURE 2.4 Components and example items of the Flow State Scale (adapted from
Jackson et al., 2008)

time. Each component is measured with four items, or in the short version (Jackson
et al., 2008; see Figure 2.4) with one item per component. The scale was developed
and used mainly in sports contexts (Swann, Keegan, Piggott, & Crust, 2012), but
could also be used in work (or other) contexts – as has been done by Fullagar and
Kelloway (2009).
Jackson and colleagues tested two statistical models of the flow concept and
compared them with each other – a first-order model with nine correlated factors
representing flow as a single construct and a nine-factor model with correlated fac-
tors representing flow as a multifaceted construct (Jackson & Marsh, 1996; Marsh &
Jackson, 1999; Martin & Jackson, 2008). The results showed that both models had
a good statistical fit. However, the nine-factor model fitted the data even better than
the one-factor model. Beard, Hoy, and Woolfolk Hoy (2010) also replicated this
structure with a sample of elementary teachers. Therefore, from a conceptual view
corroborated by factor analyses, flow can be seen as a multifaceted experience (see
also Section 1, about the flow state and its components). Hence, focusing on one or
some components misses important aspects of flow experience.
The Flow Short Scale developed by Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, and Engeser (2003)
is another example of a questionnaire that includes all components of flow. The
scale has been used in various contexts (e.g., Baumann & Scheffer, 2011; Engeser &
Baumann, 2014; Engeser & Rheinberg, 2008; Reinhardt, Lau, Hottenrott, & Stoll,
2006; Schüler, Brandstätter, & Sheldon, 2013) and in ESM studies as well (Rheinberg
et al., 2007). As depicted in Figure 2.5, the scale consists of ten items. In addition,
demands, skills, and the perceived fit of demands and skills can be assessed separately.
The scale shows high internal consistency, warranted to sum up the items to obtain
a measure of flow. Nevertheless, factor analyses revealed that two factors could be
separated (Rheinberg et al., 2003): fluency of performance (items 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9)
40 Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

not partly very

at all much
I feel just the right amount of challenge.
My thoughts/activities run fluidly and smoothly.

I don’t notice time passing.

I have no difficulty concentrating.
My mind is completely clear.
I am totally absorbed in what I am doing.

The right thoughts/movements occur of their own accord.

I know what I have to do each step of the way.
I feel that I have everything under control.

I am completely lost in thought.

easy difficult
Compared to all other activities in which I partake
this one is …
low high
I think that my competence in this area is ...

too just too

low right high
For me personally, the current demands are ...

FIGURE 2.5 The Flow Short Scale (adapted from Engeser, 2012a)

and absorption by the activity (items 1, 3, 6, 10). If individuals score high on both
aspects, they are considered to experience flow (cf. Engeser, 2012a). An advantage
of this measure is its brevity. However, the components of flow are assessed with
only one or two items. In order to evaluate the structure of flow, more items would
be needed, such as in the questionnaire of Jackson and colleagues presented earlier.
Strength: The questionnaires presented here incorporate all components of flow
and thus represent the construct of flow as defined by Csikszentmihalyi (1975;
Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). These questionnaires could be used in vari-
ous contexts, including work. Moreover, the short questionnaires can be combined
with the ESM in order to assess all components of flow.
Weakness: If some components of flow are considered more central than others,
assessing all components reduces the validity of the measure. In addition, assessing all
components with multiple items lengthens the measure, questioning the applicabil-
ity for all research designs (e.g., for repeated assessments in ESM).

3 Nondeclarative methods to assess flow

With flow being a state of complete involvement in an activity, declarative mea-
sures always have the drawback that the experience of flow needs to be interrupted
in order to assess flow. As a consequence, people enter a state of self-reflection
 Measuring flow at work 41

and thus flow can be assessed only retrospectively. In contrast, with nondeclarative
(i.e., procedural or autonomic) methods, flow can be assessed during an activity
without interrupting it. However, because flow is a subjective experience, these
methods should be combined with declarative measures of flow in order to vali-
date the results.
Some first theoretical attempts addressing nondeclarative measures have dis-
cussed the role of the neurotransmitter dopamine as a correlate of flow (Marr,
2001) and a down-regulation of task-irrelevant processes that relate to the pre-
frontal activity in the brain (Dietrich, 2003, 2004; Goleman, 1997). Empirical
studies have focused on neuronal (Klasen, Weber, Kircher, Mathiak, & Mathiak,
2012; Manzano et al., 2013; Ulrich et al., 2013) or psychophysiological mea-
sures, such as heart rate variability (HRV; Keller, Bless, Blomann, & Kleinböhl,
2011; Manzano, Theorell, Harmat, & Ullén, 2010; Peifer, Schulz, Schächinger,
Baumann, & Antoni, 2014), facial electromyographic indicators (EMG; Kivi-
kangas, 2006; Manzano et al., 2010; Nacke & Lindley, 2009), electrodermal
activity (Kivikangas, 2006), and cortisol (Keller et al., 2011; Peifer, 2012; Peifer
et al., 2014).

3.1 Neuronal indicators

Neuronal studies use positron emission tomography (PET) and functional mag-
netic resonance imaging (fMRI) images in order to examine correlates of flow.
Manzano et al. (2013) showed that the general proneness for flow at work, in
leisure activities, and during household maintenance (assessed with the Swed-
ish Flow Proneness Questionnaire; Ullén et al., 2012) is related to the number
of dopamine D2-receptors in the dorsal striatum (i.e., putamen and caudate
nucleus), with the highest correlation for flow at work. This result was also sup-
ported by Ulrich et al. (2013), who, on the one hand, experimentally induced
flow by establishing a demands-skill balance, and on the other hand, correlated the
fMRI images with three flow items assessing enjoyment and perceived challenges/
skills balance. In the balance condition, the neural activation was increased, espe-
cially in the left putamen. The availability of dorsal striatal dopamine receptors
was found to be associated with better impulse control (Dalley et al., 2007; Dal-
ley, Mar, Economidou, & Robbins, 2008; Pine, Shiner, Seymour, & Dolan, 2010).
Hence, people who are prone to flow in their daily lives may show better impulse
control, which can help them structure a situation and direct their attention to
a limited stimulus field. In line with this evidence, it has been proposed that the
putamen modulates stimulus-action coding (Haruno & Kawato, 2006) as well
as stimulus-response habit formation (Devan, Hong, & McDonald, 2011), and
plays an important role in evaluating and guiding ongoing actions toward their
expected outcomes and directions (Balleine, Delgado, & Hikosaka, 2007; Hori,
Minamimoto, & Kimura, 2009). Therefore, it may display the process of choos-
ing action opportunities (i.e., challenges) that match the perceived abilities in
order to structure the activity in such a way that a person always knows what to
42 Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

do next and gets absorbed in the activity (see Schiepe-Tiska & Engeser, 2012, for
a more detailed description).
In addition to these results, Ulrich et al. (2013) found a decreased neural activa-
tion in the medial prefrontal cortex in the balance condition. A lesion of this sec-
tion has been found to abolish self-referential processing (Philippi, Duff, Denburg,
Tranel, & Rudrauf, 2012). Thus, this result suggests that being in flow goes along
with a loss of reflective self-consciousness (see also Goldberg, 2001).
Moreover, when comparing the conditions as well as when correlating the fMRI
data with the selected flow items, a decreased neural activation was observed in the
left amygdala, a region that is important for emotional coding of environmental
stimuli (cf. Gottfried, 2011). An increased activation in the amygdala signals the valence
(i.e., pleasant and unpleasant) rather than the arousal of a stimuli, with the later even
leading to a decreased activation in the left amygdala (Anders, Eippert, Weiskopf, &
Veit, 2008). In line with this, Aellig (2004) showed in an ESM study that climb-
ers who experienced flow reported arousal while they were climbing and positive
valence after they were done climbing.

3.2 Psychophysiological measures

Also Peifer et al. (2014) also showed that high levels of flow were related to
medium levels of arousal, as indicated by moderate sympathetic activation (i.e., low
frequency component of heart rate variability – HRV) and high parasympathetic
activation (i.e., high frequency component of HRV), the latter additionally indi-
cating decreased cognitive workload (Bernardi et al., 2000). Moreover, high levels
of flow are linked to moderately elevated cortisol levels (see also Peifer, 2012).
Peifer et al. (2014) point out that cortisol has been found to facilitate focusing
and sustaining attention (cf. Peifer, Schächinger, Engeser, & Antoni, 2015; see also
Fehm-Wolfsdorf & Nagel, 1996; Fehm-Wolfsdorf et al., 1993) by providing addi-
tional energy resources (Benedict et al., 2009; Peters et al., 2004). In addition, corti-
sol is related to improved concentration (Born, Hitzler, Pietrowsky, Pauschinger, &
Fehm, 1989), which is also a component of flow.
Strength: With nondeclarative measures, flow can be assessed online without
interrupting the state. Moreover, micro processes of flow can be examined, such
as length, intensity, and stability of flow with regard to promoting and hindering
conditions (see also Peifer, 2012, for a similar argumentation). Data gathered with
nondeclarative measures provide rich, informative, and objective data that comple-
ment the assessment of flow via self-report.
Weakness: Nondeclarative measures are time- and resource-consuming because
usually expensive equipment and additional training of the staff are required. In
addition, so far, some of the measures can primarily be used in laboratory settings
and not in applied settings, such as workplaces. To date, the inconsistency of nonde-
clarative indicators prevents from obtaining an accurate assessment of the dynamic
and subjective experience of flow.
 Measuring flow at work 43

4 Conclusion
Which measurement technique a researcher should use depends on the context
and the research questions he or she wants to answer. We differentiated three main
approaches: the interview technique, questionnaires (assessing one component,
selected and/or additional components, most or all components), and nondeclara-
tive measures (neuronal and psychophysiological measures). In addition, we listed
what are, in our view, the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. This may help
researchers to evaluate different measures of flow as well as to evaluate flow research
in general. Moreover, it may facilitate the selection of the best possible measure of
flow for one’s own empirical research.
In sum, interviews are best applied to new kinds of activities, to assess the unique
subjective experience of individuals, and to discover potential new aspects of expe-
riences (Rheinberg & Engeser, in press). Questionnaires allow us to assess spe-
cific aspects, and focus on a predefined concept of flow experience. This enables
researchers to study individual differences quantitatively, and also the influence
of the context (e.g., different kinds of activities) can be much more easily exam-
ined than with the qualitative approach of interviews. However, the key factor for
applying questionnaires is that the items have to be selected carefully. We hope that
we have emphasized how important this selection is and have helped practitioners
and researchers to evaluate different flow questionnaires. We see the advantages
of assessing all components of flow. In the case of adding components, research-
ers have to keep in mind that new components need to be carefully related to the
flow concept and it should be stated explicitly whether these new components are
part of the flow experience or more closely related preconditions or consequences
of flow.
In addition, we hope that nondeclarative measures, such as neuronal or psycho-
physiological measures, can complement declarative measures in order to assess flow
“live” during an activity and not only retrospectively or by interrupting this fruitful
experience. However, when using these kinds of methods, researchers have to keep
in mind that flow is a subjective state. To date, no nondeclarative measures exist that
fully represent this subjective experience, and thus assessing flow on the sole basis of
these measures would not be warranted. Therefore, participants still have to be asked
whether they are in the flow state.
Our presentation does by no means exclude that new or other kinds of mea-
sures of flow could be used. Indeed, the Flow Questionnaire (Csikszentmihalyi &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, pp. 194–195) is an early measure of flow that might inspire
other kinds of approaches. Within the Flow Questionnaire, flow is described with
three quotes and participants are then asked to indicate whether they have ever
experienced such experiences. This item is used to distinguish between “flow-ers”
and “non-flow-ers.” The flowers are then asked to evaluate their own experiences
with rating scales (see also Delle Fave et al., 2011; Moneta, 2012). In our classifica-
tion it represents a combination of a qualitative approach and questionnaires that
44 Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

assess flow with a closed answering format. From our point of view, if possible, a
combination of different measurement approaches may be the best way to capture
flow in order to combine the strength of different measures and to explore new
ways of assessing flow.

References
Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orienta-
tions in the competitive context: An examination of person-situation interactions. Journal
of Personality, 77, 1615–1635. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6494.2009.00594.x
Aellig, S. (2004). Über den Sinn des Unsinns: Flow-Erleben und Wohlbefinden als Anreize für
autotelische Tätigkeiten [About the sense of nonsense: Flow and well-being as incentives for
autotelic tasks]. Internationale Hochschulschriften [International Thesis] (Vol. 431). Münster:
Waxmann.
Anders, S., Eippert, F., Weiskopf, N., & Veit, R. (2008). The human amygdala is sensitive to
the valence of pictures and sounds irrespective of arousal: An fMRI study. Social Cognitive
and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 233–243. doi:10.1093/scan/nsn017
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44.
Bakker, A. B. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation
of the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 400–414. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11.007
Balleine, B. W., Delgado, M. R., & Hikosaka, O. (2007). The role of the dorsal striatum
in reward and decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 8161–8165. doi:10.1523/
jneurosci.1554–07.2007
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2012). Optimal experience and self-determination at school: Join-
ing perspectives. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 425–438. doi:10.1007/s11031–011–9268-z
Baumann, N. (2012). Autotelic personality. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research
(pp. 165–186). New York: Springer.
Baumann, N., & Scheffer, D. (2011). Seeking flow in the achievement domain: The achieve-
ment flow motive behind flow experience. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 267–284.
doi:10.1007/s11031–010–9195–4
Beard, K. S., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2010) Academic optimism of individual teach-
ers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1136–1144.
Benedict, C., Kern, W., Schmid, S. M., Schultes, B., Born, J., & Hallschmid, M. (2009).
Early morning rise in hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity: A role for maintain-
ing the brain’s energy balance. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 455–462. doi:10.1016/j.
psyneuen.2008.10.010
Bernardi, L., Wdowczyk-Szulc, J., Valenti, C., Castoldi, S., Passino, C., Spadacini, G., &
Sleight, P. (2000). Effects of controlled breathing, mental activity and mental stress with or
without verbalization on heart rate variability. Journal of the American College of Cardiology,
35, 1462–1469. doi:10.1016/s0735–1097(00)00595–7
Born, J., Hitzler, V., Pietrowsky, R., Pauschinger, P., & Fehm, H. L. (1989). Influences of cor-
tisol on auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) and mood in humans. Neuropsychobiology, 20,
145–151. doi:10.1159/000118489
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow & the psychology of discovery & invention. London:
Harper & Row.
 Measuring flow at work 45

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
New York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning.
New York: Penguin Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (Eds.) (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological
studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling
method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526–536. doi:10.1097/
00005053–198709000–00004
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R., & Prescott, S. (1977). The ecology of adolescent
activity and experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 281–294. doi:10.1007/
BF02138940
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.56.5.815
Dalley, J. W., Fryer, T. D., Brichard, L., Robinson, E. S. J., Theobald, D.E.H., Laane, K., . . .
Robbins, T. W. (2007). Nucleus accumbens D2/3 receptors predict trait impulsivity and
cocaine reinforcement. Science, 315, 1267–1270. doi:10.1126/science.1137073
Dalley, J. W., Mar, A. C., Economidou, D., & Robbins, T. W. (2008). Neurobehavioral mech-
anisms of impulsivity: Fronto-striatal systems and functional neurochemistry. Microdialysis:
Recent Developments, 90, 250–260. doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2007.12.021
Debus, M., Sonnentag, S., Deutsch, W., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2014). Making flow happen:
The effects of being recovered on work-related flow between and within days. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99, 713–722. doi:10.1037/a0035881
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal experience and apa-
thy: Developmental and psychosocial implications. European Psychologist, 10, 264–274.
doi:10.1027/1016–9040.10.4.264
Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011). Psychological selection and optimal experience
across cultures. New York: Springer.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Sonnentag, S., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Work-related flow and
energy at work and at home: A study on the role of daily recovery. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 33, 276–295. doi:10.1002/job.760
Devan, B. D., Hong, N. S., & McDonald, R. J. (2011). Parallel associative processing in the
dorsal striatum: Segregation of stimulus–response and cognitive control subregions. Neu-
robiology of Learning and Memory, 96, 95–120. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2011.06.002
Dietrich, A. (2003). Functional neuroanatomy of altered states of consciousness: The tran-
sient hypofrontality hypothesis. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 231–256. doi:10.1016/
S1053–8100(02)00046–6
Dietrich, A. (2004). Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the experience of flow. Con-
sciousness and Cognition, 13, 746–761. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2004.07.002
Ellis, G. D., Voelkl, J. E., & Morris, C. (1994). Measurement and analysis issues with expla-
nation of variance in daily experience using the flow model. Journal of Leisure Research,
26(4), 337–356.
Engeser, S. (Ed.) (2012a). Advances in flow research. New York: Springer.
Engeser, S. (2012b). Comments on Schiefele and Raabe (2011): Flow is a multifaceted experi-
ence defined by several components. Psychological Reports, 111, 24–26. doi:10.2466/04.22.
PR0.111.4.24–26
Engeser, S., & Baumann, N. (2016). Fluctuation of flow and affect in everyday life: A second
look at the paradox of work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 105–124.
Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill
balance. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 158–172. doi:10.1007/s11031–008–9102–4
46 Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

Engeser, S., & Schiepe-Tiska, A. (2012). Historical lines and an overview of current research
on flow. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 1–22). New York: Springer.
Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective. Essays in cognitive psychology. Hove:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fehm-Wolfsdorf,G., & Nagel, D. (1996). Differential effects of glucocorticoids on human audi-
tory perception. Biological Psychology, 42, 117–130. doi:10.1016/0301–0511(95)05150–3
Fehm-Wolfsdorf, G., Soherr, U., Arndt, R., Kern, W., Fehm, H. L., & Nagel, D. (1993). Audi-
tory reflex thresholds elevated by stress-induced cortisol secretion. Psychoneuroendocrinol-
ogy, 18, 579–589. doi:10.1016/0306–4530(93)90035-j
Fullagar, C. J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Flow at work: An experience sampling approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 595–615. doi:10.1348/0963179
08X357903
Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2012). New directions in positive psychology: Implications
for a healthy workplace. In J. Houmount, S. Leka, & R. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary occu-
pational health psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice (pp. 146–161). Chich-
ester, UK: Wiley.
Goldberg, E. (2001). The executive brain: Frontal lobes and the civilized mind. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Goleman, D. (1997). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam.
Gottfried, J. A. (Ed.) (2011). Frontiers in neuroscience: Neurobiology of sensation and reward. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Haruno, M., & Kawato, M. (2006). Different neural correlates of reward expectation and reward
expectation error in the putamen and caudate nucleus during stimulus-action-reward
association learning. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95, 948–959. doi:10.1152/jn.00382.2005
Hori, Y., Minamimoto, T., & Kimura, M. (2009). Neuronal encoding of reward value and
direction of actions in the primate putamen. Journal of Neurophysiology, 102, 3530–3543.
doi:10.1152/jn.00104.2009
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The flow
state scale-2 and dispositional flow scale-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24,
133–150.
Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure
optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35.
Jackson, S. A., Martin, A. S., & Eklund, R. C. (2008). Long and short measures of flow: The
construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 30(5), 561–587.
Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). Flow and regulatory compatibility: An experimental approach
to the flow model of intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
196–209. doi:10.1177/0146167207310026
Keller, J., Bless, H., Blomann, F., & Kleinböhl, D. (2011). Physiological aspects of flow experi-
ences: Skills-demand-compatibility effects on heart rate variability and salivary cortisol.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 849–852.
Keller, J., & Blomann, F. (2008). Locus of control and the flow experience: An experimental
analysis. European Journal of Personality, 22, 589–607. doi:10.1002/per.692
Keller, J., & Landhäußer, A. (2012). The flow model revisited. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances
in flow research (pp. 51–64). New York: Springer.
Kivikangas, J. M. (2006). Psychophysiology of flow experience: An explorative study. Master’s
thesis. University of Helsinki, Finland.
Klasen, M., Weber, R., Kircher, T. T., Mathiak, K. A., & Mathiak, K. (2012). Neural contribu-
tions to flow experience during video game playing. Social Cognitive and Affective Neurosci-
ence, 7, 485–495. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr021
 Measuring flow at work 47

Mannell, R. C., & Bradley, W. (1986). Does greater freedom always lead to greater leisure?
Testing a person× environment model of freedom and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research,
18(4), 215–230.
Manzano, Ö. de, Cervenka, S., Jucaite, A., Hellenäs, O., Farde, L., & Ullén, F. (2013). Indi-
vidual differences in the proneness to have flow experiences are linked to dopamine
D2-receptor availability in the dorsal striatum. Neuroimage, 67, 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.
neuroimage.2012.10.072
Manzano, Ö. de, Theorell, T., Harmat, L., & Ullén, F. (2010). The psychophysiology of flow
during piano playing. Emotion, 10, 301–311. doi:10.1037/a0018432
Marr, A. J. (2001). In the zone: A biobehavioral theory of the flow experience. Athletic insight:
The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 3(1), retrieved from: http://www.athleticinsight.
com/Vol3Iss1/Commentary.htm.
Marsh, H. W., & Jackson, S. A. (1999). Flow experience in sport: Construct validation of
multidimensional, hierarchical state and trait responses. Structural Equation Modelling, 6,
343–371.
Martin, A. J., & Jackson, S. A. (2008). Brief approaches to assessing task absorption and
enhanced subjective experience: Examining ‘short’ and ‘core’ flow in diverse performance
domains. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 141–157.
Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In
M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies
of flow in consciousness (pp. 266–287). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Massimini, F., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Carli, M. (1987). The monitoring of optimal experi-
ence a tool for psychiatric rehabilitation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175,
545–549. doi:10.1097/00005053–198709000–00006
Moller, A. C., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Nakamura, J., & Deci, E. L. (2007, February). Devel-
oping an experimental induction of flow. Poster presented at the Society for Personality and
Social Psychology conference, Memphis, TN, USA.
Moneta, G. B. (2012). On the measurement and conceptualization of flow. In S. Engeser
(Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 23–50). New York: Springer.
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills
on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64, 275–310. doi:10.1111/
j.1467–6494.1996.tb00512.x
Nacke, L., & Lindley, C. (2009). Affective ludology, flow and immersion in a first-person
shooter: Measurement of player experience. Loading. . ., 3, 1–21.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S.
J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In C. R. Snyder &
S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 195–206). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Peifer, C. (2012). Psychophysiological correlates of flow-experience. In S. Engeser (Ed.),
Advances in flow research (pp. 139–164). New York: Springer.
Peifer, C., Schulz, A., Schächinger, H., Baumann, N., & Antoni, C. H. (2014). The relation
of flow-experience and physiological arousal under stress – Can U shape it? Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 62–69. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.009
Peifer, C., Schächinger, H., Engeser, S., & Antoni, C. H. (2015). Cortisol effects on
flow-experience. Psychopharmacology, 232, 1165–1173. doi:10.1007/s00213–014–3753–5
Peters, A., Schweiger, U., Pellerin, L., Hubold, C., Oltmanns, K. M., Conrad, M., . . . Fehm,
H. L. (2004). The selfish brain: Competition for energy resources. Neuroscience and Biobe-
havioral Reviews, 28, 143–180. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.002
48 Anja Schiepe-Tiska and Stefan Engeser

Philippi, C. L., Duff, M. C., Denburg, N. L., Tranel, D., & Rudrauf, D. (2012). Medial PFC
damage abolishes the self-reference effect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 475–481.
doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00138
Pine, A., Shiner, T., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2010). Dopamine, time, and impulsivity in
humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 8888–8896. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6028–09.2010
Reinhardt, C., Lau, A., Hottenrott, K., & Stoll, O. (2006). Flow-Erleben unter kontrol-
lierter Beanspruchungssteuerung. Ergebnisse einer Laufbandstudie [Flow experience
under controlled running work load: Results of a laboratory treadmill study. Zeitschrift
für Sportpsychologie [Journal of Sports Psychology], 13, 140–146. doi:10.1026/1612–5010.
13.4.140
Rheinberg, F., & Engeser, S. (in press). Intrinsic motivation and flow-experience. In J. Heck-
hausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (3rd edition). New York: Springer.
Rheinberg, F., Manig,Y., Kliegl, R., Engeser, S., & Vollmeyer, R. (2007). Flow bei der Arbeit,
doch Glück in der Freizeit [Flow during work but happiness during leisure time: Goals,
flow-experience, and happiness]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie
[Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology], 51, 105–115. doi:10.1026/0932–4089.
51.3.105
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Engeser, S. (2003). Die Erfassung des Flow-Erleben [Mea-
suring flow]. In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Selbstkonz-
ept, Lernmotivation und Selbstregulation [Diagnostics of self-concept, learning motivation, and
self-regulation] (pp. 261–279). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Rogatko, T. P. (2009). The influence of flow on positive affect in college students. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 10, 133–148. doi:10.1037/t06070–000
Schallberger, U., & Pfister, R. (2001). Flow-Erleben in Arbeit und Freizeit. Eine Untersu-
chung zum “Paradox der Arbeit” mit der Experience Sampling Method (ESM) Flow
during work but happiness during leisure time [Flow at work and during leisure: A study
of the “paradox of work” with the experience sampling method (ESM)]. Zeitschrift für
Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie [Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology], 45,
176–187. doi:10.1026//0932–4089.45.4.176
Schiefele, U., & Raabe, A. (2011). Skills-demands compatibility as a determinant of
flow experience in an inductive reasoning task. Psychological Reports, 109, 428–444.
doi:10.2466/04.22.PR0.109.5.428–444
Schiepe-Tiska, A., & Engeser, S. (2012). Flow in non-achievement situations. In S. Engeser
(Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 87–108). New York: Springer.
Schüler, J., Brandstätter, V., & Sheldon, K. M. (2013). Do implicit motives and basic psy-
chological needs interact to predict well-being and flow? Testing a universal hypoth-
esis and a matching hypothesis. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 480–495. doi:10.1037/
t03592–000
Scollon, C. N., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2003). Experience sampling: Promises and
pitfalls, strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 5–34. doi:10.1023/
A:1023605205115
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Interest – The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
17, 57–60. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8721.2008.00548.x
Swann, C., Keegan, R. J., Piggott, D. C., & Crust, L. (2012). A systematic review of the
experience, occurrence, and controllability of flow states in elite sport. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 13, 807–819.
 Measuring flow at work 49

Ullén, F., Manzano, Ö. de, Almeida, R., Magnusson, Patrik, K. E., Pedersen, N. L., Nakamura,
J., . . . Madison, G. (2012). Proneness for psychological flow in everyday life: Associa-
tions with personality and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 167–172.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.003
Ulrich, M., Keller, J., Hoenig, K., Waller, C., & Grön, G. (2013). Neural correlates of
experimentally induced flow experiences. Neuroimage, 86, 194–202. doi:10.1016/j.
neuroimage.2013.08.019
3
CAPTURING WITHIN-PERSON
CHANGES IN FLOW AT WORK
Theoretical importance and
research methodologies

Despoina Xanthopoulou

Introduction
Already in 1975, Csikszentmihalyi defined flow as the “holistic sensation that peo-
ple feel when they act with total involvement” (p. 4). As such, flow is a mental state
that individuals may experience during any activity of their everyday life. Research
on flow can be viewed as the landmark that urged scholars to shift their atten-
tion from the study of deficiencies to that of strengths and optimal experiences.
This positive psychology movement has also affected organizational psychology
researchers, who now recognize that a balanced approach that takes into account
both employee weaknesses and optimal functioning can better explain the com-
plexity of organizational phenomena. In this context, the study of flow at work has
started gaining momentum (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2013).
The different conceptualizations of flow that were proposed over the years and
across life domains converge on three core elements that define this optimal state:
total absorption in the activity at hand (i.e., the sense that “time flies”), high levels
of enjoyment (i.e., feelings of happiness), and enhanced intrinsic motivation (i.e.,
activities are partaken in irrespective of external rewards or costs; Bakker, 2008). A
central assumption is that flow experiences happen suddenly, are of relatively limited
duration, and exhibit significant variations within the same person (Csikszentmi-
halyi, 1993). This means that although employees may vary from one another in
terms of how frequently they experience flow or how strong these experiences
are, the very same employee may experience flow more frequently and/or more
intensely in certain moments than in other moments (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, &
Ilies, 2012a).
In this chapter, the focus is on the daily experiences of flow at work in an
attempt to understand the within-person dynamics of the phenomenon, and to ana-
lyze the psychological processes that explain these within-employee variations. First,
 Capturing within-person changes in flow 51

the concept of flow at work is described with a special emphasis on its dynamic
nature. Next, the theoretical importance of understanding within-person fluctua-
tions in flow over and above between-person differences is analyzed. To this respect,
a review of studies that investigate the predictors and outcomes of within-employee
changes in flow is presented. Finally, the methodological challenges that scholars
face when studying within-person fluctuations in work-related flow are outlined,
different research protocols are considered, and their advantages and disadvantages
are discussed.

The dynamic nature of flow at work

Flow is an optimal experience that individuals in general, and employees in partic-
ular, feel when engaging in activities that are intrinsically rewarding (Nakamura &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Flow is an enjoyable state that is more likely to take place
when people are involved in challenging activities, while they possess the necessary
skills to meet these challenges in order to reach well-defined goals (Csikszentmi-
halyi, 1990). In contrast, when there is a mismatch between challenges and skills,
individuals are more likely to experience anxiety or boredom. Put differently,
flow can be experienced during activities that are intrinsically rewarding, where
perceived challenges and skills are above the person’s average and in balance, and
where continuous feedback is provided on the process. According to Nakamura
and Csikszentmihalyi, under these circumstances the optimal experience unfolds
from moment to moment and has the following characteristics: a) people are so
concentrated on the task that they forget everything else around them; b) they are
in total control of their actions; c) they fail to keep track of time; and d) despite
being functional, they lose their self-awareness as social actors.
Bakker (2005, 2008) defined flow at work as a peak experience that is charac-
terized by intrinsic work motivation, total absorption in the task, and work enjoy-
ment. Accordingly, employees reach flow when they are working on a task they find
meaningful, when they are so absorbed in the task that they forget everything else
around them, and when they are happy being busy with the task. For example, a his-
tory teacher is likely to be in flow when she is teaching about a topic she finds very
interesting and when she is totally concentrated on this task and happy being in
the class. When the bell rings and the class is over, the teacher will most likely exit the
flow state since the conditions that allow the experience to take place are no longer
present. The very same teacher may not experience flow when teaching about the
same topic to another less receptive audience (e.g., noisy students who distract her
attention) or when she is teaching about a topic she finds boring.
This example illustrates that flow is a dynamic phenomenon that depends on
momentary, personal, and contextual stimuli (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Despite this
assumption, work-related flow is often defined and measured as a rather endur-
ing trait (e.g., Demerouti, 2006; Mills & Fullagar, 2008; Salanova, Bakker, & Llo-
rens, 2006). Namely, employees are asked to report on their flow experience “in
general” and not with respect to the moment that this experience occurs. These
52 Despoina Xanthopoulou

between-person studies provide important insights on who is more likely to reach

flow, but fail to explain why and how the very same employee may be in flow at a
certain moment and not at another one. This research tradition initiated a dialogue
about the essence of flow, and whether it is best operationalized as a dispositional
trait that exhibits significant between-person variation or as a momentary state that
depends on the situation and may vary significantly within the same person as a
response to external stimuli (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009).
In line with the trait approach, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) proposed that individu-
als who possess the characteristics of an autotelic personality (i.e., they engage in an
activity for the intrinsic pleasure of it) have a greater predisposition to experience
flow. For example, chefs may be asked to recall how frequently they experience flow
when they are cooking. Those who are intrinsically motivated are more prone to
reach the optimal experience. In support of the state approach, Kimiecik and Stein
(1992) suggested that reaching the flow state depends not only on one’s dispositions
but also on the specific characteristics of the situation (e.g., level of challenge during
the task), as well as on how the person feels or acts with regard to the specific situ-
ation (e.g., level of concentration). Thus, the experience of flow highly depends on
momentary conditions, and since these conditions are highly fluctuant even within
the same person, flow should also be expected to exhibit significant within-person
variations. Accordingly, a famous chef may experience flow when she is busy with
preparing a new recipe, but she may not experience flow the next time she pre-
pares this same recipe. Therefore, in order to be able to capture the experience as
it unfolds and as it changes from one day or moment to the other within the same
employee, flow should be evaluated frequently over short periods of time and with
specific work-related activities as a point of reference (Alliger & Williams, 1993;
Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003).
Jackson and Eklund (2002) clarified the nature of flow by proposing that it can
be operationalized best as having both trait and state components. Accordingly,
work-related flow is an optimal state that is influenced by momentary conditions
during work, while employees may vary in the propensity to which they experi-
ence flow (see also Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009). Put differently, a part of the flow
experience can be explained by dispositional elements, while another part can be
explained by momentary, within-employee, situational, and personal states. This
operationalization seems to better capture the theoretical assumptions that explain
flow, since it incorporates both the role of the dispositional propensity to reach
optimal experiences and the role of the characteristics of the activity that one is
engaged in at a specific moment (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Nakamura & Csikszent-
mihalyi, 2002).
Findings of studies that examined both between- and within-person variations
in flow at work support this complementary view, since significant amounts of
variance were attributed to both levels of analysis. More specifically, the amount
of variance that was attributed to between-person differences ranged from 14% to
63% (M = 37%) of the total variance in flow, while the amount of variance that
was explained by within-person fluctuations ranged from 27% to 86% (M = 57%)
 Capturing within-person changes in flow 53

of the total variance across studies (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009; Fullagar, Knight, &
Sovern, 2013; Rodríguez-Sánchez, Schaufeli, Salanova, Cifre, & Sonnenschein, 2011;
Xanthopoulou, 2011; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Oerlemans, & Koszucka, 2012b).
These results indicate that more than one-third of the total variance in work-related
flow is attributable to within-person changes. This suggests that the state approach
complements the trait approach, and thus it is imperative to understand the psycho-
logical processes that explain within-person changes in work-related flow in order
to fully grasp these optimal experiences at work.
Although some studies indicated that flow exhibits stronger within-person vari-
ations during nonwork activities than during work-related activities (Navarro &
Ceja, 2011), Rodríguez-Sánchez et al. (2011) showed that the absorption dimension
of flow exhibited higher within-person variation when working versus when not
working. Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989) in their study among white- and
blue-collar workers concluded that employees are three times more likely to expe-
rience flow during work-related than during leisure activities, since work-related
activities seem to be more challenging than nonwork activities. In a similar vein,
Graham (2008) investigated twenty cohabiting couples who were followed up
throughout the day for a week. Results showed that work-related activities were
more likely to generate flow experiences, followed by household activities. Finally,
Donner and Csikszentmihalyi (1992) found that on average 44% of time at work
is time in flow. These results suggest that the work context does provide rich
opportunities for flow experiences to take place, and thus it is important for theory
development to examine within-person variability in work-related flow in more
depth.

The theoretical importance of capturing within-

person variations in flow at work
How does the study of within-person variations in work-related flow add to theory
development? The main advantage of adopting a complementary trait-state approach
in the study of work-related flow is that it offers the opportunity to observe the
flow experience when and while it evolves, whether it is moments within workdays
or workdays within weeks. Taking temporality into consideration permits captur-
ing intra-individual variability in flow over and above between-person differences.
This is important because it helps in documenting when an employee, who may
or may not have the disposition to experience flow, reaches the flow state. In other
words, state approaches allow estimating and explaining the within-person variance
in flow that is considered to be random error in trait approaches (Ceja & Navarro,
2011, 2012).
On a related note, the study of within-person variations in work-related flow
also helps in describing the phenomenon in a more systematic manner. Although
flow has been initially depicted as a rather infrequent state that may occur only
a few times during one’s lifetime (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), within-person studies
suggest that it is not as infrequent as it was initially thought to be, particularly in
54 Despoina Xanthopoulou

the work context (Ceja & Navarro, 2011, 2012; Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989;
Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2011). The common characteristic of these within-person
studies is that multiple measurements are taken over short periods of time. This
allows capturing the flow experience the moment that it occurs or very close to
its occurrence. When observations are in close proximity to the examined experi-
ence, assessments are likely to be relatively free from retrospective bias (Ohly, Son-
nentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010), and thus the frequency of the phenomenon can be
estimated more accurately. Let’s consider the following: if we ask employees to rate
how frequently they experience flow during their work in general, it is likely that
they may forget optimal experiences of very short duration. Such estimations may
result in the inaccurate conclusion that flow is a rather uncommon work-related
experience. In contrast, if flow is measured frequently and in relation to specific
activities at work, the chance of missing important information is reduced. Thus,
the initial impression that flow was rather infrequent could be attributed to misin-
terpretations that were based on findings from studies that treated flow as mainly a
static phenomenon.
It is clear that the study of within-person variations in work-related flow adds
to theory development because it provides more concrete conceptualizations of the
construct. Another clear advantage of the situational, within-person approach over
and above the between-person approach in the study of flow at work is that the
former allows collecting rich information about the psychological processes that
explain the optimal experience. Between-person studies yield information on the
enduring predictors and outcomes of work-related flow. For instance, Csikszentmi-
halyi (1990) suggested that people who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to
get into the flow state (see also Fullagar, Delle Fave, & Van Krevelen, this volume).
However, this does not mean that an intrinsically motivated employee experiences
flow all the time. In order to be able to understand when this person is most likely
to enter into the flow state and why, it is important to study the momentary condi-
tions that precede the optimal experience, as well as the consequent outcomes. Evi-
dence on the most proximal causes and consequences of momentary work-related
flow experiences may explain what it is that triggers the person to enter flow in
specific moments and not in others. This information helps one to fully understand
why people experience flow, because these proximal conditions are the ones that
initiate the psychological processes that generate momentary experiences, over and
above the related traits (Xanthopoulou et al., 2012a).
The study of within-person changes in work-related flow is important for theory
development for one more reason. According to Chen, Bliese, and Mathieu (2005),
theoretical assumptions that are based on empirical evidence from between-person
studies should not be automatically applied at the within-person level of analy-
sis. This is because the psychological processes that explain between-person varia-
tions in a phenomenon do not necessarily parallel the psychological mechanisms
that explain within-person fluctuations in the same phenomenon. The reason
is that between-person approaches do not account for the dynamic relationships
that exist at the within-person level of analysis, and as a result they provide part of the
 Capturing within-person changes in flow 55

truth but not the whole truth. There are empirical findings supporting this view
with respect to concepts that show significant within-person fluctuations just like
flow. For example, there is some preliminary evidence showing that the relationship
between job demands and work engagement (i.e., a motivational, work-related state
that is characterized by high levels of energy, dedication, and absorption) is different
when engagement is measured as a trait and when it is measured as a state (Xantho-
poulou & Bakker, 2013). Namely, evidence suggests that this relationship is negative
at the between-person but positive at the within-person level of analysis.
The foregoing suggests that the psychological mechanisms that explain dynamic
phenomena may be different depending on the level of analysis and specificity. This
underscores the necessity to cross-validate the theoretical assumptions across the
different levels of analysis, in order to test for potential similarities or differences
(Chen et al., 2005). Empirical evidence showing that the psychological processes
explaining work-related flow are similar at the between- and within-person level
favors the homology of the underlying theoretical assumptions, and supports their
ecological validity across levels of analysis (Chen et al., 2005; Xanthopoulou et al.,
2012a). Rejection of homology underscores the need for theory refinement in a
way that the dissimilarities across levels are recognized and explained.

Work-related flow, antecedents, and outcomes:

Is there homology across levels?
Empirical evidence concerning between-person differences in work-related flow
provides important insights on who is more likely to reach optimal experiences at
work, and which are the antecedents and outcomes of trait flow. Mills and Fullagar
(2008) studied architecture students working on creative projects and found that
those who were intrinsically oriented to seek out learning experiences were the
most likely to be in flow. Furthermore, the combination of high levels of intrinsic
motivation and high levels of need for autonomy increased the chance of experi-
encing flow significantly. In a similar vein, Demerouti (2006) found a positive rela-
tionship between employee conscientiousness and flow at work, while Salanova et
al. (2006) outlined the positive association between self-efficacy and flow over time
in a sample of Spanish teachers.
Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, and Randall (2005) conducted two
cross-sectional studies among employees from a large retailer in the United States in
order to test the central assumption that flow is experienced when challenges and
skills are both high. They found that the combination of high perceived skills and chal-
lenges at work relates to higher levels of flow, but only for achievement-oriented
employees. Bakker (2005, 2008) conceptualized flow in the context of the job
demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). In his study among music
teachers, Bakker (2005) showed that those who were working in resourceful envi-
ronments were more likely to experience a balance between their skills and chal-
lenges, which in turn related to higher flow. In a similar vein, Demerouti (2006)
showed that employees working in environments characterized by autonomy, skill
56 Despoina Xanthopoulou

variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback were more likely to experience
flow. Salanova et al. (2006), as well as Mäkikangas, Bakker, Aunola, and Demerouti
(2010), further supported the significance of resourceful work environments for
flow at work over time. Next, Bakker (2008) found that job demands related posi-
tively to the absorption dimension of work-related flow (since pressure may enhance
concentration) and negatively to the enjoyment dimension of flow (since chronic
exposure to demands may induce strain and low levels of pleasure). Finally, the
positive link between flow and job performance has been supported systematically
(Bakker, 2008; Demerouti, 2006; Demerouti, Xanthopoulou, Tsaousis, & Bakker,
2014; Eisenberger et al., 2005). This short review of studies at the between-person
level of analysis indicates that employees who are more intrinsically motivated or
have more challenging and resourceful jobs (i.e., jobs characterized by a balance
between demands and resources) are more likely to experience flow. Furthermore,
those who experience flow are better performers. Do these assumptions hold at the
within-person level of analysis as well?
One of the very first studies that focused on within-employee changes in flow is
that of Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989). These authors followed seventy-eight
workers for a week and, by using the experience sampling method, collected about
seven random reports from each participant throughout each of the days that the
study took place. Their findings demonstrated that in conditions where both chal-
lenges and skills were greater than the respondents’ average, employees reported
higher levels of potency, concentration, and creativity. Similarly, Quinn (2005) in
his experience sampling study among 128 knowledge workers showed that in con-
ditions where employees were experiencing a better balance between challenges
and skills they were more likely to enter the flow state. The significant role of the
skills-challenges balance for work-related flow at the within-person level of analysis
gained further support in the study by Ceja and Navarro (2012). These authors fol-
lowed up sixty employees from various occupations over twenty-one working days.
Results based on more than 6,000 momentary reports showed that work-related
flow is best described as a state that combines continuous and sudden changes.
These changes are determined by momentary levels of skills and challenges that
are responsible for when someone will enter the ‘flow zone’, and how strong this
experience will be.
The findings of the diary study by Fullagar and Kelloway (2009) underscore
the role of task characteristics for understanding within-person variations in flow.
Forty architecture students were followed up over a fifteen-week semester, while
they were busy with studio work. Results showed that when academic work was
characterized by higher levels of skill variety and autonomy than the average, stu-
dents were more likely to experience flow. As concerns the role of job demands,
the results of a diary study on emotional labor among thirty-four Polish and sixteen
Dutch workers (Xanthopoulou et al., 2012b) showed that the emotion regulation
strategies that employees use daily in order to deal with the emotionally demanding
conditions at work explain within-person fluctuations in flow. On the days emotion
workers were using surface acting (i.e., they were expressing the emotions that were
 Capturing within-person changes in flow 57

required by the organization without altering their inner feelings) more frequently
than usual, they experienced lower levels of flow. In contrast, on days emotion work-
ers were using deep acting (i.e., they were actively attempting to feel the required
emotions) more frequently, they experienced higher levels of flow. Furthermore, the
results of a diary study among forty-five Dutch primary school teachers indicated
that time-management (as a dispositional trait) functions as a moderator on the
relationship between daily workload and daily flow (Xanthopoulou, 2011). Daily
workload related positively to daily flow only for those employees who were able to
manage their time effectively, since these employees were less likely to be distracted
due to their disorganized behavior.
The studies that focused on within-person fluctuations in the optimal experi-
ence showed that being in flow is beneficial for both employees and organizations.
For instance, Fullagar and Kelloway (2009) found within-person fluctuations in
flow to predict positive mood. Demerouti, Bakker, Sonnentag, and Fullagar (2012)
in their four-day study among eighty-three German and Dutch employees found
that certain dimensions of flow at work (mainly absorption and enjoyment) related
positively to energy both at the end of the workday and at the end of the evening.
Also, it was shown that daily recovery during work and detachment after work
moderated the relationship between flow at work and energy after work. Namely,
flow facilitated energy particularly for those who were less able to recover during
work breaks, and those who were more likely to detach from work-related demands
after work. In a similar vein, Xanthopoulou et al. (2012b) showed that on days that
employees experienced higher levels of flow, they also reported a less intense need
to recover from work-related demands at the end of the workday and, consequently,
they recovered from work during leisure time. Finally, Dutch teachers who could
deal effectively with their daily workload by managing their time well reported
more frequent states of flow that – due to their resourcefulness – decreased their
need for recovery after work and increased their feelings of relaxation before going
to bed (Xanthopoulou, 2011).
Considering that daily recovery from work is a positive predictor of subsequent
job performance (Volman, Bakker, & Xanthopoulou, 2013), the empirical find-
ings on the positive link between momentary flow and recovery imply that flow
may be beneficial for employee performance at the within-person level of analysis
as well. However, there is very limited evidence on the flow-performance rela-
tionship. Bakker, Oerlemans, Demerouti, Slot, and Ali (2011) conducted a study
among professional soccer players during specific matches. Results showed that in
matches that players received higher levels of performance feedback and support
from their coaches (i.e., more resources), they experienced higher levels of flow
during the game. In turn, flow during the game related positively to both self- and
coach-ratings of performance.
The aforementioned studies suggest that the psychological mechanisms that
explain the relationships of work-related flow with its antecedents and outcomes
seem to be quite homologous across levels of analysis. For instance, the balanced
combination of skills and challenges is a crucial trigger of work-related flow both
58 Despoina Xanthopoulou

between (Eisenberger et al., 2005) and within employees (Ceja & Navarro, 2012).
Furthermore, findings concerning both levels of analysis underscore the role of job
demands and resources for flow (Bakker, 2005, 2008; Demerouti et al., 2012), and
agree that employees are likely to experience flow at work when they possess the
resources that help them to deal effectively with the demanding aspect of challenges.
Finally, and despite the limited empirical evidence, findings both at the between-
and the within-person levels of analysis do support the beneficial effects of flow
for employee well-being and job performance. All in all, the existing empirical
evidence seems to favor the homology of the theoretical assumptions that explain
flow across levels of analysis. However, the reported studies have one important
limitation, since none of these really cross-validates the relationships between flow,
its antecedents and outcomes at the between- and within-person levels of analysis
simultaneously. Therefore, research is needed in order to reach more robust con-
clusions regarding the psychological mechanisms that explain within-person fluc-
tuations in flow at work and their external validity across levels of analysis. In this
respect, methods that allow capturing both between- and within-person variations
in flow, its causes and consequences (e.g., experience sampling), and under which
circumstances flow experiences are more likely to occur are of great significance for
theory development.

Methods to capture within-person changes in flow

Flow is best operationalized as having both trait and state components. Thus, it
can be measured as either an enduring disposition or as a fluctuant state (or both),
depending on the research question of interest (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009; Jackson &
Eklund, 2002). In the case where one is interested in explaining between-person
differences, flow can be measured as an enduring trait, while if one is interested
in explaining within-person changes he or she should (also) measure momentary
flow (Allen & Potkay, 1981). Cross-sectional studies or longitudinal studies with
long time intervals allow capturing between-employee variations in flow. How-
ever, such designs are of limited use when one is interested in studying flow as a
dynamic phenomenon that may change substantially within the same person from
one moment or day to another. The reason is that one-time measurements or mul-
tiple measurements over long periods of time cannot capture the essence of flow
and its dependence on momentary individual or situational stimuli. To understand
within-person fluctuations in flow at work, complex study designs that track the
same employees in multiple moments over short periods of time are needed (Graber,
Laurenceau, & Carver, 2011).
Indeed, most studies that concern within-person changes in work-related
flow have applied diary designs (e.g., Demerouti et al., 2012) or experience sam-
pling methods (e.g., Ceja & Navarro, 2012; Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989;
Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2011). This is not surprising given the fact that such
methods allow following up the same employees on a daily basis, and even sev-
eral times during a day, across a short period of time (one or two weeks), while
 Capturing within-person changes in flow 59

participants act in their natural settings (e.g., work; Ohly et al., 2010). The main dif-
ference between diaries and experience sampling is that in the first case participants
are asked to respond to different sets of questions at the different measurements
throughout a day (e.g., skills and challenges at the beginning of the workday and
flow in the afternoon), and repeat the same questions over several days. In contrast,
experience sampling studies usually rely on more frequent and similar assessments
over the course of a day (Binnewies & Sonnentag, 2013). Nevertheless, both types
of studies have many things in common that allow stating that diaries are a specific
form of experience sampling. In what follows, the experience sampling methodol-
ogy is described in more detail and its advantages and disadvantages for the study of
work-related flow are discussed.

Experience sampling
The significance of the experience sampling method (ESM) for capturing flow is
evident when considering that this method was actually developed by Csikszentmi-
halyi, Larson, and Prescott (1977; see also Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983) for the
exact purpose of capturing flow experiences. ESM relies on participants’ responses
to repeated signals (sent through personal digital assistants, blackberries, or smart-
phones) over short periods of time, while engaging in activities in their natural
setting (e.g., work; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1977; Oerlemans & Bakker, 2013). For
instance, in experience sampling studies employees are prompted to provide reports
on their momentary work-related flow levels with items such as “Right now, I am
totally absorbed in the task I perform,” as well as on related experiential states and
contextual characteristics at fixed, random, or a combination of fixed and random
intervals during their workday for a period of one to several weeks (for examples,
see Ceja & Navarro, 2011, 2012).
Depending on the research question under study, different experience sampling
protocols may be adopted (Conner & Lehman, 2012). For instance, if researchers
are interested in measuring flow experiences at specific moments during a day,
they may choose time-based protocols. In time-based protocols, measurements are
taken either at standardized times (interval-contingent; e.g., hourly reports or before
lunch and at the end of the workday) or at random times, when a signal is deliv-
ered (signal-contingent; e.g., randomly between five and ten times per day). For
example, Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989) asked participants to rate their flow
experiences as response to seven daily signals or “beeps” coming from electronic
paging devices that were sent randomly within two-hour periods. In a similar vein,
Ceja and Navarro (2012) asked participants to carry a personal digital assistant for
twenty-one consecutive workdays during working hours that were programmed
to beep randomly six times per workday, with intervals of at least eighty minutes
in between beeps. If one is interested in measuring flow with regard to specific
events that occur at work (e.g., when interacting with clients or working together
with colleagues on projects) then event-based protocols are more suitable. Of course,
different types of protocols can be combined if, for instance, one wants to capture
60 Despoina Xanthopoulou

work-related flow at random moments during a workday, as well as at predeter-

mined instances (e.g., at the end of the workday), or wants to investigate how ran-
dom flow experiences during the day link to performance and fatigue at the end
of work.
ESM has clear methodological advantages for the study of work-related flow
(Fullagar & Kelloway, 2013), with the first being that it allows estimating both
between- and within-employee changes in optimal experiences simultane-
ously (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003). Multiple measurements per employee
throughout a day and over short periods of time allow investigating how flow
experiences change within the same person from one moment to another, as well as
from one employee to another. This makes it possible to decompose the between-
and within-person variance in flow, and to test both momentary factors that explain
within-person variance, as well as dispositional factors that explain between-person
variance. In this way, ESM provides the chance to empirically capture the comple-
mentary trait-state view in the study of dynamic flow experiences. Importantly,
ESM provides more accurate estimates of trait work-related flow than one-time
measurements since momentary experiences may be averaged across measurement
occasions (Dimotakis & Ilies, 2013).
Of similar importance, ESM allows capturing the flow experience at the
moment that it occurs, as it evolves, and in the context that it evolves, adding to
the ecological validity of the observations, while minimizing recall biases. Addi-
tionally, experience sampling studies with multiple measurements during the
course of a workday and for a number of consecutive days allow researchers to get
a more accurate picture of the proximal causes and consequences of the optimal
experience, and develop a greater understanding of the dynamic psychological
processes that explain flow at work. Furthermore, multiple measurements over
short periods of time reduce the chance of missing the flow experiences when
these occur (Kimiecik & Stein, 1992). Another advantage of experience sampling
is that the duration of the flow experience can be studied in more detail. Finally,
having multiple measurements over the course of a day enables researchers to
also estimate causal effects. Namely, it allows investigating whether certain flow
episodes during work may impact experiences later in the day. For instance, pre-
liminary multilevel analyses from a diary study among thirty Greek employees
that were followed up for five consecutive workdays, twice per day (i.e., right after
work and at bedtime), indicated that on days that employees experienced flow
at work they were more likely to experience flow during their leisure activities,
because flow at work related negatively to cognitive weariness at the end of the
shift (Xanthopoulou, 2013).
Despite these positive features, experience sampling is not a panacea and has its
own methodological trade-offs (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003). Utilizing a research
design that encompasses multiple measurements throughout a day over a substan-
tial number of days carries the risk of exhausting the study participants. ESM is
labor-intensive and can even annoy participants who are already busy with their
normal workloads. As a result, participants may exhibit low commitment to the
 Capturing within-person changes in flow 61

study protocol that may, consequently, lead to missing observations, low-quality

data, and high turnover percentages. Furthermore, interrupting (by beeping or
sending a push message on the smartphone) an employee in the activity that (s)he is
pursuing in order to fill out a short questionnaire is likely to interfere with his/her
work tasks or to disrupt the flow experience itself. In other words, ESM may destroy
the experience that it is designed to measure.
These issues can be solved by using interval-contingent protocols, where
employees are asked to estimate the degree to which they experience(d) flow
on specific, predetermined moments during the workday with items like “This
morning/ evening at work, I was totally absorbed in my task” (for an example
see Demerouti et al., 2012). The most important advantage of this type of pro-
tocol is that it is less intrusive and limits the likelihood of disrupting flow as it
evolves, since employees are usually required to report on their experiences just
after finishing work or during predetermined work breaks (e.g., lunch break).
Furthermore, this type of protocol is considerably less labor-intensive because
participants have to respond only to a short questionnaire once or twice during
the course of each workday that the study takes place (Oerlemans & Bakker,
2013). However, an important disadvantage of the interval-contingent protocols
is their sensitivity to recall bias that may alter the true nature of the experience
(Bolger et al., 2003). This disadvantage could be partly solved if researchers
design interval-contingent protocols with more than one measurement during
the day. For instance, employees could be asked to rate their flow experiences
at midday (before going to lunch) and at the end of the day (before leaving the
workplace).

Alternative methods
ESM has certainly many advantages, but also certain disadvantages when studying
flow at work. The main problem with time-based protocols is that flow experi-
ences may be lost (i.e., in interval-contingent protocols) or interrupted (i.e., in
signal-contingent protocols). As concerns event-based protocols, the main draw-
back is that employees may be unable to comply with the protocol and report on
their flow experiences after the specific event ends or they may even be unable
to recognize the event of interest. In this respect, the day reconstruction method
(DRM; Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2004) may be a good alter-
native to study work-related flow (Diener & Tay, 2014). In the DRM, individuals
are asked to reconstruct in chronological order all episodes of their day. Episodes are
defined by start and end time, area of life (e.g., work), and specific interactions that
occurred (e.g., interactions with clients or colleagues). After reconstructing all epi-
sodes of a particular day, participants are required to rate how they felt with regard
to each episode (e.g., whether they were in flow). In this way, it is unlikely to miss
an important flow episode. However, retrospection bias may impact the description
of the experience. There is no published study where the DRM has been applied
in order to study within-employee fluctuations in flow at work. Thus, it would be
62 Despoina Xanthopoulou

interesting for future studies to test whether the DRM is as useful as the ESM in
capturing this optimal experience.
Despite the fact that initial research on flow was based on qualitative
methodologies – and particularly interviews – that contributed significantly in
defining the concept of flow in general (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) and with
regard to work in particular (Delle Fave & Massimini, 1988), the vast majority
of studies on work-related flow are of quantitative nature (Fullagar & Kelloway,
2013). Despite the retrospective character of qualitative methods, asking employees
to describe how they feel and behave when reaching a flow state may prove to be
useful in better describing what it means to be in flow at work. Such qualitative
evidence may also help in distinguishing flow from other related work-related con-
structs (e.g., state work engagement) in a more systematic way.

General conclusion
With this chapter, the main aim was to designate the theoretical significance
of studying flow at work as a dynamic phenomenon that may vary within the
same employee from one moment to the other. Special emphasis was placed on
the methods that can be employed in order to capture within-person changes in
work-related flow. The study of work-related flow as a dynamic phenomenon
contributes to theory development in a number of ways, with the most impor-
tant being the analysis of the psychological processes that explain the proximal
causes and consequences of flow episodes. In this context, future studies should
further investigate within-person variations in the antecedents and outcomes of
flow in an attempt to test the homology of the flow theory across levels of analy-
sis. Methodological and statistical advancements facilitate the management of
complicated data sets, allowing researchers to capture within-employee changes
in flow in a more elaborate way (Dimotakis & Ilies, 2013; Oerlemans & Bakker,
2013). Scholars should further consider using hybrid methods (e.g., a combina-
tion of experience sampling, observations, and/or interviews). Despite the diffi-
culty of the endeavor, methodological triangulation would allow collecting even
richer information that would add to the systematic analysis of within-person
variations in work-related flow. Despite the fact that more work still needs to
be done in establishing the relationships that explain the antecedents and conse-
quences of flow at work across levels of analysis, this chapter suggests that such
research is worth pursuing for the advancement of the field of positive organi-
zational behavior.

References
Allen, B. P., & Potkay, C. R. (1981). On the arbitrary distinction between states and traits.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 916–928.
Alliger, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (1993). Using signal-contingent experience sampling meth-
odology to study work in the field: A discussion and illustration examining task percep-
tions and mood. Personnel Psychology, 46, 525–549.
 Capturing within-person changes in flow 63

Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44.
Bakker, A. B. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation
of the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 400–414.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. In P. Y. Chen & C. L.
Cooper (Eds.), Work and wellbeing. Wellbeing: A complete reference guide (Vol. III, pp. 37–64).
Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bakker, A. B., Oerlemans, W., Demerouti, E., Slot, B. B., & Ali, D. K. (2011). Flow and per-
formance: A study among talented Dutch soccer players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
12, 442–450.
Binnewies, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2013). The application of diary methods to examine work-
ers’ daily recovery during off-job time. In A. B. Bakker & K. Daniels (Eds.), A day in the
life of a happy worker (pp. 72–85). Hove: Psychology Press.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual
Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of flow in the workplace: Characterizing
within-individual variability using a complexity science approach. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 32, 627–651.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2012). ‘Suddenly I get into the zone’: Examining discontinuities and
nonlinear changes in flow experiences at work. Human Relations, 65, 1101–1127.
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical proce-
dures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research
Methods, 8, 375–409.
Conner, T. S., & Lehman, B. J. (2012). Getting started: Launching a study in daily life. In
M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life
(pp. 89–107). New York: Guilford.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self. New York: Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2003). Happiness in everyday life: The uses of experience
sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 185–199.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R. J., & Prescott, S. (1977). The ecology of adolescent activity
and experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 281–294.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1988). Modernization and the changing contexts of flow in
work and leisure. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience
(pp. 193–213). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of
conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Sonnentag, S., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Work-related flow and
energy at work and at home: A study on the role of daily recovery. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 33, 276–295.
Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou, D., Tsaousis, I., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Disentangling task
and contextual performance: A multitrait-multimethod approach. Journal of Personnel Psy-
chology, 13, 59–69.
Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2014). Review of the day reconstruction method (DRM). Social Indica-
tors Research, 116, 255–267.
64 Despoina Xanthopoulou

Dimotakis, N., & Ilies, R. (2013). Experience-sampling and event-sampling research. In

A. B. Bakker & K. Daniels (Eds.), A day in the life of a happy worker (pp. 85–99). Hove:
Psychology Press.
Donner, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1992). Transforming stress into flow. Executive Excel-
lence, 9, 16–17.
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow
experiences at work: For high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
755–775.
Fullagar, C. J., & Kelloway, K. (2009). ‘Flow’ at work: An experience sampling approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 595–615.
Fullagar, C. J., & Kelloway, K. (2013). Work-related flow. In A. B. Bakker & K. Daniels
(Eds.), A day in the life of a happy worker (pp. 41–57). Hove: Psychology Press.
Fullagar, C. J., Knight, P. A., & Sovern, H. S. (2013). Challenge/skill balance, flow, and per-
formance anxiety. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 236–259.
Graber, E. C., Laurenceau, J-F., & Carver, C. S. (2011). Integrating the dynamics of personal-
ity and close relationship processes: Methodological and data analytic implications. Journal
of Personality, 79, 1403–1439.
Graham, J. M. (2008). Self-expansion and flow in couples’ momentary experiences: An
experience sampling study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 679–694.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The flow state
scale-2 and dispositional flow scale-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 133–150.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2004). A survey method
for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306,
1776–1780.
Kimiecik, J. C., & Stein, G. L. (1992). Examining flow experiences in sport contexts: Concep-
tual issues and methodological concerns. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 4, 144–160.
Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The experience sampling method. New Directions
for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 41–56.
Mäkikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., Aunola, K., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Job resources and flow at
work: Modelling the relationship via latent growth curve and mixture model methodol-
ogy. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83, 795–814.
Mills, M. J., & Fullagar, C. J. (2008). Motivation and flow: Toward an understanding of the
dynamics of the relation in architecture students. Journal of Psychology, 142, 533–553.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Navarro, J., & Ceja, L. (2011). Dinámicas complejas en el flujo: Diferencias entre trabajo y no
trabajo [Complex dynamics of flow: Differences between work and non-work activities].
Revista de Psicología Social, 26, 443–456.
Oerlemans, W.G.M., & Bakker, A. B. (2013). Capturing the moment in the workplace: Two
methods to study momentary subjective well-being. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.), Advances in
positive organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 329–346). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational
research: An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psy-
chology, 9, 79–93.
Quinn, R. (2005). Flow in knowledge work: High performance experience in the design of
national security technology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 610–641.
Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M., Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Cifre, E., & Sonnenschein, M.
(2011). Enjoyment and absorption: An electronic diary study on daily flow patterns.
Work & Stress, 25, 75–92.
 Capturing within-person changes in flow 65

Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral
of personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 1–22.
Volman, F. E., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2013). Recovery at home and perfor-
mance at work: A diary study on self-family facilitation. European Journal of Work &
Organizational Psychology, 22, 218–234.
Xanthopoulou, D. (2011, May). Is the day enough to be happy? Relationship of time-management
to daily flow and recovery. Paper presented at the 15th Conference of the European Associa-
tion of Work & Organizational Psychology, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Xanthopoulou, D. (2013). Job crafting and flow at work and after work: A diary study on the
role of cognitive weariness. Unpublished manuscript. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki.
Xanthopoulou, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2013). State work engagement: The significance of
within-person fluctuations. In A. B. Bakker & K. Daniels (Eds.), A day in the life of a happy
worker (pp. 25–40). Hove: Psychology Press.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Ilies, R. (2012a). Everyday working life: Explaining
within-person fluctuations in employee well-being. Human Relations, 65, 1051–1069.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Oerlemans, W.G.M., & Koszucka, M. (2012b, April). Recov-
ering from emotional labour: A diary study on the role of deep and surface acting. Paper presented
at the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology, Zurich, Switzerland.
4
WHAT PREDICTS FLOW
AT WORK?
Theoretical and empirical perspectives

Evangelia Demerouti and Anne Mäkikangas

The construct of “flow” evolved out of the work of Csikszentmihalyi (1975) in

which he investigated why artists, chess players, dancers, rock climbers, surgeons,
and many others spend an inordinate amount of time engaged in activities for
which there was no extrinsic reward. He concluded that it must be the enjoyment
inherent in the task that was intrinsically motivating the artist to engage in a creative
process that had no financial benefit and little social recognition (Csikszentmihalyi,
1975). The finding that individuals may perform activities purely for intrinsic rea-
sons was contradictory to the prevailing psychological paradigm – that behavior
could be explained only in terms of extrinsic rewards (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975).
He defined this state as “the holistic sensation that people feel when they act with
total involvement” (1975, p. 36). The term “flow” arose from the fact that many
of the people that were interviewed described the state as flowing from moment to
moment. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) described this state as autotelic, from the Greek
words “auto,” meaning self, and “telos,” meaning goal.
Most of the research on flow has focused on voluntary leisure and sport-
ing activities. However, research has also shown that the experience of flow
occurs in work-related activities (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Csikszentmih-
alyi & LeFevre, 1989; Delle Fave, Massimini, & Bassi, 2011; Demerouti, 2006;
Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009; Nielsen & Cleal, 2010). The subjective experience
seems to be consistent across work and play, indicating that it is the quality of
the experience that is important and not the nature of the activity (Csikszent-
mihalyi, 1988). In this chapter we will focus on the experience of flow at work.
Specifically, we will (a) exemplify the nature of the subjective experience of
work-related flow, (b) present theoretical frameworks that have been used or
could be used to explain flow and conclude with some propositions, which are
summarized in Figure 4.1, and (c) review the literature on the predictors of flow
 What predicts flow at work? 67

(P7)
(P7)
+
Positive events Positive affect
+
Job
characteristics
- Job resources + (P7) +
(autonomy) + (P6)
+ (P1 & P2 & P3)
(P5)
Well-being
– (Hindering) job – (P4)
Flow at work and
demands + performance

+ (P3)
Personal
resources

FIGURE 4.1 Model of flow at work

Note: P1–P7 indicates Propositions 1 to 7.

at work related to these frameworks. In this way, we hope to inspire researchers

and practitioners to find ways to stimulate the experience of flow at work and
in other life domains.

Defining flow at work

Csikszentmihalyi (1990) has defined flow as a state in which people are so deeply
involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter. Both qualitative and quan-
titative research on flow across a diversity of work and leisure activities has indicated
that optimal experience consists of six core components (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990,
1993; Jackson, 1996; Jackson & Marsh, 1996; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).
These are (a) action-awareness merging in that involvement in the activity becomes
spontaneous or automatic; (b) an intense and complete concentration on the task at
hand; (c) a sense of control over what one is doing; (d) a loss of self-consciousness
or a lack of concern for or about oneself; (e) a transformation of one’s perception of
time passing; and (f) a sense of enjoyment in the intrinsic motivation of the activity.
In addition to these, three supplemental components of flow have been identified,
including (g) balance between the challenge of the activity and the skills necessary
to perform the activity, (h) clarity of goals inherent in the task, and (i) feedback that
the task provides that enables monitoring of one’s actions. However, these three
additional components represent preconditions rather than subjective experience of
flow (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2010; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002,
2009), and therefore they will be elaborated later on.
In the work context, Bakker (2005, 2008) has operationalized the flow expe-
rience with three dimensions: absorption, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation.
68 Evangelia Demerouti and Anne Mäkikangas

Absorption refers to total concentration and immersion in the activity. Enjoyment

means that employees feel happy and make a very positive judgment about the qual-
ity of their working life (cf. Veenhoven, 1984). Intrinsic motivation refers to the state
in which people do what they do “even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it”
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 3). Drawing on this operationalization of flow at work,
Bakker (2005, 2008) developed the WOrk-reLated Flow inventory (WOLF).
Work-related flow, particularly as operationalized by the WOLF, has many con-
ceptual similarities with the concept of work engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker, &
Salanova, 2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Work
engagement is defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).
However, whereas work engagement represents relatively stable involvement in
the wide variety of activities that constitute one’s job, flow is an intense, transient
involvement in a specific work task (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Mills & Fullagar, 2008;
Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Furthermore, work engagement has been operation-
alized varying between but also within individuals; flow has been shown to be a
predominantly state-like construct that indicates far greater within-individual than
between-individual variance (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009).

Theoretical frameworks explaining flow at work

Although the majority of research on flow has focused on such leisure activi-
ties as sports and artistic endeavors, the experience of flow is more likely to
occur in a work setting. It is at work that the conditions fostering flow are more
prevalent, such as goal-directed challenging tasks that require high skill levels
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Haworth & Hill,
1992; Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007). In the following, we will
present the theoretical frameworks that have been or could be used to explain the
experience of flow. These frameworks refer to job characteristics, job resources,
or positive affect.

Job characteristics
The job characteristics model (JCM) of Hackman and Oldham (1980) suggests that
intrinsic motivational states occur when work is experienced as meaningful. This
positive motivational psychological state is generated when jobs have certain core
characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). First, the job must have skill variety, in
that different skills and talents should be utilized to carry out the work. Second, the
job should have task identity and require the completion of a whole and identifiable
piece of work. Third, work should have task significance, meaning that it should have
a substantial impact on other people or oneself. According to Hackman and Old-
ham (1976), the two most important and necessary job characteristics for generating
intrinsic motivation are autonomy and feedback. Autonomy refers to the degree of
discretion, freedom, and independence that an individual has in scheduling work
 What predicts flow at work? 69

and determining the procedural aspects of the job. Task feedback is the extent to
which work activities provide information about the results of performance. Hack-
man and Oldham (1980) suggest that the combined score of these five core char-
acteristics, called motivating potential score, represents an index of how motivating
the job is designed to be.
Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1990) has argued that flow is a critical psycho-
logical state that is also associated with high levels of intrinsic motivation.
Indeed, those same characteristics of work that have been associated with
high levels of motivation have been found to be associated with flow. For
instance, Demerouti (2006) found that autonomy, skill variety, job feedback,
task identity, and task significance, combined as a motivating potential score,
were predictive of flow experiences among employees engaged in a variety
of work and occupations. Elaborating on this research, Fullagar and Kelloway
(2009), in a longitudinal study, studied the predictive validity of each of the
five core job characteristics and found that skill variety and autonomy were
both significantly and positively associated with flow experiences. Of the five
job characteristics autonomy seems to be the most consistently and strongly
related to flow (Bakker, 2005, 2008; Lin & Joe, 2012; Mäkikangas, Bakker,
Aunola, & Demerouti, 2010; Salanova, Bakker, & Llorens, 2006). This is not
surprising as employees’ freedom in scheduling their work and in determining
their work methods has repeatedly been found to increase positive affect (e.g.,
Saavedra & Kwun, 2000) and motivation (Fried & Ferris, 1987). However, the
relationship between autonomy and flow may be moderated by the nature
of the work and the organizations studied. Nielsen and Cleal (2010) in an
experience sampling study found that autonomy and role clarity were more
significantly associated with flow among elder care managers than accoun-
tancy managers. The authors concluded that the studied organizations varied
greatly in role clarity and complexity – that is, the possibilities to experience
flow were different.

Proposition 1: The core job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task sig-
nificance, autonomy and feedback) are positively related to the experience
of flow.
Proposition 2: Of the job characteristics, autonomy has the most beneficial effect
on flow.

Job resources
Two other theoretical frameworks have been used to understand the anteced-
ents of flow: conservation of resources theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989) and job
demands-resources theory (JD-R; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014; Demerouti, Bak-
ker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). The central tenet of the COR theory is that
individuals are motivated to obtain, maintain, and protect personal resources that are
important to the individual and serve as means to achieve valued outcomes
70 Evangelia Demerouti and Anne Mäkikangas

(Hobfoll, 2002). These resources include physical possessions (e.g., money, home),
conditions (e.g., marital status, close social attachments), energies (e.g., knowledge,
time), and personal characteristics (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy). In the work con-
text, the COR theory has been applied to the study of personal resources and psy-
chosocial work characteristics (Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003). Personal
resources are aspects of the self that are generally linked to resilience (Mäkikangas,
Feldt, Kinnunen, & Mauno, 2013), while job resources refer to the physical, psy-
chological, social, or organizational aspects of the job and thus have both subjec-
tive and objective natures (see Demerouti et al., 2001). By accumulating resources,
individuals are not only more capable of withstanding stress but also more likely to
thrive and achieve high levels of subjective well-being (Lyubomirsky, King, & Die-
ner, 2005). Applied to flow, COR theory would hypothesize that those individu-
als who gain more job and personal resources are more likely to experience high
levels of work-related flow (Mäkikangas et al., 2010). Furthermore, the experience
of positive flow states may initiate a gain cycle of resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002)
that facilitates the accumulation of more job resources. Accordingly, Salanova et al.
(2006) found in a two-wave study among teachers that personal resources (i.e.,
self-efficacy beliefs) and organizational resources (e.g., social support climate and
clear goals) facilitated work-related flow over time. Moreover, work-related flow
increased personal and organizational resources across time.
The JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014; Demerouti et al., 2001) has
argued that certain job resources enable the individual to cope with the inherent
stress of work and also trigger learning, development, positive well-being, and
performance. Job resources refer to those physical, psychological, social, or orga-
nizational aspects of the job that are functional in achieving work goals, reduce
job demands that are associated with physiological and psychological costs, or
stimulate personal growth, learning, and development (Demerouti et al., 2001).
In addition to job resources, the theory recognizes that each job also contains job
demands that refer to those aspects of the job that require sustained effort and
are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs
(Demerouti et al., 2001). One main difference between the JD-R theory and
the JCM is that the former recognizes the importance of other job resources in
addition to those included in the JCM (i.e., skill variety, task identity, task signifi-
cance, autonomy, and feedback). Indeed, several other job resources than those
included in the JCM have been found to be conducive to flow. For example,
flow has been associated with social support, supervisory coaching, and oppor-
tunities for professional development (Bakker, 2005, 2008; Mäkikangas et al.,
2010). Also, a high degree of social capital and innovative learning climate in the
organization has been found to increase flow experiences (Fagerlind, Gustavsson,
Johansson, & Ekberg, 2013).
Recently, it was shown that job demands, such as emotional dissonance or man-
aging the relationships with patients, were negatively related to flow and in particu-
lar to intrinsic motivation and enjoyment in a sample of nurses (Zito, Cortese, &
 What predicts flow at work? 71

Colombo, 2016). In another study among various professionals, Zito, Bakker, Colombo,
and Cortese (2015) found that workload was positively related to absorption, which
is consistent with Csikszentmihalyi (1990), who suggests that this type of job char-
acteristic makes employees absorbed and immersed in their work. However, also
in this study emotional dissonance was negatively related to enjoyment and intrin-
sic motivation, highlighting that suppressing emotions that do not correspond to
work reality undermines pleasure and motivation at work. Thus, it seems that job
demands are related to specific dimensions of flow, and their relationship is more
often negative (particularly regarding hindering demands; Crawford, LePine, &
Rich, 2010). However, job demands and flow can also be positively related when
the demands are more challenging, like workload (Crawford et al., 2010). Therefore,
future studies need to look into their relationship more thoroughly.
Regarding personal resources, Zito et al. (2015) found that internal locus
of control and optimism were significantly and positively associated with flow.
Specifically, internal locus of control was positively correlated with the three
dimensions of flow, indicating that this personality orientation could enhance the
optimal experience at work in all its forms. On the contrary, dispositional opti-
mism was found to be related to enjoyment and intrinsic motivation, but rather
weakly to absorption.
Another proposition of JD-R theory is that job demands and resources interact
in predicting occupational well-being. Two forms of interactions have been stud-
ied: (1) job resources may buffer the impact of job demands on strain, and (2) job
demands may amplify the impact of job resources on motivation. This latter form
of interaction is relevant for flow as it has been found that it is predictive of work
engagement of which the absorption dimension resembles flow. Specifically, Bak-
ker, Hakanen, Demerouti, and Xanthopoulou (2007) found that supervisor sup-
port, innovativeness, appreciation, and organizational climate were important job
resources for teachers that helped them cope with demanding interactions with
students and be engaged in their work. Thus, work engagement is more often
experienced when demands and resources are both high. Similarly, Bakker, Van
Veldhoven, and Xanthopoulou (2010) found that task enjoyment and organizational
commitment were the result of combinations of different and high job demands
and job resources. From the components of flow, task enjoyment and commit-
ment were highest when employees were confronted with challenging and stimu-
lating tasks, and simultaneously had sufficient resources (e.g., performance feedback,
high-quality relationships with colleagues).

Proposition 3: Job and personal resources have mutual positive relationships with
flow over time such that resources trigger flow and flow, in its turn, triggers
the accumulation of resources.
Proposition 4: (Hindering) job demands are negatively related to flow.
Proposition 5: Flow is more often experienced in jobs that combine high job
resources with high (but affordable) job demands.
72 Evangelia Demerouti and Anne Mäkikangas

Positive affect
Two theories are relevant to clarify the role of affect in flow at work: broaden-and-
build theory of positive emotions (B&B theory; Fredrickson, 1998, 2001) and the
affective events theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). The B&B theory pro-
poses that positive emotions have a twofold adaptive function. First, they broaden
our current awareness and thought-action repertoires. Second, they help us to build
skills and resources in the long run and have a lasting impact on our psychological
and physical well-being (Fredrickson, 1998). Research with the B&B theory shows
that momentary experiences of positive emotions can build enduring psychological
resources and trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Thus, positive
emotions make people not only feel good at the moment but also feel good in the
future (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Accordingly, positive experiences (e.g., flow at
work) build people’s enduring personal resources (Salanova et al., 2006). In a similar
vein, flow was found to be significantly and positively associated with energy after
work, particularly if individuals were not able to recover from stress during work
breaks but were able to detach from work at home (Demerouti, Bakker, Sonnen-
tag, & Fullagar, 2012). It would appear that flow states induce positive emotions
and these emotions counteract the side effects of negative emotional arousal (Fred-
rickson & Levenson, 1998), increase life satisfaction, and improve overall well-being
(Fredrickson et al., 2008).
The B&B theory has been used as a framework to study the development of high
levels of flow over time. Building on B&B theory, Ceja and Navarro (2011) found
that the development of the flow state followed a chaotic, unpredictable pattern. The
link between positive emotions and unpredictability has been demonstrated empiri-
cally at different levels of analyses. Fredrickson and Branigan (2005) found that
people induced to experience positive emotions reported a wider array of impulses
to act in the moment, which made their behavior harder to predict. Furthermore,
Fredrickson and Losada (2005) found that human flourishing is associated with
nonrepetitive, innovative, and flexible interactions with the environment. Therefore,
employees who experience high levels of flow at work are likely to be less predict-
able, as they seek novelty and opportunities for action and they are adaptable and
flexible.
According to Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) affective events theory (AET), the
work environment exerts its influence on momentary experiences and behavior
through specific work events, such as attaining one’s goals or receiving a reward.
According to AET, events are defined as significant happenings that produce a
change in circumstances and “generate an emotional reaction or mood change in
people” (p. 31). The theory differentiates positive events that are goal-congruent
(e.g., receiving praise) and negative events that are incongruent with work-related
goals (e.g., personal failures). Events are situational antecedents of affect and trans-
mit their influence on flow through the affective reaction on the part of the individ-
ual (Bledow, Schmitt, Frese, & Kühnel, 2011; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Positive
 What predicts flow at work? 73

events yield positive mood and increase the willingness to invest effort, including
the tendency to experience flow; negative events are associated with negative mood
and decrease enthusiasm and thus also the tendency to experience flow. If people
receive praise by their supervisor for a task they are working on, the subsequent
increase in positive mood should be supportive of flow experiences. In contrast, an
event such as becoming aware of a failure is incongruent with people’s goals and
should disrupt the experience of flow. Moreover, AET predicts that personality has
a substantial impact on which affective states are experienced and on how people
typically feel.
AET suggests that features of work (e.g., autonomy, supervisory support, work
overload) might have an impact on the experience of affect and other outcomes
(of which flow could be one) in two ways (Wegge, Van Dick, Fisher, West, &
Dawson, 2006; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). First, these features might function as
inputs in cognitive processes (e.g., in actual-target value comparisons) that indi-
viduals conduct to determine the “fit” between their job and their personal val-
ues, motives, or desires. In addition, the features might influence the occurrence
of specific events during work (e.g., conflicts with customers), which, in turn,
stimulate different emotions. The second way in which job features might have
an impact on judgments of one’s work (of which flow is an example) is via their
impact on the occurrence of specific events during work, which, in turn, stimu-
late different emotions. These insights can be applied to the study of flow as flow
represents an experience close to situations or events. Moreover, flow includes
judgmental aspects (cf. enjoyment dimension of flow according to Bakker’s con-
ceptualization; 2005, 2008).

Proposition 6: The experience of state positive affect during flow moderates

(strengthens) the enduring favorable effect of flow on well-being and behav-
ior (e.g., job performance).
Proposition 7: Work characteristics influence the occurrence and/or judgment
of positive events, which consequently influence positive affect and flow
(mediation). Specifically, work characteristics like job resources influence
positive events in a favorable way.

The predictors of flow

There is general consensus that flow is characterized by intrinsic motivation (Keller &
Bless, 2008; Keller & Blomann, 2008). Consequently, there must be a compatibility
between individual characteristics, such as skill level and need for achievement, and
situational characteristics, such as the demands of the task and available resources. In
the following, we will focus on the preconditions of flow according to flow theory
as well as to other research findings on the predictors of flow that cannot be catego-
rized within the frameworks presented earlier.
74 Evangelia Demerouti and Anne Mäkikangas

Preconditions of flow
Flow theory has consistently identified three situational or task-specific precondi-
tions that are necessary for flow to be experienced (Nakamura & Csikszentmih-
alyi, 2002). Perhaps the most important precondition of flow is that the challenges
(action opportunities) that are perceived in the task should match with the skills
(action capabilities) that are necessary to perform the task (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975,
1990, 1997). However, the level of challenges and skills is also essential. In order
to experience flow, the perceived challenges and skills should be at a moderate to
high level (Bassi, Ferrario, Ba, Delle Fave, & Viganò, 2012; Sartori et al., 2014),
while when their level is low the individual is likely to experience apathy (Csik-
szentmihalyi, 1975). When challenges exceed perceived skills, anxiety is likely
to arise while an overskilled performer for the task might experience boredom.
The necessity of balance between perceived challenge and skill has been generally
supported by research evidence (Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, &
Randall, 2005; Fullagar, Knight, & Sovern, 2009; Hektner & Asakawa, 2000; Llo-
rens, Salanova, & Rodríguez, 2013). Nonetheless, there are some contradictions
with flow theory. Several studies (e.g., Engeser & Rheinberg, 2008; Fullagar et al.,
2009; Haworth & Evans, 1995; Hektner & Asakawa, 2000) have shown that tasks
low in challenge and exceeded by skill level are often conducive to flow rather
than boredom. These findings would suggest that the relationship between flow
and challenge/skill balance may be moderated by the characteristics of the task
being studied.
Flow is also facilitated by tasks that have clear and proximal goals (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990, 1997). This is consistent with goal-setting theory and is based on the premise
that all human behavior is goal-directed (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). Both
goal-setting theory and flow theory emphasize that goals should be both challeng-
ing and specific in order to direct attention and action (Csikszentmihalyi, Abu-
hamdeh, & Nakamura, 2005; Latham & Locke, 1991; Locke et al., 1981). However,
it is important to note that the purpose of goals as conceptualized by Locke and
colleagues on the one hand and by Csikszentmihalyi on the other is not equivalent.
Csikszentmihalyi views the role of goals as “channeling attention” (Csikszentmih-
alyi et al., 2005), not as an objective or end to which people strive, as in goal the-
ory (Locke, 1968). For Csikszentmihalyi goals focus attention on the task at hand,
thereby filtering out extraneous stimuli from the individual’s consciousness and
promoting room for the experience of flow. In line with this reasoning, Demerouti,
Bakker, and Fried (2012) found that an increase in role clarity was positively related
to the enjoyment and concentration components of flow. Alternatively, Delle Fave
and Massimini (2005) showed that the interplay between wishing to do the activity
and the relevance of the activity to future goals shapes the daily experience of flow
in productive activities.
The final precondition to optimal experience according to flow theory is task
feedback (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997). Feedback is an integral component
of goal setting (Locke et al., 1981) and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), in that
 What predicts flow at work? 75

without it intrinsic goals cannot sustain motivation and enhance flow. Feedback
is particularly important for the more difficult and challenging tasks that are
associated with flow. The role of feedback in the experience of flow has been
studied within the JCM and the JD-R model and was confirmed in several stud-
ies mentioned earlier.

Other predictors of flow

Nielsen and Cleal (2010) found three specific work activities to be associated with
flow at work: planning, problem solving, and evaluation. Each one of these activi-
ties provided individuals with the opportunity to use skills and to create structure
and clarity in the job. In addition, the combinations of psychological demands and
decision latitude based on the demand-control model (Karasek, 1979; Karasek &
Theorell, 1990) have been used to explain flow at work. It was found that employ-
ees in active (high psychological demands, high decision latitude) and low-strain
jobs (low psychological demands, high decision latitude) experienced more flow
than employees working in passive jobs (low psychological demands, low decision
latitude) and high-strain jobs (high psychological demands and low decision lati-
tude) (Fagerlind et al., 2013). Again these results highlighted the importance of job
control/autonomy for flow, as mentioned also before.
Personal resources relating especially to personal resiliency were mentioned as
important predictors for flow in many of the theories presented earlier (i.e., AET;
Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; B&B theory; Fredrickson, 1998, 2001; COR theory;
Hobfoll, 1989). Although the role of personality has been mainly depicted to be
a moderating factor between job characteristics and flow, it has also been shown
to directly predict flow. For example, it has been shown that from the big five
personality traits, emotional stability and conscientiousness together explained
22% of the variance in flow (Ullén et al., 2012). Hence, personality traits along
with other personality dispositions, such as optimism (Beard & Hoy, 2010) and
self-efficacy (Salanova et al., 2006), are important facilitators of flow. Also the
temporal pacing style that individuals use to deal with deadlines has been related
to flow. Gevers and Demerouti (2013) in a weekly study on flow found that
leaders’ temporal reminders related positively with task absorption for individu-
als who scored high rather than low on the deadline action pacing style (i.e.,
those who work a lot on an assignment right before the deadline approaches).
However, leaders’ temporal reminders inhibited task absorption for those who
work steadily on an assignment (i.e., steady action pacing style) and those
who work a lot on an assignment at the beginning and at the end of the duration
(i.e., U-shaped action pacing style).
Finally, it is worth noticing that the role of intelligence (Ullén et al., 2012), cog-
nitive capacity (Percival, Crous, & Schepers, 2003), and level of global functioning
(Bassi et al., 2012) for flow experiences has been also investigated. However, no
persuasive evidence for such positive relationships was found. Therefore, it could be
concluded that situational factors (i.e., job characteristics) combined with suitable
76 Evangelia Demerouti and Anne Mäkikangas

energy level (Mäkikangas et al., 2010) and available personal resources are the most
important determinants for flow at work. Another conclusion based on the litera-
ture is that flow can be experienced in any kind of job (if specific conditions are
present) rather than only in jobs with high requirements and ranking.

Conclusion
In this chapter, we have introduced several theories that are useful in explaining
flow at work. Two of these theories (i.e., JCM and JD-R) focus specifically on
the role of job characteristics for well-being and motivation at work, while the
other three (i.e., AET, B&B, COR) focus more broadly on explaining context-free
well-being by underlying the role of different individual resources and/or positive
emotions. Based on these theories and also empirical results presented in this chap-
ter, we delineated several propositions for future research on flow at work. The most
important propositions are the following:

1 Job resources – especially autonomy – are positively related to flow.

2 Flow is more often experienced in jobs that combine a high level of job
resources with high (but affordable) job demands.
3 Positive events (at work) trigger positive emotions and flow and consequently
enhance well-being and positive future work behavior.
4 Flow has a reciprocal relationship with job and personal resources.

To further understand flow at work, we need to use innovative study designs

that focus especially on the short-term nature of flow. First, diary designs should
be emphasized. Second, flow should be investigated simultaneously by using the
traditional experience sampling method and questionnaires in order to understand
flow better in a work context. Third, the moderating and mediating associations
between job characteristics, personal resources, and flow should be further investi-
gated by taking into account the nature of the job and type of business. Fourth, the
role of personality as well as personal goals for flow experiences should be further
investigated.
With this chapter we attempted to put flow on the research agenda by zooming
in on the factors that contribute to flow at work. By discussing various theoreti-
cal frameworks that can be used or are already used to explain flow, we hope that
we inspire researchers and practitioners to develop ways to enhance flow at work,
as flow represents an experience that should be stimulated in organizations. Flow at
work represents an important phenomenon of organizational practice that deserves
more attention than it currently receives. We suggested several possible mechanisms
and predictors that are beneficial for the experience of flow. The next step would be
to develop interventions that stimulate flow experiences and to justify the effectiveness
of such interventions. As has been shown, flow at work is significant for organizations
and warrants consideration in the future from both scientists and practitioners alike.
 What predicts flow at work? 77

References
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44.
Bakker, A. B. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation
of the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 400–414.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands – resources theory. In P. Y. Chen & C.
L. Cooper (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide.Vol. III: Work and wellbeing (pp. 37–64).
Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources
boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 274–284.
Bakker, A. B., Van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2010). Beyond the
demand-control model: Thriving on high job demands and resources. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 9, 3–16.
Bassi, M., Ferrario, N., Ba, G., Delle Fave, A., & Viganò, C. (2012). Quality of experience
during psychosocial rehabilitation: A real-time investigation with experience sampling
method. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 35, 447–453.
Beard, K. S., & Hoy, W. K. (2010). The nature, meaning, and measure of teacher flow in
elementary schools: A test of rival hypotheses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46,
426–458.
Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. (2011). The affective shift model of work
engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1246–1257.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of flow in the workplace: Characterizing
within-individual variability using a complexity science approach. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 32, 627–651.
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 95, 834–848.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond freedom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Introduction. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi
(Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 3–14). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New
York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot & C. S.
Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598–608). New York: Guilford
Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2010). Effortless attention in everyday life: A system-
atic phenomenology. In B. Bruya (Ed.), Effortless attention: A new perspective in the cognitive
science of attention and action (pp. 179–190). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal experience and
apathy: Developmental and psychosocial implications. European Psychologist, 10,
264–274.
78 Evangelia Demerouti and Anne Mäkikangas

Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011). Work: A paradox in flow research. In A.
Delle Fave, F. Massimini, & M. Bassi (Eds.), Psychological selection and optimal experience
across cultures (pp. 155–175). Amsterdam: Springer.
Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of
conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Fried, Y. (2012). Work orientations in the job demands–
resources model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 557–575.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources
model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Sonnentag, S., & Fullagar, C. (2012). Work-related flow and
energy at work and at home: A study on the role of daily recovery. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 33, 276–295.
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow
experiences at work: For high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
755–775.
Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow performance and moderators of challenge-skill bal-
ance. Motivation & Emotion, 32, 158–172.
Fagerlind, A.-C., Gustavsson, M., Johansson, G., & Ekberg, K. (2013). Experience of
work-related flow: Does high decision latitude enhance benefits gained from job
resources? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 161–170.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2,
300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention
and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313–332.
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts
build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build con-
sequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045–1062.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emo-
tional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172–175.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the
cardiovascular sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 191–220.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of
human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and
a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.
Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). “Flow” at work: An experience sampling approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 595–615.
Fullagar, C., Knight, P. K., & Sovern, H. (2009). Flow and Performance Anxiety. Paper presented
at the 24th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, New Orleans, LA, April 2–4, 2009.
Gevers, J. M. P., & Demerouti, E. (2013). How supervisors’ reminders relate to subordinates’
absorption and creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 677–698.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Haworth, J., & Evans, S. (1995). Challenge, skill and positive states in the daily life of a sample
of YTS students. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 109–121.
 What predicts flow at work? 79

Haworth, J., & Hill, S. (1992). Work, leisure and psychological well-being in a sample of
young adults. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 147–160.
Hektner, J., & Asakawa, K. (2000). Learning to like challenges. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & B.
Schneider (Eds.), Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the world of work (pp. 95–112).
New York: Basic Books.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Mea-
suring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General
Psychology, 6, 307–324.
Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource
gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 632–643.
Jackson, S. A. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding of the flow experience in elite
athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 76–90.
Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure
optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35.
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of
working life. New York: Basic Books.
Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). Flow and regulatory compatibility: An experimental approach to
the flow model of intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 196–209.
Keller, J., & Blomann, F. (2008). Locus of control and the flow experience: An experimental
analysis. European Journal of Personality, 22, 589–607.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal-setting. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.
Lin, C.-P., & Joe, S.-W. (2012). To share or not to share: Assessing knowledge sharing,
inter-employee helping, and their antecedents among online knowledge workers. Journal
of Business Ethics, 108, 439–449.
Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Rodríguez, A. M. (2013). How is flow experienced and by
whom? Testing flow among occupations. Stress and Health, 29, 125–137.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Performance, 3, 157–189.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. M., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task perfor-
mance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect:
Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.
Mäkikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., Aunola, K., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Job resources and flow
at work: Modeling the relationship via latent growth curve and mixture model methodol-
ogy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 83, 795–814.
Mäkikangas, A., Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (2013). Does personality mat-
ter? Research on individual differences in occupational well-being. In A. Bakker
(Ed.), Advances in positive organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 107–143). Bingley, UK:
Emerald.
Mills, M. J., & Fullagar, C. J. (2008). Motivation and flow: Toward an understanding
of the dynamics of the relation in architecture students. Journal of Psychology, 142,
533–553.
80 Evangelia Demerouti and Anne Mäkikangas

Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & J. S.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In C. R. Snyder &
S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 195–206). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2010). Predicting flow at work: Investigating the activities and job
characteristics that predict flow states at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15, 180–190.
Percival, G., Crous, F., & Schepers, J. M. (2003). Cognitive potential and job complexity as
predictors of flow. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29, 60–71.
Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. (2000). Affective states in job characteristics theory. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 131–146.
Salanova, M., Bakker, A., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral
of personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 1–22.
Sartori, R.D.G., Marelli, M., Garavaglia, P., Castelli, L., Busin, S., & Delle Fave, A. (2014). The
assessment of patients’ quality of experience: Autonomy level and perceived challenges.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 59, 267–277.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engage-
ment with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 66, 701–716.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological
concept and its implications in organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P.
Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues management (pp. 135–177). Greenwich, CT: Infor-
mation Age.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measure-
ment of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 3, 71–92.
Ullén, F., de Manzano, Ö., Almeida, R., Magnusson, P. K. E., Pedersen, N. L., Nakamura,
J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Madison, G. (2012). Proneness for psychological flow in
everyday life: Associations with personality and intelligence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 167–172.
Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Wegge, J., Van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). A test of basic
assumptions of affective events theory (AET) in call centre work. British Journal of Man-
agement, 17, 237–254.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of
the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Orga-
nizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
Zito, M., Bakker, A. B., Colombo, L., & Cortese, C. G. (2015). A two-step study for the
Italian adaptation of the work-related flow (Wolf) inventory: The I-Wolf. TPM: Testing,
Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 22, 553–570.
Zito, M., Cortese, C. G., & Colombo, L. (2016). Nurses’ exhaustion: The role of flow at work
between job demands and job resources. Journal of Nursing Management, 24, E12–E22.
5
REDEFINING FLOW AT WORK
Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

Freeman Dyson, a renowned theoretical physicist, describes the process of entering

flow as a sort of struggle:

I have to always force myself to write, and also to work harder at a sci-
ence problem. You have to put blood, sweat, and tears into it first. And it is
awfully hard to get started. I think most writers have this problem. I mean,
it’s part of the business. You may work very hard for a week producing the
first page. That’s really blood, tears, and sweat, and there is nothing else to
describe it. You have to force yourself to push and push with the hope that
something good will come out. And you have to go through that process
before it really starts to flow easily, and without that preliminary forcing and
pushing probably nothing would ever happen. So, I think that is what dis-
tinguishes it from just having a good time. You really enjoy the activity once
you are really in the flowing phase, but you have to overcome some sort of
a barrier to get there.
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 117)

It is this same struggle that employees face in their everyday experience at work,
as they must be continually responding to motivational forces, such as entropy or
equilibrium, and instability or the enjoyment that comes from confronting new
challenges. The force of entropy is more primitive and tends to be stronger. This
force gives employees pleasure when they are comfortable, when they can relax,
when they can get away with feeling good without expending energy (Csikszent-
mihalyi, 1997). Entropy leads the employee to a zone of stable equilibrium. If
employees did not have this space of equilibrium or built-in regulator, they could
easily become burned out and would lack the necessary strength to develop their
daily work activities.
82 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

Nevertheless, employees have also the urge to master new challenges and stretch
their skills to the utmost (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). This force leads employees into
a zone of expansive instability, such as the “flowing” zone described by Freeman
Dyson. Without this expansive force, employees would remain in the “equilibrium”
zone, where they tend to repeat work-related activities the same way they have done
it in the past. The expansive force leads employees to experience flow and therefore
high levels of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996), performance (Demerouti, 2006),
and well-being (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009). Work-related flow can be defined as a
sudden moment where everything “just clicks,” or a state of being in the zone, when
affective and cognitive modes are perfectly synchronized, giving rise to employees’
greatest performances and personal bests (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Work-related flow is a developmental and dynamic phenomenon that undergoes
continuous changes over time (Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, 2006). Every flow
experience contributes to the growth of the self (Delle Fave, Massimini, & Bassi,
2011; Massimini & Delle Fave, 2000). After every episode of flow, employees are
a little different from what they were before. Their consciousness contains fresh
information about the new skills they have developed – for instance in the forego-
ing example, Freeman Dyson, after passing the barrier of entropy and facing the
challenge of solving a science problem, is likely to go away with a proud knowledge
that he has finally gained a better understanding of his subject of study. To con-
tinue providing optimal experiences, flow activities must be constantly recreated
and Freeman Dyson’s struggle to find flow emerges every time employees visualize
new opportunities for action.
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) states that disequilibrium between challenges and skills
is inevitable and needs to be continually addressed by the employee. In other words,
coping with work events unfolds dynamically over time, so the same work activity
may be a source of distress or positive challenge at different times. In the simplest
terms, an employee transforms boredom into flow by finding new challenges and
overcomes anxiety by building on new skills. This process proceeds in the direction
of greater complexity, creating highly unstable realities.
The definition of flow has changed very little since Csikszentmihalyi’s original
formulation in 1975, and there is strong agreement among researchers on the defini-
tion itself. At the same time the models of flow, in conjunction with its measurement
methods, are changing, and modifications of the flow theory are starting to emerge
(Moneta, 2012). In this sense, when work-related flow is studied longitudinally over
short periods of time (e.g., days, weeks, and months), it presents continuous fluctua-
tions and changes (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009). Likewise, several studies have found
that flow at work tends to behave in a nonlinear manner (e.g., Ceja & Navarro,
2011; Guastello, Johnson, & Rieke, 1999). Ergo, a new mind-set for understanding
work-related flow has started to emerge; this new mind-set considers nonlinearity
and discontinuous change that employees experience in their everyday struggle of
transitioning between a nonflow state (e.g., boredom or anxiety) and the flow state.
The present chapter aims to contribute to the development of this new mind-set
for understanding work-related flow as a highly dynamic process, by integrating
 Redefining flow at work 83

concepts of nonlinear dynamical systems (NDS) theory with the study of flow.
In our view, new approaches to study flow that consider its dynamic nature are
necessary for at least two reasons. First, although research on work-related flow
has focused on intra-individual variation, most research is based on methods that
focus on variation between subjects. There is growing evidence that developmental
processes, such as flow, are nonergodic processes, which are better studied using
person-specific dynamic models (Molenaar & Campbell, 2009). Second, findings
from physiology, psychology, and management have shown that certain properties
of nonlinear systems, notably chaotic dynamics and catastrophic changes, are indica-
tive of health, innovation, and creativity. Hence it becomes relevant to understand
the dynamic nature of chaos to understand the behavior of optimal experiences at
work, such as flow.
Overall, the present chapter will describe how the integration of NDS theory
with the study of flow can represent an important step for understanding optimal
experience at work, as a nonequilibrium condition where abrupt and discontinuous
changes naturally emerge. Similarly, this enriched conceptualization of work-related
flow can have important implications for organizational practice. For instance, man-
agers can increase optimal experience at work by designing interventions according
to a nonlinear model of work-related flow. We will organize the chapter as follows.
We will start off by outlining why flow can be considered as a nonergodic process
and therefore it is important to study the intra-individual variation of flow using
person-specific dynamic models. Next, we will give an overview of NDS theory
and potential applications to questions in work-related flow, and the relevance of
NDS methods for developing person-specific dynamic models. Finally, we will
discuss the implications that this nonlinear conceptualization has for research and
organizational practice.

Flow as a nonergodic process

Although the value of flow at work is being actively explored and scholars have
provided valuable insights regarding its main components, research has mainly been
focused on variation between people (Ceja & Navarro, 2012). The overreliance
on interindividual variation is not unique to work-related flow scholarship; rather,
it is common to most research areas in psychology (Molenaar, 2004; Molenaar &
Campbell, 2009; Roe, 2013).
Interindividual variation is used to derive statistics (e.g., means, correlations)
that characterize the state of affairs in the population of subjects. In other words,
the statistics concerned are obtained by pooling across people; this is a key hall-
mark of interindividual variation. Nowadays in psychology most statistical meth-
ods are centered on the analysis of interindividual variation, regardless of whether
the data are collected cross-sectionally, longitudinally, or using multilevel designs
(Molenaar & Campbell, 2009). It seems natural and reasonable to infer that con-
clusions about the state of affairs at the population level can imply general find-
ings that apply to each individual person in the population. Nonetheless, applying
84 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

the findings obtained by grouping individual scores to determine the behavior of

a single person involves a shift in level (a change from the interindividual varia-
tion to that of intra-individual variation in time and place). Based on the classical
ergodic theorems, a classic branch of mathematics originally motivated by prob-
lems of statistical physics, Molenaar and Campbell (2009) argue that this shift in
level is not valid for most cases in psychology, especially when we are dealing with
developmental processes.
The classical ergodic theorems provide two rigorous conditions under which a
shift in level from interindividual variation to that of intra-individual variation is
possible and vice versa (Molenaar, 2004), thus allowing to define a phenomenon
as ergodic. First, the same statistical model should apply to the data of all subjects in
the population, suggesting a homogeneity in the study population. Second, the data
must be stationary. More specifically, the data should have invariant statistical char-
acteristics over time (i.e., it must have constant mean, variance, etc.). Accordingly, if
either one (or both) of the conditions is not met, the psychological process we are
dealing with is nonergodic (Molenaar & Campbell, 2009). Therefore the structure of
its interindividual variation will differ from its structure at the intra-individual level
of analysis. For all nonergodic psychological process, the results obtained in standard
analysis of interindividual variation will not apply at the level of intra-individual
variation and the other way around.
The question that concerns us here is whether flow can be considered an ergo-
dic or a nonergodic process. In order to provide an answer to this question, we will
review whether the process of work-related flow meets both ergodic conditions:
homogeneity and stationarity.

Condition 1: homogeneity
The first condition for considering flow as an ergodic process is that each person
in the population has to follow the same statistical model – that is, there has to be
homogeneity in the population. In other words, the dynamics of the main variables
describing the data should be invariant across subjects. For example, according to
the flow theory, flow is greatly predicted by the balance between perceived chal-
lenges and skills (Fullagar et al., 2009; Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). The
homogeneity condition for ergodicity implies that the regression coefficients of chal-
lenge, skill, and the balance of the two must be invariant across people. However,
when we look at empirical examples we find that the effects of challenge and skill
and the balance between the two differ across individuals (Moneta & Csikszentmi-
halyi, 1996), so that, for instance, balance between challenges and skills is a strong
predictor of flow for some individuals, while for other individuals this balance does
not predict flow or even has a negative effect on the experience of the individual.
Likewise, the effects of challenge, skill, and balance have been found to be linked
to personality traits – such as achievement orientation, trait intrinsic motivation,
and interdependent self-construal (Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, &
Randall, 2005; Moneta, 2004). Therefore, one of the main tenets of the flow model
 Redefining flow at work 85

TABLE 5.1 Distribution of participants according to within-person correlations between

challenge and skills (adapted from Paredes, 2012)

Correlation Number of % of Average value of SD value of

participants participants the correlation the correlation

Positive 12 20 0.504 0.236

Negative 33 55 –0.465 0.193
No correlation 15 25 –0.008 0.101

appears to be fully applicable only to some individuals. We have here a clear exam-
ple of the violation of the homogeneity condition for being able to consider flow
an ergodic process. More specifically, the intra-individual models appear to differ
between subjects regarding how the balance between challenge and skill affects the
flow experience of employees.
In an unpublished research (i.e., Paredes, 2012) that we have conducted measuring
challenge and skill during twenty-one consecutive working days in a sample of sixty
workers (6,981 registers obtained), we found that these two critical variables for the
flow theory show different correlation values across individuals (Table 5.1). In this
way, there are participants in which there is a positive correlation between challenge
and skills; there are participants who present a negative correlation between these
variables; and, finally, there is also a third group of participants in which these vari-
ables are unrelated. These results provide a clear evidence of the nonhomogeneity
across subjects in flow at work.

Condition 2: stationarity
The second condition for ergodicity is that flow should have constant statistical
characteristics over time (i.e., stationarity). In other words, the statistical parameters
of the data, such as standard deviation and mean, should remain invariant across all
time points. Molenaar and Campbell (2009) state that prime examples where this
condition is violated are developmental processes, which almost by definition have
statistical characteristics that change across data points. In this sense, Rathunde and
Csikszentmihalyi (2006) define flow as a developmental process, due to the fact that
every flow experience contributes to the growth of the self. After every episode
of flow, employees are a little different from what they were before, as they have
increased their skill level regarding a specific task.
When we look at empirical findings from research using longitudinal ESM data,
we find that work-related flow is highly unstable and strongly dependent upon
situational conditions (e.g., Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009; Guastello, Johnson, et al.,
1999). In a study of work-related flow, Ceja and Navarro (2009) used the standard
deviation value and the mean squared successive difference (MSSD; Von Neumann,
Kent, Bellison, & Hart, 1941) to assess variations in response over time, such as fluc-
tuations in the flow components. The authors chose to use the MSSD since they
 86 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

were interested in the variability over time of the flow variables; the range of the
scale used was from 0 to 100. The results from this study are shown in Table 5.2.
In Table 5.2 we can observe the average number of records per participant
(N = 20 participants), minimum and maximum per flow measure,1 and the mean
value and standard deviation. In this case the standard deviation gives us informa-
tion on the persistence of flow or its stability; as we can see all standard deviations
and MSSD values are high, showing instable behavior for all variables.
Likewise, Ceja and Navarro (2009) found that when time series coming from
both measures of flow (measure 1 and measure 2) were presented in line graphs
(an example of measure 1 and 2 is shown in Figure 5.1), fluctuating dynamics are
revealed.
Likewise, Fullagar and Kelloway (2009) found that 74% of the overall variance
in work-related flow can be attributed to intra-individual variation. Similarly, a
study by Rodríguez-Sánchez et al. (2011) found a curvilinear daily flow pattern,
with lower levels of flow during working hours and higher levels of flow at the end
of the day. All these studies demonstrate that the concept of flow denotes change
and evolution over time. Hence, it becomes clear that flow is a nonstationary

TABLE 5.2 Descriptive statistics from the time series (adapted from Ceja & Navarro, 2009)

Variable Number of Minimum Maximum M SD MSSD

records per
participant

Flow measure 1 119 0 49.30 9.28 7.98 50.40

Flow measure 2 119 0 100 64.96 22.61 55.24

90
Flow measure 1 Flow measure 2
80
70
60
Scale (0–100)

50
40
30
20
10
0
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115
Time

FIGURE 5.1 Measures of flow 1 and 2 (adapted from Ceja & Navarro, 2009)
 Redefining flow at work 87

process – the associations among variables characterizing flow change in time. This
is a clear violation of the stationarity condition for ergodicity: constant statistical
parameters of the data over time.
As we can see from the foregoing analysis, flow can be considered a clear example
where the two conditions for ergodicity – homogeneity of population and invariant
statistical characteristics over time – are not met, and therefore we are talking about
a nonergodic process (i.e., its structure of interindividual variation differs from its
structure of intra-individual variation). Because flow appears to be a person-specific
process (i.e., the flow process obeys person-specific dynamic models), its analysis
must be based on intra-individual variation (Hamaker, 2012).
For this kind of process the nonlinear dynamical systems (NDS) theory offers
a wide variety of methods that focus on within-person dynamics (e.g., Guas-
tello, Koopmans, & Pincus, 2009). Therefore, in our view, the NDS approach
has a great deal to contribute to theory and empirical work on flow, as it exam-
ines person-specific models across time. More specifically, this approach gives us
tools to assess the complexity of each person’s fluctuating behavior respecting the
nonergodic characteristics of work-related flow. It can also help researchers in
tackling individual differences in the pattern or shape of a participant’s variations.
Whether assessing the quantity – or the quality and style – of a person’s changes,
the focus is on finding indexes of intra-individual change that can be related to
optimal levels of flow. The following section will tackle the second objective of
this chapter: to explore the utility of NDS theory to enhance our understanding
of work-related flow.

NDS theory: a promising approach to studying

the dynamics of work-related flow
The NDS approach, also known as complexity theory, emerged during the 1960s
from different theoretical and empirical approximations (e.g., general systems the-
ory, chaos theory, fractal geometry, catastrophe theory, fuzzy sets theory; e.g., Guas-
tello, 2002). These theories come from a wide variety of disciplines that share a
common interest: the study of specific characteristics of complex systems, such as
the existence of nonlinearity and deterministic chaos, fractal structures, catastrophic
changes, and fuzzy boundaries (Munné, 2005). They propose a systemic view in
which variables relate with one another continuously in a nonlinear way. This way,
variables are antecedents and consequences simultaneously, generating emerging
properties through their interaction. These types of systems are denominated as
complex adaptive systems (Navarro, 2005).
Psychologists in general have shown increased interest in the application of NDS
theory to the study of human processes and they obtained important empirical
outcomes, predominantly in developmental (e.g., Smith & Thelen, 1993), social
(e.g., Nowak & Vallacher, 1998), and organizational psychology (e.g., Guastello
et al., 2009). The application of NDS models to positive organizational processes
is not too plentiful; nonetheless, the link between nonlinear change and positive
88 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

psychology has been demonstrated theoretically (Schuldberg, 2006, 2007), as well

as in empirical studies that have examined positive organizational behaviors like
high work motivation (Arrieta, Navarro, & Vicente, 2008) and, more recently,
work-related flow (Ceja & Navarro, 2009, 2011; Guastello, Johnson, et al., 1999;
Navarro & Ceja, 2011). For a revision about the relations between nonlinear dynam-
ics and positive organizational behavior see Navarro and Rueff-Lopes (2015).
Overall, there is evidence to suggest that complexity, change, and nonlinearity
are integral to employee well-being. In other words, the relationship between work
and employee flourishing is not strictly linear and stable over time; on the contrary,
employee well-being seems to be rather unpredictable, with sudden, discontinuous,
or unexpected changes (Schuldberg, 2006, 2007). Hence, NDS theory offers an
interesting framework from which to study positive psychological processes like
flow at work, providing an alternative perspective to the current prevailing para-
digm, which emphasizes linear change (i.e., the overuse of techniques based on the
general linear model assume the idea of proportionality and gradual change in the rela-
tions among variables). There are two key concepts of NDS theory that, in our
view, can open interesting avenues for future research on work-related flow: chaotic
behavior and catastrophic changes.

Chaos and work-related flow

Chaos refers to a particular nonlinear dynamic, and it can be viewed as a centerpiece
of NDS theory (Guastello, 2002). The chaos phenomenon was discovered by Lorenz
(1963) largely by chance while he was developing his work on weather forecast-
ing, and it was later coined by Li and Yorke (1975). It can be defined as “aperiodic
bounded dynamics in a deterministic system with sensitive dependence on initial
conditions” (Kaplan & Glass, 1995, p. 27). According to Tsonis (1992), the concept
of chaos underlies two fundamental epistemological truths in science. First, appar-
ently random behavior (e.g., epidemic dynamics, behavior of stock market prices) is
actually the result of simple deterministic rules. In other words, deterministic laws
can produce behavior that appears random. Second, a chaotic phenomenon is best
modeled using nonlinear techniques, such as recurrence analysis and catastrophe
models, to name a few, which usually work with time series.
Chaotic behavior shows various fundamental characteristics (Guastello, 2002;
Kaplan & Glass, 1995). First, chaotic behavior is unpredictable; this is to say that the
dynamic never passes the same point twice. The unpredictability of chaotic behav-
ior makes it resemble a random dynamic, especially when using techniques that are
unable to capture the nonlinear structure of the dynamic (e.g., traditional linear
statistical techniques). Second, chaotic behavior displays sensitivity to initial condi-
tions, which means that even mild and brief inputs at a specific point in time can
have important consequences in the long run. This property is also known as the
butterfly effect. For example, in weather forecasting, seemingly trivial inputs – such
as the flap of a butterfly’s wings in one region of the world – can disproportionally
determine weather conditions in another place (Lorenz, 1993). The sensitivity to
 Redefining flow at work 89

the initial conditions is connected to the unpredictability of the dynamic in the long
term. Third, chaotic dynamics exhibit clear boundaries, meaning that the dynamic
stays within a confined range of values. Fourth, chaotic behavior is deterministic,
meaning that it is regulated by simple deterministic equations.
The discovery of chaos has important implications for work and organiza-
tional psychology. For instance, the notion of prediction takes on new aspects
when seen through the lens of chaos. As stated before, one of the main char-
acteristics of chaos is that it is unpredictable in the long term. Hence, what
organizational scholars thought was simple becomes complex, and questions
arise regarding measurement, predictability, and verifications of classic theories
regarding organizational behavior. In compensation, phenomena that appear ran-
dom or stochastic may in fact be following simple rules. More specifically, a great
part of the within-individual variability observed in organizational behavior that
was previously conceived as random error can now be identified as obeying
deterministic rules.
The last few decades have been fruitful for NDS theory in terms of the develop-
ment and improvement of different methodologies for identifying and measuring
deterministic chaos, such as the recurrence analysis, the surrogate data analysis, the
Lyapunov exponents, the Kolmogrov entropy, the Hurst exponents, and catastrophe
modeling, to name a few. These techniques allow researchers to identify the type of
dynamic (i.e., chaotic, linear, or random) underlying in time series, and to know the
amount of variables involved in the dynamic (see Heath, 2000; Ramos-Villagrasa &
García-Izquierdo, 2011).
Based on the fruitful advancements of NDS methodologies for identifying and
measuring chaos in time series, examples of chaotic behavior have been detected
among different disciplines (e.g., for the physical sciences, see Prigogine & Stengers,
1984; meteorology, see Lorenz, 1993; organizational behavior, see Guastello, 2002,
or Navarro & Arrieta, 2010; physiology, see Freeman, 1991; psychology, see Barton,
1994, or Guastello et al., 2009). The manifestation of chaos in a wide variety of
fields supports the universality of chaos proposed by Cvitanovic (1989), who sug-
gested that chaotic behavior is universal and therefore can be observed in a wide
variety of phenomena across all scientific disciplines, meaning that different systems
are governed by the same rules – for example, the same rules can be operating in
physiological systems and organizational behavior. One of these universal rules is
the appearance of variability of behavior in healthy systems.

Healthy variability in the workplace

Following the principle of the universality of chaos and of particular relevance to
research on work-related flow, there is an intriguing and controversial literature
in physiology suggesting that specific characteristics of complex systems – mainly
chaos – are related to well-being and optimal organ functioning (e.g., Freeman,
1991; Goldberger, 1991). More specifically, there is strong evidence demonstrating
the existence of chaos in the cardiac (Goldberger, 1991) and neurological (Freeman,
90 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

1991) systems of healthy patients, in contrast to unhealthy patients, who show peri-
odic or linear dynamics in both cardiac and neurological systems.
Based on these findings, organizational psychologists have also found a link
between chaos and well-being (for a revision see Navarro & Rueff-Lopes, 2015).
For example, Arrieta et al. (2008) demonstrated empirical evidence of chaos in
the intraperson variability of highly motivated employees. Three pioneering stud-
ies on work-related flow showed similar results; when employees’ time series were
analyzed, most employees revealed nonlinear or chaotic behavior, whereas linear
dynamics were the exception (Ceja & Navarro, 2009, 2011; Guastello, Johnson,
et al., 1999). Ceja and Navarro (2011), for instance, demonstrated that higher lev-
els of flow are associated with chaotic behavior, whereas linear behavior is associ-
ated with feeling anxious, and apathy is linked to random behavior. The authors
conclude that there may be such a thing as “healthy nonlinear variability,” and a
decrease in such nonlinearity may indicate a decrease in employee well-being.
In light of the foregoing findings, understanding the structure and behavior of
chaos may provide further insights regarding employee well-being and can open
new directions for future research on work-related flow. It appears that flow behaves
mainly in a chaotic manner; therefore, NDS methodologies (e.g., recurrence plots,
surrogate data, catastrophe modeling) that are able to describe and model chaotic
behavior have a great deal to contribute to theory and empirical work on flow.
Such methodologies can substitute, in some cases, or complement, in others, clas-
sical linear approaches by offering new tools with which scholars are able to study
and model the linear and nonlinear evolution of work-related flow in an integrative
manner. In this sense, it is important that future studies continue to examine the
pattern of change observed in the intra-individual variability of flow.
An important question that would benefit from further conceptual development
as well as empirical research is what variables are responsible for the emergence of dif-
ferent dynamical patterns (i.e., chaotic, random, or linear) observed in work-related
flow. Ceja and Navarro (2011) found that high levels of the core components of flow
(e.g., balance of perceived challenge and skill, merging of action and awareness) are
associated with the emergence of chaotic behavior. Likewise, employees’ job features
such as more seniority, longer job tenures, a full-time job contract, low flexibility of
working hours, and a typical weekly schedule are linked to chaotic behavior. Future
research could explore in more detail these findings. For instance, it seems that pro-
ductive organizational behavior (e.g., to experience flow at work) requires specific
boundaries in labor conditions in order to contain these creative outbursts. Studies
exploring organizational facilitators of work-related flow, distinguished in previous
flow research (e.g., Bakker, 2005; Demerouti, 2006), and their association with chaotic
behavior may also help to shed further light on this issue. Likewise, recent studies
recognize work engagement as a primary condition for experiencing work-related
flow (Moneta, 2010). Hence, it may be interesting to further study the role of work
engagement in the emergence of chaos in the intraperson variability of flow.
Overall, future research is needed to clarify the dynamic patterns underlying
work-related flow across time; the variables responsible for the emergence of dis-
tinct dynamical patterns, especially the emergence of chaotic patterns; and the role
 Redefining flow at work 91

of other related constructs (e.g., work engagement, mindfulness) in the relationship

between chaos and flow.

Catastrophe theory and flow: modeling abrupt

and discontinuous change
It has been demonstrated that work-related flow presents continuous fluctuations,
generally nonlinear, across time (Ceja & Navarro, 2009, 2011; Guastello, Johnson,
et al., 1999). Based on the catastrophe theory, Ceja and Navarro (2012) modeled for
the first time the abrupt and discontinuous changes observed in the process of flow
at the intra-individual level. Catastrophe theory (Thom, 1975; Zeeman, 1977) offers
an alluring approximation for modeling the fluctuating reality of work-related flow.
It is interested in describing and modeling the discontinuities that can appear in the
evolution of a system. A catastrophe can be understood as abrupt or drastic changes
that emerge as a consequence of small changes in the external conditions (Guastello,
1987). Catastrophe theory has been successfully used in different areas of work and
organizational psychology, such as accidents involving health care workers (e.g.,
Guastello, Gershon, & Murphy, 1999), work motivation (e.g., Guastello, 1987, 2002),
employee turnover (e.g., Sheridan, 1985), personnel selection (e.g., Guastello, 1982),
workplace bullying (Escartín, Ceja, Navarro, & Zapf, 2013), and organizational
change (e.g., Bigelow, 1982), among others.
More specifically, catastrophe theory provides an adequate conceptual frame-
work as well as the mathematical tools for studying and modeling the possible
nonlinear relationships between control parameters or independent variables and
order parameters or dependent variables. There are seven elementary catastrophe
models, whose degree of complexity depends upon the number of order (depen-
dent variable) and control (independent variable) parameters. The cusp catastro-
phe model, one of the simplest and most widely used, explains the discontinuous
change between two stable states of behavior by means of two control parameters
and one order parameter. Work-related flow has been recently modeled as a cusp
catastrophe (Ceja & Navarro, 2012; Navarro & Ceja, 2011; see Figure 5.2).

FIGURE 5.2 Cusp catastrophe model (left panel) and traditional linear regression
model (right panel) of flow experiences at work (adapted from Ceja & Navarro, 2012;
Navarro & Ceja, 2011)
92 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

To illustrate the topographic differences between a cusp catastrophe model of

flow and a traditional linear regression model, we show in Figure 5.2 both models.
In the left panel of Figure 5.2 the cusp catastrophe model of flow is shown, which
describes the change in the order parameter or dependent variable (i.e., flow: aver-
age of enjoyment, interest, and absorption) as a result of the interaction between
perceived challenge and skill. In the right panel of Figure 5.2 a traditional linear
regression model is shown containing the same set of variables. What differenti-
ates both models is the fold shown in the catastrophe model, which indicates that
for given values of the independent variables the dependent variable can present
discontinuous or abrupt changes within the cusp region (represented by the fold
region), whereas in the traditional linear regression this fold is not considered and
sudden or abrupt changes are considered as outliers or noise in the data, and there-
fore this information is not included in the model.
Due to the topographic differences in the linear and nonlinear models, Ceja and
Navarro (2012) hypothesized that a cusp catastrophe model could better capture the
complexity and nonlinearity of the relationship between challenge-skill balance and
work-related flow, compared to a linear regression model. Indeed, this was the case;
findings from this study supported the better performance of the cusp catastrophe
model over its linear counterpart (see Table 5.3) as shown by the lower AICc and
BIC and higher R2 indexes presented by the catastrophe model. The authors sug-
gest that the superiority of the cusp catastrophe model for modeling flow is due to

TABLE 5.3 Fit statistics for linear, logistic, and cusp models (adapted from Ceja & Navarro, 2012)

Linear Logistic Cusp

Flow AICc 978.95∗∗ 503.47 265.46∗∗

BIC 989.71∗∗ 516.79 281.16∗∗
R2 .23 .44 .39
Enjoyment AICc 1031.31∗∗ 363.70 361.07∗∗
BIC 1031.79∗∗ 376.94 332.72∗∗
R2 .19 .47 .45
Interest AICc 1018.69∗∗ 981.09 267.05∗∗
BIC 1026.02∗∗ 1001.33 282.64∗∗
R2 .24 .38 .42
Absorption AICc 994.54∗∗ 785.73 245.95∗∗
BIC 1005.09∗∗ 799.05 261.51∗∗
R2 .20 .35 .49

Note: The AIC, BIC, and R2 were calculated as the average of all participants. The trimmed mean was
used in order to eliminate outliers or extreme observations, discarding 5% of the values at the high and
low ends. AICc = Aikaike information criterion corrected; BIC = Bayesian information criterion.
N = 6,981 logs across 60 participants. The chi-square likelihood ratio test was calculated for the AICc
and BIC indexes. ∗∗ p < .0001.
 Redefining flow at work 93

its capacity to model both linear and nonlinear relationships as well as gradual and
discontinuous changes in an integrative way. Likewise, Navarro and Ceja (2011)
examined the application of a cusp catastrophe model to modeling flow in work
and nonwork activities; the results demonstrated the better performance of the cusp
catastrophe model over its linear counterpart (i.e., linear regression model) in both
domains. Moreover, Ceja and Navarro (2012) found that perceived challenge plays
an especially important role in the dynamics of flow, as it indicates the number of
discontinuities in employees’ work-related flow.
In view of the foregoing findings, flow at work seems to present discontinuous as
well as continuous changes across time. Therefore, catastrophe theory appears to be
an adequate approximation for modeling this combination of changes. Moreover,
it enriches our capacity to understand, characterize, and integrate different pat-
terns of change (e.g., gradual and continuous as well as abrupt or discontinuous).
In our view, future research on work-related flow should continue examining the
application of the different models proposed by catastrophe theory (e.g., elementary
cuspoids; see Guastello, 1987) to study changes in flow among different employee
populations.
There are three interesting avenues for future research in this area. First, further
research is needed to compare the performance of catastrophe models to that of
more traditional statistical linear approaches (i.e., linear regression analysis, HLM,
growth curve modeling). Second, perceived challenge seems to be the variable
responsible for the emergence of bifurcations. In other words, perceived challenge
appears to present a threshold beyond which two divergent behaviors are possible
(i.e., low and high levels of flow). Hence, future research is needed to examine the
role of challenge and other variables (e.g., dimensions of flow, organizational facili-
tators of flow) as determinants of the phase transitions as employees move into and
out of an optimal experience. Likewise, it would be interesting to study whether
the specific values of perceived challenge at which the bifurcation point is created
are distinct for each employee or whether similarities in terms of threshold can be
found between different employees. Third, an interesting area for future research
may be to study situation- and person-related predictors of the sudden and abrupt
changes observed in work-related flow over time. On the whole, research in this
area will surely add valuable information to the flow theory.
In the following section we will describe several approaches for assessing
intra-individual variability in work-related flow relying on NDS theory. After-
wards, we will propose some important implications for practitioners as well.

Implications for academics and practitioners

At the beginning of this chapter we argued that flow can be considered as a noner-
godic developmental process. This suggests that our analyses should be framed in
a within-person approach that examines how the process of flow unfolds within
individuals across time. Likewise we have presented the utility of the NDS approach
for studying the dynamic behavior of flow over time, emphasizing chaotic dynamics
94 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

and catastrophic changes as two fruitful concepts that may contribute to the devel-
opment of a new mind-set for understanding work-related flow as a highly dynamic
process. This section will be focused on the implications that the incorporation of
this new mind-set, framed in the NDS approach, can have for the work developed
by flow scholars and practitioners.

Implications for flow research: NDS methodologies

for analyzing within-person data
Since the 1970s, the methodologies of NDS and their applications to social research
have exploded (Guastello & Gregson, 2011). Specialist journals (e.g., nonlinear
dynamics, psychology, and life sciences) and books (e.g., Guastello & Gregson, 2011;
Heath, 2000; Kaplan & Glass, 1995) provide us with methods and applications of the
behavioral sciences that are useful for studying the intricate and constantly chang-
ing nature of flow. In this sense, as flow scholars, we have in our hands an array of
useful methodologies that can help us examine flow data with new lenses. In this
section we will suggest a step-by-step basic procedure for assessing and modeling
intraperson dynamics in time-series data. It is important to emphasize that the
methodologies described here require a minimum set of data. For example, we have
worked with at least 100 observations taken over time for each of the individuals
being studied. However, with a minor amount of registers (thirty or forty) some of
the techniques that we have used can be applied. In any case, the longer the time
series, the better the accuracy of the results.
Likewise, it is important to note that using NDS methodologies does not mean
that we should throw away all that we know about flow. Instead, it indicates a
remarkable opportunity to go beyond what we already know about work-related
flow and build on new models from variables we know well, incorporating non-
linear dynamics. Up until now the traditional linear approaches, grounded on the
generalized linear model (GLM), have considered nonlinear dynamics as random
noise. Likewise, although our approach in the present chapter is quantitative, quali-
tative designs using an NDS approach are also feasible, and several organizational
behavior scholars are actively involved in performing qualitative studies from an
NDS approach (e.g., Langley, Smallan, Tsoukas, & Van den Ven, 2013).
In Figure 5.3, a procedure of time series analyses using NDS methodologies that
has been used in several studies (e.g., Ceja & Navarro, 2009, 2011, 2012; Arrieta
et al., 2008; Ramos-Villagrasa & García-Izquierdo, 2011) is described. The process
starts by producing line graphs of flow indexes against time for each participant
separately (see first column in Figure 5.4). This will give us a within-subject per-
spective that will enable us to observe the presence or absence of regular patterns
in the dynamics of flow over time. Visual inspection of flow indices against time is
helpful to describe the dynamics of time series and it is needed before attempting
more complicated analyses (Chatfield, 1996). For those participants for whom this
preliminary visual inspection shows that their time series are mainly linear or nearly
linear, a traditional approach based on the GLM is recommended (e.g., ARIMA
 Redefining flow at work 95

Time series

Preliminary visual exploration

(Deciding if a linear or
nonlinear approach is suitable)

Linear Nonlinear

Traditional linear approaches Pattern identification using NDS

grounded on the Generalized Linear analysis techniques
Model (GLM)

Maximum Lyapunov exponent Visual Recurrence Analysis

(quantitative procedure to (graphical procedure to identify
discriminate between linear and linear, chaotic, and random
chaotic patterns) patterns)

Surrogate data analysis

(quantitative validation of
detected patterns)

Linear Pattern Chaotic Pattern Random Pattern

ARIMA models, etc. Catastrophe models, nonlinear The data cannot be further
neural networks, etc. modeled

Prediction capacity
Total Zero

FIGURE 5.3 Procedure of time series analyses used in the study (adapted from Ramos-
Villagrasa & García-Izquierdo, 2011)

models). However, for those cases where the line graphs show instable or nonlinear
dynamics and it is challenging to discriminate between linear and nonlinear behav-
ior, the use of NDS methodologies is advised.
Once we have visually assessed the nature of our time series and we detect
unstable dynamics, we can go further and conduct a deeper analysis of patterning of
FIGURE 5.4 Line graphs (left) and recurrence plots (right). The top row shows a lin-
ear dynamic, the middle row a chaotic dynamic, and the lower row shows a random
dynamic pattern. Adapted from Ceja & Navarro (2011)
 Redefining flow at work 97

trajectories, the paths defined by each participant’s data set, allowing us to uncover
the dynamic patterns (e.g., linear, chaotic, or random) underlying the time-series
data. In this chapter we will describe three NDS techniques that assess dynamic
patterns in time-series data: maximum Lyapunov exponent, recurrence analysis,
and surrogate data testing. In our view the three techniques presented here should
be used together so the researcher can achieve a more precise examination of the
intra-individual variability of flow (as chaotic, linear, or random), by integrating
results from the three techniques.
The maximum Lyapunov exponent is a quantitative indicator of the dynamic
patterns underlying time series. The Lyapunov exponent is based on a concept of
entropy, which is the rate at which information that allows forecast of a variable y is
lost (Kaplan & Glass, 1995). In the case of a linear pattern, the maximum Lyapunov
exponent is zero or less; otherwise, it could be chaotic or random. However, it is
important to note that the Lyapunov exponent can overestimate chaos because for
some cases it is not sensitive enough to discriminate between chaos and random
behavior. In the cases of random patterns, Lyapunov exponents become very large,
and this may be an indicator of random patterning in the data. Likewise, finding a
pure linear pattern in a time series is very unlikely, increasing the risk of accepting a
case as nonlinear when it is actually following a linear pattern. In order to continue
our analysis further we suggest using also recurrence plots. Lyapunov exponents can
be calculated in R using fNonlinear or RTisean packages.
The recurrence analysis is based on the study of possible recurrences in a time
series. A recurrence is a sequence of events that repeats itself across time (Marwan,
Romano, Thiel, & Kurths, 2007). The NDS offers a powerful tool for the charac-
terization of recurrence called recurrence plots. A recurrence plot is a square matrix,
in which the matrix elements correspond to those times at which time-series data
recur (columns and rows indicate a certain pair of times). More specifically, the
recurrence plot reveals all the times when the phase space trajectory of the data
visits roughly the same area in the phase space (Heath, 2000). The recurrence plot
enables us to characterize the dynamic underlying the time-series as linear, chaotic,
or random. A free and useful software for applied recurrence plots is included in
the fNonlinear package in R.
In Figure 5.4 we show line graphs (left) and recurrence plots (right) of flow data
obtained from the study by Ceja and Navarro (2011). The first row of figures rep-
resents a linear dynamic; in this type of dynamic the recurrence plot shows an image
in which all the data points are clearly concentrated in a few specific areas. This can
be interpreted as the system passing several times through the same positions, which
indicates that the dynamic is very regular and stable.
The middle row represents a chaotic dynamic; in this case the recurrence plot
exhibits a uniform tone of upward marked diagonals called “recurrences” parallel
to the main diagonal. These recurrences are sequences of values that are repeated
within the system in a similar way at different periods of time that characterizes a
chaotic time series. The last row represents a random dynamic; in this case any result
is possible and many points appear across the graph. There is a lack of structure,
98 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

showing the absence of any recurrence. Although the visual recurrence approach
is very useful, it presents an important challenge: the visual interpretation of recur-
rence plots requires some experience and for some cases it may be difficult to dis-
tinguish between random and chaotic dynamic patterns; hence the decision-making
can be very subjective.
Both Lyapunov exponent and recurrence analysis enable scholars to perform a
preliminary discrimination between linear, chaotic, or random patterns underlying
time series. Nevertheless, it is important to use a third quantitative technique to
clarify further the dynamic pattern underlying the time series. This third technique
is called surrogate data analysis (Schreiber & Schmitz, 2000). Surrogate data analysis
is used to verify the randomness of time series. The logic behind the surrogate
data is very simple: starting from the original time series, this procedure enables
the creation of random series, which conserve the same statistical properties (e.g.,
mean, variance, and structure of auto-correlation) as the original series, but remove
nonlinear dependency (Kugiumtzis, 2002). Afterwards, a hypothesis contrast is con-
ducted between the original series and the surrogate data, with the objective of
ruling out that the original time series is also random (see Heath, 2000). The pro-
cedure is implemented in the TISEAN software (surrogates command) now also
available in R (RTisean package). Readers interested in learning more about the
basic concepts behind the surrogate data analysis are advised to review the work by
Dolan and Spano (2001) and Heath (2000).
After carefully assessing the nature of the intra-individual variability using line
graphs, Lyapunov exponent, recurrence analysis, and surrogate data analysis, for
those cases in which the dynamic pattern is characterized as nonlinear or chaotic,
a further step can be to develop dynamic models to match the empirical data. This
is an area where there is a good deal of room for fruitful research on work-related
flow. In this sense, catastrophe theory approach has been extensively applied in the
social sciences (Bigelow, 1982; Guastello, 1995; Guastello, Gershon et al., 1999) and
more recently in work-related flow (Ceja & Navarro, 2012) for modeling the dis-
continuities in nonlinear or chaotic data. To analyze the fit of the cusp catastrophe
model to the flow data there are several powerful techniques available to flow schol-
ars, such as the multivariate GEMCAT (see Lange, McDade, & Oliva, 2001; Oliva,
Desarbo, Day, & Jedidi, 1987) or the polynomial regression technique (see Guas-
tello, 1982, 1987). Nonetheless, we recommend using the R cusp package (Gras-
man, van der Maas, & Wagenmakers, 2009). This method implements and extends
Cobb’s maximum likelihood approach (Cobb & Watson, 1980; Cobb, Koppstein, &
Chen, 1983) and makes it easy to fit the cusp catastrophe model to real flow data
and compare it with linear and logistic regression models. It is important to note
that considering the nonergodic nature of flow data, the fit of each model (i.e., cusp
catastrophe, linear, and logistic) should be done individually for each study partici-
pant (i.e., case per case).
Summing up, results of preliminary visual explorations using line graphs can serve
us to verify the stability of flow over time. Subsequently, if our data shows unsta-
ble behavior across time, NDS techniques, such as Lyapunov exponent, recurrence
 Redefining flow at work 99

analysis, and surrogate data analysis, can help us to determine the type of dynamic
pattern (i.e., linear, chaotic, or random) underlying the flow data and select the most
suitable methodology for modeling our data. More specifically if the data shows lin-
ear behavior we can use more traditional linear approaches, such as ARIMA models
or other related ones. However, if the flow data behaves in a nonlinear manner, flow
scholars can use NDS modeling techniques, such as catastrophe models. Finally if
the data shows random behavior, no modeling of the flow data can be conducted.
Overall, flow can be considered a nonergodic process; thus, it is better studied
using person-specific dynamic models. In this sense, techniques based on NDS can
help flow scholars to incorporate in their research the nonlinearity and discontinu-
ous change that employees experience in their everyday struggle of transitioning
between nonflow states (e.g., boredom or anxiety) and the flow state. It is important
to emphasize that between-subjects designs can also be used; however, they should be
based on the intra-individual analysis of single cases. For instance, flow scholars can
study clusters of participants presenting different dynamic patterns (e.g., linear, cha-
otic, or random). In a study on work-related flow, Ceja and Navarro (2011) found
that high levels of flow are associated with the chaotic pattern, whereas other states
of consciousness are associated with linear and random patterns. Future research on
flow can continue this line of research and examine the variables associated with the
emergence of different dynamic patterns in flow at work. We are hopeful that new
developments in the study of flow at work will have more widespread applications
of NDS-based methods.

Implications for practitioners: incorporating nonlinear

dynamics of flow to organizational practice
A growing number of organizations are aligning work and culture with the principles
of flow, considering the main tenets of the flow theory to create working conditions
that allow their employees to experience flow (e.g., balance between challenges and
skills, clear goals, unambiguous feedback, autonomy, space for deep concentration).
Some examples are Microsoft, Gallup, Ericsson, Media-Saturn Group, Patagonia, and
Toyota, which have discovered that creating a flow-friendly work environment that
helps individuals flourish can increase productivity and satisfaction at work (Pink,
2009).
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) argues that without flow there is no creativity, and in
today’s business world, innovation and creativity are a requirement to succeed. “To
stay competitive, we have to lead in the world in-person creativity. People with
high flow never miss a day. They never get sick. Their lives are just better and they
are more productive,” says Jif Clifton, CEO of the Gallup Organization.2 Cheng
and Van de Ven (1996) found that the creative processes in organizations exhibit
chaotic patterns. In other words, learning in chaotic conditions is an expanding and
diverging process of discovering possible action alternatives, while learning under
stable periodic conditions is a narrowing and converging process. Hence, it appears
that flow and creative processes emerge under chaotic conditions, meaning that
100 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

instability and variability in organizational contexts can be regarded as flow-friendly

work conditions.
Utho Creusen, former chief human resources officer of Media-Saturn Group,
received an excellence in practice award by the Gallup International Positive Insti-
tute in 2006 for institutionalizing concepts of flow in his company. Utho explains
that opportunity and freedom within a work role are needed to experience flow.
This is difficult when roles conform to a standardized template. Hence, it is impor-
tant to allow some flexibility within roles no matter how structured the working
environments. It is always important that individuals have certain degree of flex-
ibility to be able to craft their jobs.3
Likewise, at Patagonia, former CEO Michael Crooke argues that the experience
of flow can be extended from the Patagonia workforce to all stakeholders if they
derive a joyful experience from the company (Perschel, 2010). Crook implemented
an annual company assessment to measure the degree of work-related flow employ-
ees experience in their daily activities, including items such as how free employees
are to use their own time (sense of control), whether they experience a balance
between their job demands and their skills (challenge-skill balance), and whether
they are able to stay focused in one task at a time (deep concentration). Crooke
has been celebrated for building Patagonia into one of the world’s most recognized,
successful, and socially responsible brands (Persche, 2010).
Stefan Falk, former vice president at Ericsson, adopted flow concepts to
engage employees at his company (Pink, 2009). Impressed by the results, Falk
developed a flow-based culture in 2003 when he joined Green Cargo, one of
Scandinavia’s largest transport and logistics companies. At Green Cargo, Csik-
szentmihalyi’s book on flow is required reading for all managers as part of a
training program. With the objective of establishing clear goals and unambiguous
feedback (two of the antecedents of flow), employees and managers meet and
negotiate three-month contracts and organize feedback sessions once a month. A
year following this implementation, Green Cargo substantially increased its profits
(Pink, 2009).
Another example of how companies use the flow theory to enhance the experi-
ence of their clients is Microsoft applying the concepts of flow to give Windows
users a more engaging and joyful experience. Its objective is to make its products a
pleasure to use. Likewise, Microsoft is currently conducting research on how flow
might improve the lives and productivity of software engineers (Pink, 2009).
As we have seen in the foregoing examples, enhancing work-related flow can
be neither costly nor difficult for organizations. For instance, monitoring the flow
experiences of employees to develop person-specific interventions to enhance
flow at work may be really powerful. NDS methodologies can give practitioners
a more dynamic view of flow, where variability and abrupt changes are seen as a
positive and healthy behavior. In this sense, practitioners should be careful with
employees who show stable dynamics of flow (e.g., they never enter the flow zone
or they never leave the flow zone), as stable dynamics appear to be associated with
low levels of flow at work (e.g., Ceja & Navarro, 2011).
 Redefining flow at work 101

Likewise, as we have shown throughout the chapter, practitioners can bene-

fit from the NDS approach for understanding work-related flow as a dynamic
and unique process that is different for each individual. This should be viewed as
a fundamental management tool, and can guide organizations in the creation of
individual-specific interventions that consider the dynamic pattern of each indi-
vidual (chaotic, random, or linear) and the characteristics of the work context. With
this information in mind, designing individual job positions or entire work envi-
ronments following the concept and dynamics of flow will likely result in higher
well-being for all stakeholders in organizations.

Conclusions
Our conclusions can be framed in three main “take-home” messages. First, flow should
be considered a nonergodic process, meaning that we need to study it at the intra-
individual level of analysis. Once we can describe the dynamic of flow at the
intra-individual level, we might be able to group individuals in clusters following
same dynamic patterns.
Second, flow should be considered a nonlinear process. This means that we need
to study it going beyond the techniques that the generalized linear model provides
us with. More specifically, we should apply nonlinear techniques to obtain better
results in our research.
Finally, flow should be present in the agenda of managers and human resource
professionals. The experience of flow represents one of the purest manifestations of
intrinsic motivation, and motivation is a key determinant of performance at work.
Additionally, intrinsic motivation enhances employee well-being. One of the classic
paradoxes for human resource professionals is taking care of employee motivation
and well-being while enhancing organizational productivity – this can be managed
by paying attention to the dynamics of flow at work. Definitely, taking care of
employees’ flow is a serious business.

Notes
1 In Ceja and Navarro (2009) two flow measures were used: measure 1 was the balance
of challenges and skills, and measure 2 involved the average of enjoyment, interest, and
absorption.
2 Is Your Organization Creative Enough? (2006). A Q&A with Jim Clifton, CEO of Gal-
lup and author of The Coming Jobs War. Gallup Business Journal, May 11, 2006. Personal
interview with Utho Creusen at the Gallup Positive Psychology summit, 2008.
3 Personal interview with Utho Creusen at the Gallup Positive Psychology summit, 2008.

References
Arrieta, C., Navarro, J., & Vicente, S. (2008). Factores asociados a la emergencia de patrones
diferenciales de la motivación en el trabajo [Variables related to the emergence of differ-
ential patterns in work motivation]. Psicothema, 20, 745–752.
102 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44.
Barton, S. (1994). Chaos, self-organization, and psychology. American Psychologist, 49, 5–14.
Bigelow, J. (1982). A catastrophic model of organizational change. Behavioral Science, 27,
26–42.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2009). Dynamics of flow: A nonlinear perspective. Journal of Happi-
ness Studies, 10, 665–684.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of flow in the workplace: Characterizing
within-individual variability using a complexity science approach. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 32, 627–651.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2012). “Suddenly I get into the zone”: Examining discontinuities
and nonlinear changes in flow experiences at work. Human Relations, 65(9), 1101–1127.
Chatfield, C. (1996). The analysis of time series: An introduction. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Cheng, Y. T., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1996). Learning the innovation journey: Order out of
chaos? Organization Science, 7(6), 593–614.
Cobb, L., Koppstein, P., & Chen, N. (1983). Estimation and moment recursion relations
for multimodal distributions of the exponential family. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 78, 124–130.
Cobb, L., & Watson, B. (1980). Statistical catastrophe theory: An overview. Mathematical
Modelling, 1, 311–317.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York: HarperPerennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
New York: Basic Books.
Cvitanovic, P. (1989). Universality in chaos. Bristol, UK: Adam Hilger.
Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011). Psychological selection and optimal experiences
across cultures. Social empowerment through personal growth. London, UK: Springer.
Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of
conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.
Dolan, K. T., & Spano, M. L. (2001). Surrogate for nonlinear time series analysis. Physical
Review, 64, 1–4.
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow
experiences at work: For high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
755–775.
Escartín, J., Ceja, L., Navarro, J., & Zapf, D. (2013). Modeling workplace bullying behaviors
using catastrophe theory. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 17(4), 493–515.
Freeman, W. J. (1991). The physiology of perception. Scientific American, 264, 78–85.
Fullagar, C. J., & Kelloway, K. (2009). “Flow” at work: An experience sampling approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 595–615.
Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2013). Work related flow. In A. B. Bakker & K. Daniels
(Eds.), A day in the life of a happy worker. Hove Sussex: Psychology Press, 41–57.
Goldberger, A. L. (1991). Is the normal heartbeat chaotic or homeostatic? News in Physiologi-
cal Sciences, 6, 87–91.
Grasman, R. P. P. P., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2009). Fitting the cusp
catastrophe in R: A cusp package primer. Journal of Statistical Software, 32(8), 1–27. URL
http://www.jstatsoft.org/v32/i08
 Redefining flow at work 103

Guastello, S. J. (1982). Moderator regression and the cusp catastrophe: Application of

two-stage personnel selection, training, therapy and program evaluation. Behavioral Sci-
ence, 27, 259–272.
Guastello, S. J. (1987). A butterfly catastrophe model of motivation in organizations: Academic
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 165–182.
Guastello, S. J. (2002). Managing emergent phenomena: Nonlinear dynamics in work organizations.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Guastello, S. J., Gershon, R. R. M., & Murphy, L. R. (1999). Catastrophe model for the
exposure to blood-borne pathogens and other accidents in health care settings. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 31, 739–749.
Guastello, S. J., & Gregson, R.A.M. (2011). Nonlinear dynamical systems analysis for the behav-
ioral sciences using real data. Florida: CRC Press Taylor & Francis.
Guastello, S. J., Johnson, E. A., & Rieke, M. (1999). Nonlinear dynamics of motivational
flow. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 3, 259–273.
Guastello, S. J., Koopmans, M., & Pincus, D. (Eds.) (2009). Chaos and complexity in psychology:
The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hamaker, E. L. (2012). Why researchers should think “within-person”. A paradigmatic
rationale. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying
daily life (pp. 43–61). New York: The Guilford Press.
Heath, R. A. (2000). Nonlinear dynamics: Techniques and applications in psychology. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaplan, D., & Glass, L. (1995). Understanding nonlinear dynamics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kugiumtzis, D. (2002). Surrogate data test on time series. In A. Soofi and L. Cao (Eds.), Mod-
elling and forecasting financial data, techniques of nonlinear dynamics (pp. 267–282). Norwell,
MA: Kluwer Academic.
Lange, L., McDade, S., & Oliva, T. A. (2001). Technological choice and network externalities:
A catastrophe model analysis of firm software adoption for competing operating systems.
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 12, 9–57.
Langley, A., Smallan, C., Tsoukas, H., Van den Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change
in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity and flow. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
Li, T. Y., & Yorke, J. A. (1975). Period three implies chaos. The American Mathematical Monthly,
82, 985–992.
Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic non-periodic flow. Journal of Atmospheric Science, 20,
130–141.
Lorenz, E. N. (1993). The essence of chaos. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Marwan, N., Romano, M. C., Thiel, M., Kurths, J. (2007). Recurrence plots for the analysis
of complex systems. Physics Reports, 438, 237–329.
Massimini, F., & Delle Fave, A. (2000). Individual development in a bio-cultural perspective.
American Psychologist, 55, 24–33.
Molenaar, P.C.M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as ideographic science: Bringing the
person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2(4), 201–218.
Molenaar, P.C.M., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychol-
ogy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 112–117.
Moneta, G. B. (2004). The flow experience across cultures. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(2),
115–121.
Moneta, G. B. (2010). Flow in work as a function of trait intrinsic motivation, opportunity
for creativity in the job, and work engagement. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), The handbook of
employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 262–269). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
104 Lucia Ceja and Jose Navarro

Moneta, G. B. (2012). On the measurement and conceptualization of flow. In S. Engeser

(Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 23–50). New York: Springer.
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills
on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64, 275–310.
Munné, F. (2005). Qué es la complejidad? [What’s complexity?]. Encuentros de Psicología Social,
3, 6–17.
Navarro, J. (2005). La psicología social de las organizaciones desde la perspectiva de la com-
plejidad. Revisión y estado actual de una relación prometedora [The social psychology of
organizations from a complexity approach. A review of the state of play of a promising
relationship]. Encuentros en Psicología Social, 3, 78–87.
Navarro, J., & Arrieta, C. (2010). Chaos in human behavior: The case of work motivation.
The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 244–256.
Navarro, J., & Ceja, L. (2011). Dinámicas complejas en el flujo: Diferencias entre trabajo y no
trabajo [Complex dynamics of flow: Differences between work and nonwork activities].
Revista de Psicología Social, 26(3), 443–456.
Navarro, J., & Rueff-Lopes, R. (2015). Healthy variability in organizational behavior: Empir-
ical evidences and new steps for future research. Nonlinear Dynamics in Psychology and Life
Sciences, 19, 529–552.
Nowak, A., & Vallacher, R. R. (1998). Toward computational social psychology: Cellular
automata and neural network models of interpersonal dynamics. In S. J. Read & L. C.
Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 277–311). Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oliva, T., Desarbo, W., Day, D., & Jedidi, K. (1987). GEMCAT: A general multivariate meth-
odology for estimating catastrophe models. Behavioral Science, 32, 121–137.
Paredes, K. C. (2012). The interplay between perceived challenge and skill: Csikszentmihalyi’s theory
vs Lazarus theory. Master’s thesis. Tutors: J. Navarro & L. Cardoso. University of Barce-
lona and University of Coimbra. Unpublished work.
Perschel, A. (2010). Work-life flow: How individuals, Zappos, and other innovative compa-
nies achieve high engagement. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, July/August,
pp. 17–30.
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. London, UK: CanonGate.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, S. (1984). Order out of chaos. New York: Heinemann.
Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., & García-Izquierdo, A. L. (2011). Técnicas de análisis de patrones
caóticos: Revisión de estudios empíricos en psicología [Techniques for analyzing chaotic
patterns: A review of empirical studies in psychology]. Anales de Psicología, 27, 239–248.
Rathunde, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). The developing person: An experiential per-
spective. In R. M. Lerner and W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical
models of human development (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 465–515). New York: Wiley.
Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M., Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Cifre, E., & Sonnenscheinb, M.
(2011). Enjoyment and absorption: An electronic diary study on daily flow patterns.
Work & Stress, 25(1), 75–92.
Roe, R. A. (2013). Performance, motivation and time. In A. Shipp & Y. Fried (Eds.), Time and
work. Vol. 1: How time impacts individuals (pp. 63–110). London, UK: Routledge/Taylor &
Francis.
Schreiber, T., & Schmitz, A. (2000). Surrogate time series. Physica D, 142, 346–382.
Schuldberg, D. (2006). Complicato, ma non troppo: A small nonlinear model and the good
life. In A. Delle Fave (Ed.), Dimensions of well-being (pp. 552–566). Milan: FrancoAngeli.
Schuldberg, D. (2007). Nonlinear dynamics of positive psychology: Parameters, models,
and searching for a systems summum bonum. In A. D. Ong & M.H.M. van Dulmen
 Redefining flow at work 105

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 423–436). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Sheridan, J. (1985). A catastrophe model of employee withdrawal leading to low job perfor-
mance, high absenteeism, and job turnover during the first year of employment. Academy
of Management Journal, 28, 88–109.
Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (1993). A dynamic systems approach to development: Applications.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thom, R. (1975). Structural stability and morphogenesis. Reading, MA: Benjamin.
Tsonis, A. R. (1992). Chaos: From theory to applications. New York: Plenum Press.
Von Neumann, J., Kent, R. H., Bellison, R. H., & Hart, B. I. (1941). The mean square suc-
cessive difference. Annual Math Statistics, 12, 153–162.
Zeeman, E. C. (1977). Catastrophe theory: Selected papers 1972–1977. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
6
THE CONSEQUENCES OF FLOW
Susana Llorens and Marisa Salanova

Introduction
The concept of flow in organizational settings is receiving an increasing amount of
attention from researchers, most of their studies being focused on modern organi-
zations. One of the reasons for this growing interest is the driving force of positive
psychology, which can be defined as the scientific study of optimal human func-
tioning, the aim of which is to build positive qualities – that is, virtues and strengths
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5). Specifically in the work context, posi-
tive organizational psychology (POP) is conceptualized as the scientific study of the
healthy and optimal functioning of persons and groups in the organizations, as well as
the effective management of psychosocial well-being at work and the development
of healthy organizations. Its objective is to describe, explain, and predict the opti-
mal functioning in these contexts and to amplify and potentiate the psychosocial
well-being and the quality of job and organizational life (Salanova, Martínez, & Llo-
rens, 2005, 2014). This positive approach has yielded interesting findings about pos-
itive psychosocial emotions and experiences, such as flow, in work contexts (Bakker,
2005; Llorens, Salanova, & Rodríguez, 2013; Salanova, Bakker, & Llorens, 2006).
Previous research on flow at work has made it possible to identify different key
aspects related to the concept, theoretical models, and measurement. Accordingly,
research has identified: (1) the dimensionality of flow experiences at work; (2) the
distinction between flow experiences and their prerequisites; and (3) the differ-
ences in the frequency of flow experience among occupations (see, e.g., Llorens
et al., 2013).
In this chapter, we provide an overview of the main research that has inves-
tigated the organizational and individual consequences of flow at work. In par-
ticular, we will discuss the impact of flow on well-being, other personal and job
resources, and job performance. We will also outline research that has investigated
 The consequences of flow 107

the relationship between flow and well-being and the contribution that flow at
work can make to the emerging field of positive organizational behavior.

What is flow at work?

About the concept of flow at work

Traditionally, flow has been described as an experience occurring while perform-
ing any activity that makes people feel good and motivated because they are doing
something worthwhile for its own sake. However, this concept has been improved
so as to adapt it to other contexts, such as art, sports, daily activities, leisure, or study
(e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Delle Fave & Bassi,
2000; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2005). Adapted to these contexts, flow “tends to
occur when a person’s skills are fully involved in overcoming a challenge that is
just about manageable. Optimal experiences usually involve a fine balance between
one’s ability to act and the available opportunities for action” (Csikszentmihalyi,
1997, p. 30).
The application of the concept to work settings reveals that, of course, flow could
be experienced there in a similar manner. In work settings, flow is conceptualized
as an optimal experience that is characterized by three structural dimensions: enjoy-
ment (i.e., the emotional component), absorption (i.e., the cognitive component),
and intrinsic interest (i.e., the motivational component).
Focused on work, enjoyment refers to a positive judgment about (Bakker, 2008)
the quality of working life (see also Veenhoven, 1984). The state of being fully con-
centrated and engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has dif-
ficulties detaching oneself from work, characterizes absorption (Ghani & Deshpande,
1994; Lutz & Guiry, 1994; Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Intrinsic interest refers
to the need to perform a certain work-related activity with the aim of experiencing
inherent pleasure and satisfaction in it (cf. Deci & Ryan, 1985; Moneta & Csik-
szentmihalyi, 1996; Trevino & Webster, 1992). Intrinsically motivated employees are
continuously interested in the work they are involved in (Harackiewicz & Elliot,
1998), and they want to continue their work and are fascinated by the tasks they
perform (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) (for a recent review see Llorens et al., 2013).
A great deal of empirical research has found this three-dimensional structure of
flow at work, which is characterized by enjoyment, absorption, and intrinsic inter-
est, in different samples of workers, such as teachers (Bakker, 2005; Salanova et al.,
2006), employees of small and medium-sized companies (Demerouti, 2006), and
line managers (Nielsen & Cleal, 2010), as well as information and communication
technology users (students and workers; Rodríguez, Schaufeli, Salanova, & Cifre,
2008). Despite this consistence, research has pointed to the existence of just two
(enjoyment and absorption) rather than three dimensions of the flow experience
at work (Ghani & Deshpande, 1994; Rodríguez, Cifre, Salanova, & Åborg, 2008;
Skadberg & Kimmel, 2004). For example, multigroup confirmatory factor analyses
108 Susana Llorens and Marisa Salanova

(MCFA) provided evidence that flow experience is composed of only two related
but different dimensions – namely, enjoyment and absorption – in different work
settings (tile workers and secondary school teachers, Llorens et al., 2013), tested by
the WOLF Inventory (Bakker, 2001). The two-dimensional model fitted the data
better than the three-dimensional one.

A model of flow at work

If there is some mismatch as regards the dimensionality of flow in work contexts,
another relevant question refers to the conditions needed to promote flow at work.
Although originally there was some confusion about the experience of flow and its
prerequisites (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990, 1997), researchers are now aware of the
need to distinguish the flow experience itself from its prerequisites and its conse-
quences (Bassi & Delle Fave, 2012b; Chen, Wigand, & Nilan, 1999; Guo & Poole,
2009; Kawabata & Mallett, 2011; Keller & Bless, 2008; Keller & Blomann, 2008;
Mesurado, 2009; Pearce, Ainley, & Howard, 2005). Applied to work contexts, the
model of flow at work emerges as an alternative allowing us to differentiate between
the experience and the antecedents of flow at work (Llorens et al., 2013).
Based on the flow channel model (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) and the experience
fluctuation model (EFM) developed in previous studies (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Delespaul, Reis, & de Vries, 2004; Delle Fave & Bassi,
2000; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2005; Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, &
Randall, 2005; Massimini, Csikszentmihalyi, & Carli, 1987), this model of flow
in work settings assumes that employees would experience flow more frequently
when their job demands are perceived as highly challenging, but they also believe
that they have the skills to cope with the demands (Llorens et al., 2013). Specifically,
the model of flow at work assumes that the flow experience at work is a subjective
experience. The model replicates the EFM by identifying eight areas (“channels”)
which represent eight experiences (i.e., arousal, control, relaxation, boredom, apa-
thy, worry, anxiety, and flow). Like in the EFM, in this model flow is characterized
by the perception of high challenges and high skills in terms of intensity. In line
with the previous models, in this model of flow at work, high levels of perceived
skills and high levels of perceived challenges are necessary prerequisites to experi-
ence flow (Salanova et al., 2006). Thus workers who, regardless of their occupa-
tion, perceive a balance between high levels of challenge and skills in their jobs,
experience flow more frequently than others who perceive different combinations
between challenge and skills (for more details, see Llorens et al., 2013).

The measurement of flow at work

The study of flow at work has an important tradition. Some studies have inves-
tigated flow at work by evaluating the intensity of antecedents and experiential
components using the experience sampling method (ESM; Csikszentmihalyi &
LeFevre, 1989; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2005) and the Flow Questionnaire
 The consequences of flow 109

(Bassi & Delle Fave, 2012a). Another approach is based on single-administration

retrospective instruments, which test frequency rather than intensity of flow and
its prerequisites (see Bakker, 2001, 2008; Mäkikangas, Bakker, Aunola, & Demer-
outi, 2010; Salanova et al., 2006).
To this purpose, Bakker developed an instrument to assess the experience of flow
at work, the so-called WOrk-reLated Flow inventory (WOLF; Bakker, 2001, 2008).
This single-administration retrospective instrument allows for assessing the fre-
quency of the flow experience over the last six months on a seven-point scale from
0 (“never”) to 6 (“every day”). The sixteen items test the three dimensions of the
flow experience at work, -– that is, enjoyment (four items), absorption (six items),
and intrinsic interest (six items). Lately, a short form of WOLF was developed, with
ten items referring to the dimensions of enjoyment (four items), and absorption (six
items) (see Llorens et al., 2013).

Consequences of flow at work

In addition to the experience, prerequisites, and measurement of flow at work, there
is also empirical evidence regarding the consequences of flow at work. Although
fewer studies were conducted on this aspect, in the following pages we outline the
most significant consequences of flow at work, which we have classified into three
main categories: well-being, resources, and job performance.

How does flow enhance well-being at work?

Different research studies have highlighted the relevance of flow in the development
of well-being at work. Generally speaking, results give evidence for the direct and
positive impact of flow on subjective well-being “by fostering the experience of happi-
ness in the here and now” from a hedonic perspective (Moneta, 2004, p. 116). We con-
sistently found that flow is positively related to subjective well-being and positive
emotions (Bloch, 2002), positive mood (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009), active coping
and commitment (Salanova, Martínez, Cifre, & Schaufeli, 2005), less burnout (Lavi-
gne, Forest, & Crevier-Braud, 2012), task engagement (Ainley, Enger, & Kennedy,
2008), job satisfaction (Maeran & Cangiano, 2013), and high energy levels (Demer-
outi, Bakker, Sonnentag, & Fullagar, 2012).
Specifically, a phenomenological analysis of interviews carried out on a sample
of thirty-six employees of a public organization highlighted that flow experiences
are associated with a good quality of life in modern everyday existence (Bloch,
2002). Accordingly, flow “appeared as pervasive states coloring the interviewees’ world of
action, feeling and thinking. These states were characterized by specific experience of reality, of
self and of time” (p. 120). In this context flow plays the role of a framework for the
development of more positive and specific emotions and feelings, such as joy, ecstasy,
excitement, happiness, and pride.
Similarly, in a longitudinal study aimed at investigating the experience of forty
architecture students by means of ESM over a semester, hierarchical linear modeling
110 Susana Llorens and Marisa Salanova

showed that flow is related to subjective well-being and positive mood (Fullagar &
Kelloway, 2009). More specifically, students who experienced higher values of flow
in terms of intensity reported being momentarily in a more positive mood in terms
of hedonic well-being.
In another study conducted on 770 workers from different occupational sectors
(education, production sectors), higher frequency of the dimensions of flow (higher
perceived competence, absorption, and intrinsic satisfaction) was related to the
perception of a more positive environment, psychosocial well-being, and reduced
ill-being. More specifically, flow at work was positively related to the perception
of more job resources at work (i.e., autonomy, feedback, and task variety) and psy-
chosocial well-being in terms of active coping and organizational commitment, but
negatively related to burnout (exhaustion and cynicism) and anxiety. Workers who
experience flow at work more frequently therefore seem to perceive a better job
context with more job resources and experience better well-being – that is, a greater
frequency of active coping behaviors, more commitment to the organization, and
lower levels of burnout and anxiety related to the task (Salanova, Martínez, Cifre,
et al., 2005).
Flow has also been negatively related to burnout in two independent studies on
Canadian workers (Lavigne et al., 2012). In Study 1, a cross-sectional design and
path analysis were used with 113 young workers to show the mediating role of flow
at work between harmonious passion and burnout, especially in the dimensions
of inefficacy and cynicism. Results suggested that the more harmonious passion is
reported at work, the higher frequency of flow is experienced. As a consequence,
less burnout (i.e., cynicism and inefficacy) is observed. In the second longitudi-
nal study with 325 participants working for the Quebec government, harmonious
passion for work was positively related to flow experiences at work as reported
six months later and after controlling for Time 1’s flow experiences (in terms of
concentration, control, and autotelic experience’s intensity). Thus, flow experiences
at work at Time 2 were negatively related to inefficacy, cynicism, and emotional
exhaustion at work at Time 2. That is, the more flow is experienced in terms of
intensity, the less burnout is found.
Applied to the learning context, a study with a preprofessional sample of
secondary school students aged between fifteen and eighteen years showed that
higher ratings of challenge and skill are positively related to another indicator
of well-being: task engagement (Ainley et al., 2008). Results showed that flow
groups experienced, as a consequence, more engagement and focusing through-
out the task compared to the non-flow groups working on a short learning
activity – that is, a writing task using an interactive computer program called
“Between the Lines.”
Satisfaction at work (as a measure of well-being) has also been claimed to be a
consequence of flow at work. Maeran and Cangiano (2013) developed a model of
flow where this psychological state was considered critical in redesigning interven-
tions in the workplace in order to promote job satisfaction. Their results showed the
strong impact of flow as a key predictor of job satisfaction.
 The consequences of flow 111

Another diary study examined the moderating role of both recovery efforts at work
(i.e., a process that repairs the negative effects of strain) and detachment from work
in the relationship between flow experience at work and energy perceived when the
work is finished (Demerouti et al., 2012). In a sample of eighty-three participants,
multilevel analyses revealed the benefits of flow for (1) increasing the energy after
work when employees failed to recover during work breaks, and (2) increasing the
levels of vigor in the employees at the end of the day when they left the workplace.
Generally speaking, flow is a positive experience that produces benefits for employ-
ees’ well-being. The impact of flow is a key element for employees’ levels of energy
after work and at the end of the day when at home, particularly the dimensions of
enjoyment and absorption (Demerouti et al., 2012).
To sum up, taking into account research about the positive effects of flow on
well-being and following the ‘broaden-and-build theory’ (Fredrickson, 2001), we
suggest, by analogy with positive emotions, that flow produces this positive effect
since (1) it allows people to broaden their momentary thought–action repertories
and build resilience (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005), and
(2) in a similar way to positive emotions, flow could regulate negative emotions
(Fredrickson, Mancuso, Branigan, & Tugade, 2000) and foster positive spirals of
well-being (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002).

Flow and other personal and job resources

Further expanding the analogy with Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory,
flow states could generate more positive resources at work (i.e., personal and job
resources) through different kinds of positive spirals, such as the emotional conta-
gion of flow (Bakker, 2005), organizational climate and efficacy beliefs (Salanova
et al., 2006), social support, opportunities for professional development, supervisory
coaching (Mäkikangas et al., 2010), and finally flow prerequisites – that is, challenge
and skills over time (Rodríguez, Salanova, Cifre, & Schaufeli, 2011).
In a similar line, a study on a sample of music teachers and their students (Bakker,
2005) provided evidence in favor of the emotional contagion of the flow experi-
ence. Specifically, a positive relationship between the frequency of music teachers’
flow experiences and the frequency of flow among their students was detected. It
seems that “this flow contagion occurs because of the automatic imitation of cheer-
ful and happy teachers, but also the more conscious crossover of teachers’ dedication
to their work.” Hence, one of the consequences of flow is that flow causes flow
(Bakker, 2005, p. 38).
Furthermore, there is a large body of research that shows reciprocal effects
between job and personal resources and flow, thereby suggesting the development
of positive cycles or spirals. In fact, these studies offer evidence in favor of the notion
that job resources and flow mutually influence each other: resources enhance flow,
but flow also promotes job resources. The positive relationships of flow with orga-
nizational and personal resources at work emerged in a longitudinal study with
secondary school teachers (Salanova et al., 2006). More specifically, results showed
112 Susana Llorens and Marisa Salanova

a reciprocal influence between the flow experience and organizational resources

(in terms of climate orientation indicators, such as social support, innovation, rules,
and goals) and personal resources (i.e., efficacy beliefs) over time. That is, organiza-
tional and personal resources tested at the beginning of the academic year (Time 1)
facilitated work-related flow at work eight months later, at the end of the academic
year (Time 2). Findings also showed that the frequency of flow (i.e., frequency in
absorption, enjoyment, and intrinsic work motivation) at work tested at Time 1
had a positive influence on personal and organizational resources at Time 2. In fact,
this study showed that flow develops over time when personal and organizational
resources are available, and also that the experience of flow in the present influences
the gaining of organizational and personal resources in the future by generating a
positive spiral over time.
Similarly, a longitudinal study conducted over three months on 335 employ-
ees from an employment agency based on latent growth curve and mixed model
analyses showed that job resources (i.e., social support, opportunities for profes-
sional development, and supervisory coaching) were positively related to flow at
work. Thus, these findings suggest that: (1) the frequency of job resources and flow
are positively related to each other over time, and (2) their changes over time again
provide evidence for mutual cycles of change (Mäkikangas et al., 2010).
These reciprocal relationships were also detected between flow and its
prerequisites – that is, challenge and skills – over time. In a two-wave longitudinal
study conducted among 258 secondary school teachers, results showed that the
flow experience was a consequence and also an antecedent of perceived challenge
and skills (Rodríguez et al., 2011). More specifically, the higher the frequency of
prerequisites (perceived high challenge and skills) of flow at Time 1, the higher the
frequency of flow over time, which in turn increases the frequency of the prerequi-
sites (high challenge and skills) in a positive cycle.

Flow as a driver of performance

The fact that flow plays a key role across life domains (for a review see Delle Fave,
Massimini, & Bassi, 2011; Massimini & Delle Fave, 2000) and in the development of
well-being and resources is clear, but there is also empirical evidence that flow could
enhance positive results in terms of performance, such as organizational spontaneity
(Eisenberger et al., 2005), in- and extra-role performance (Bakker, 2008), creative
performance (MacDonald, Byrne, & Carlton, 2006; Yan, Davison, & Mo, 2013),
service quality (Kuo & Ho, 2010), and group performance from a collective point of
view (Admiraal, Huizenga, Akkerman, & Dam, 2011; Aubé, Brunelle, & Rousseau,
2014; Bakker, Oerlemans, Demerouti, Slot, & Ali, 2011).
However, some studies suggested that the association of flow with greater posi-
tive mood and higher performance specifically emerged among workers reporting
a high need for achievement (Eisenberger et al., 2005). A study conducted among
sales employees and sales support employees revealed that employees in the flow
context (high values of both skills and challenges) experience greater positive mood
 The consequences of flow 113

(e.g., the extent to which workers felt happy at work) and organizational spontane-
ity (e.g., the extent to which employees looked for ways to improve the effectiveness
of their work) than other combinations of skill and challenge only when employees
have a high need for achievement (i.e., achievement orientation, such as working to
improve one’s skills and desiring frequent feedback).
On the other hand, in a study of 1,346 employees distributed in seven samples
from different occupational groups and companies, flow experience was related to
job satisfaction, and to job performance in its two dimensions: in-role (i.e., formal
work performance) as well as extra-role (i.e., behavior that exceeds normal task ful-
fillment by going the extra mile) performance. In this respect, it seems that happy
employees who get “into the flow” at work are also more satisfied and perform
better in their role and extra-role behaviors (Bakker, 2008).
Flow has also been connected to a specific type of performance, namely creative
performance. Flow is an experience of an activity as being intrinsically rewarding,
under which “individuals tend to be curious, cognitively flexible, willing to take
risks, and persistent in the face of barriers – characteristics that should facilitate the
development of new and potentially useful ideas” (Baera, Oldhama, & Cummings,
2003, p. 571). To evaluate these aspects, a study was carried out among forty-five
university students who worked on a group composition task during three meetings
(MacDonald et al., 2006). The completed compositions were recorded and rated for
quality and creativity by the participants and by a group of twenty-four specialists
in music education. Using an Experience Sampling Form (ESF; Csikszentmihalyi &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) the results showed that as group flow increased, so did the
rating for creativity given by the specialists. Also, specialists rated the compositions
of those groups that experienced higher values of flow more positively than those
provided by the groups who experienced lower values of flow.
Data collected from 232 users of Web 2.0 virtual communities were used to test
a model where the flow experience (i.e., perceived enjoyment and attention focus)
mediates the relationship between knowledge sharing behavior (i.e., knowledge
seeking and knowledge contributing) and employee creativity at work (Yan et al.,
2013). Findings showed that both types of knowledge behaviors can lead to a state
of flow and can further result in creativity at work.
Group flow and group performance have also been studied, and the results
are consistent with those obtained for individual contexts. In a study involving
eighty-five teams of college students who participated in a project management
simulation, flow predicted 12% of the variance in team performance, and this rela-
tionship was fully mediated by members’ commitment to team goals (Aubé et al.,
2014). Furthermore, the exchange of information among the members played a
crucial role in increasing team performances. Specifically, the more team members
communicated while doing their work, the stronger the relationship between flow
and team performance.
In another study on collective measures, results from structural equation model-
ing in a two-wave longitudinal lab on 250 participants working in fifty-two groups
showed that collective efficacy beliefs predict collective flow (tested in terms of
114 Susana Llorens and Marisa Salanova

frequency) over time in a reciprocal relationship. These results highlighted the role
of collective flow in increasing collective efficacy beliefs in a gain cycle over time
(Salanova, Rodríguez, Schaufeli, & Cifre, 2014).
Another study, combining survey and experimental methods where participants
played a paddleball game, gave evidence for the impact of collective flow. Results
showed that social flow experiences were perceived as more enjoyable compared to
solitary flow experiences. Specifically, participants who played in interdependent
teams reported more joy in flow than individuals performing less interdependently
or alone (Walker, 2010).
Finally, a positive relationship between team flow and team performance was
detected among soccer teams (Bakker et al., 2011). Multilevel analyses revealed
that environmental resources (autonomy, social support from the coach, and per-
formance feedback) were positively related to flow, which in turn was positively
related to the performance of each player in the team during the match. These
findings suggest that certain characteristics of flow at the team level (in terms of
transformation of time, clear goals, autotelic experience) appear when the match
results in a draw or is won than when the match is lost. Furthermore, results showed
that performance feedback and support from the coach predicted flow during the
soccer game, which in turn was positively related to self- and coach-ratings of
performance.

Conclusions
The main aim of this chapter was to provide an overview of the research investigat-
ing the organizational and individual consequences of flow at work. Specifically, the
chapter discussed the impact of flow on well-being, resources, and job performance.
The relationship between flow and well-being and the contribution that flow at
work can make to the emerging field of positive organizational behavior were also
addressed. Throughout the chapter we have summarized the state of the art of the
concept, models, and measurement of flow at work according to recent research
in the field. There is empirical evidence in favor of the idea that investing orga-
nizational and job resources is the key to enhance flow at work and consequently
to achieve higher well-being, more resources, and better performance. Different
positive consequences of flow have been shown to be mainly oriented toward these
three aspects.
The main conclusions of the chapter are the following: (1) the concept of flow
as an optimal experience can be transposed in the work contexts, within the theo-
retical framework of positive psychology at work; (2) the model of flow at work,
which assumes that flow is experienced when both high challenges and skills are
perceived, constitutes a reliable way to differentiate between the experience and
the antecedents of flow at work; (3) the WOLF inventory is one way to test flow
at work where frequency rather than intensity of flow is tested to capture the
essence of flow at work; (4) flow is positively related to subjective well-being and
positive emotions, positive mood, active coping, commitment, task engagement,
 The consequences of flow 115

job satisfaction, energy levels, and the good life in modern everyday existence;
(5) through positive cycles, spirals, or emotional contagion, the flow experience
also enhances the perception of more positive (personal and job-related) resources
at work; particularly, flow is positively related to organizational climate, task and
social resources, efficacy beliefs, and also more flow (flow causes flow); (6) flow is
also responsible for the development of performance in terms of organizational
spontaneity, in- and extra-role performance, creative performance, service quality,
and group performance, and (7) finally, recent research gives evidence in favor of the
relevance of social (or collective) flow.
These are the main contributions of this chapter dealing with the consequences
of flow in work settings. We plan to further expand our research, focusing on ways
to promote job environments that allow employees to experience positive experi-
ences such as flow. This positive experience will foster other positive consequences
at work – that is, employees’ well-being, better perceptions of job and personal
resources in the work contexts, and better performance in a general way.

References
Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & Dam, G. T. (2011). The concept of flow in col-
laborative game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1185–1194.
Ainley, M., Enger, L., & Kennedy, G. (2008). The elusive experience of flow: Qualitative and
quantitative indicators. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 109–121.
Aubé, C., Brunelle, E., & Rousseau, V. (2014). Flow experience and team performance: The
role of team goal commitment and information exchange. Motivation and Emotion, 38,
120–130.
Baera, M., Oldhama, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: When does it
really matter. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 569–586.
Bakker, A. B. (2001). Questionnaire for the assessment of work-related flow: The WOLF. Utrecht
University, The Netherlands: Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, The
Netherlands.
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 66, 26–44.
Bakker, A. B. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation of
the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 400–414.
Bakker, A. B., Oerlemans, W., Demerouti, E., Slot, B. B., & Ali, D. K. (2011). Flow and per-
formance: A study among talented Dutch soccer players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
12, 442–450.
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. D. (2012a). Optimal experience among teachers: New insights
into the work paradox. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 146, 533–557.
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. D. (2012b). Optimal experience and self-determination at school:
Joining perspectives. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 425–438.
Bloch, C. (2002). Moods and the quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 101–128.
Chen, H., Wigand, R. T., & Nilan, M. S. (1999). Optimal experience of Web activities. Com-
puters in Human Behaviour, 15, 585–608.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
116 Susana Llorens and Marisa Salanova

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New
York: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow and the making of meaning. London:
Coronet Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies
on flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour.
New York: Plenum Press.
Delespaul, P., Reis, H., & de Vries, M. (2004). Ecological and motivational determinants of
activation: Studying compared to sports and watching TV. Social Indicators Research, 67,
129–143.
Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2000). The quality of experience in adolescents’ daily lives: Devel-
opmental perspectives. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 347–367.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The relevance of subjective well-being to social
policies: Optimal experience and tailored intervention. In F. Huppert, N. Baylis, &
B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 379–402). New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011). Psychological selection and optimal experience
across cultures. Dordrecht: Springer Science.
Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow and performance: The moderating role of
conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Sonnentag, S., & Fullagar, C. (2012). Work-related flow and
energy at work and at home: A study on the role of daily recovery. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 33, 276–295.
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow
experiences at work: For high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
755–775.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology:
Special Issue: New Directions in Research on Emotion, 2, 300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist: Special Issue, 56,
218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention
and thought–action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313–332.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emo-
tional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172–175.
Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing
effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 237–258.
Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Flow at work: An experience sampling approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 595–615.
Ghani, J. A., & Deshpande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimal
flow in human-computer interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 381–391.
Guo, Y. M., & Poole, M. S. (2009). Antecedents of flow in online shopping: A test of alterna-
tive models. Information Systems Journal, 19, 369–390.
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). The joint effects of target and purpose goals on
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,
657–689.
 The consequences of flow 117

Kawabata, M., & Mallett, C. J. (2011). Flow experience in physical activity: Examination of
the internal structure of flow from a process-related perspective. Motivation and Emotion,
35, 393–402.
Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). Flow and regulatory compatibility: An experimental approach
to the flow model of intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
196–209.
Keller, J., & Blomann, F. (2008). Locus of control and the flow experience: An experimental
analysis. European Journal of Personality, 22(7), 589–607.
Kuo, T. H., & Ho, L. A. (2010). Individual difference and job performance: The relationships
among personal factors, job characteristics, flow experience, and service quality. Social
Behavior and Personality, 38, 531–552.
Lavigne, G. L., Forest, J., & Crevier-Braud, L. (2012). Passion at work and burnout: A
two-study test of the mediating role of flow experiences. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 21, 518–546.
Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Rodríguez, A. M. (2013). How is flow experienced and by
whom? Testing flow among occupations. Stress and Health, 29, 125–137.
Lutz, R. J., & Guiry, M. (1994). Intense consumption experiences: Peaks, performances and flow.
Paper presented at the Winter Marketing Educators’ Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.
MacDonald, R., Byrne, C., & Carlton, L. (2006). Creativity and flow in musical composition:
An empirical investigation. Psychology of Music, 34, 292–306.
Maeran, R., & Cangiano, F. (2013). Flow experience and job characteristics: Analyzing the
role of flow in job satisfaction. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychol-
ogy, 20, 13–26.
Mäkikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., Aunola, K., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Job resources and flow at
work: Modelling the relationship via latent growth curve and mixture model methodol-
ogy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 795–814.
Massimini, F., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Carli, M. (1987). The monitoring of optimal expe-
rience: A tool for psychiatric rehabilitation. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175,
545–549.
Massimini, F., & Delle Fave, A. (2000). Individual development in a bio-cultural perspective.
American Psychologist, 55, 24–33.
Mesurado, B. (2009). Comparación de tres modelos teóricos explicativos del constructo
experiencia óptima o flow [Comparing three theoretical explanatory models of the flow
construct]. Interdisciplinaria, 26, 121–137.
Moneta, G. B. (2004). The flow experience across cultures. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5,
115–121.
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills
on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64, 275–310.
Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2010). Predicting flow at work: Investigating the activities and job
characteristics that predict flow states at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15, 180–190.
Pearce, J. M., Ainley, M., & Howard, S. (2005). The ebb and flow of online learning. Comput-
ers in Human Behavior, 21, 745–771.
Rodríguez, A. M., Cifre, E., Salanova, M., & Åborg, C. (2008). Technoflow among Spanish
and Swedish students: A confirmatory factor multigroup analyses. Anales de Psicología, 24,
42–48.
Rodríguez, A. M., Salanova, M., Cifre, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). When good is good:
A virtuous circle of self-efficacy and flow at work among teachers. Revista de Psicología
Social, 26, 427–441.
118 Susana Llorens and Marisa Salanova

Rodríguez, A. M., Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., & Cifre, E. (2008). Flow experiences among
information and communication technology users: A confirmatory factorial analysis.
Psychological Reports, 102, 29–39.
Salanova, M., Bakker, A., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence for a gain spiral of
personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 1–22.
Salanova, M., Martínez, I. M., Cifre, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). ¿Se pueden vivir experien-
cias óptimas en el trabajo? Analizando el flow en contextos laborales [Can optimal expe-
riences at work be experienced? Analysing flow in laboral contexts]. Revista de Psicología
General y Aplicada, 58, 89–100.
Salanova, M., Martínez, I. M., & Llorens, S. (2005). Psicología Organizacional Positiva. In F.
J. Palací (Ed.), Psicología de la Organización (pp. 349–376). Madrid: Pearson, Prentice-Hall.
Salanova, M., Martínez, I. M., & Llorens, S. (2014). Una mirada más “positiva” a la salud
ocupacional desde la Psicología Organizacional Positiva en tiempos de crisis: aportaciones
desde el equipo de investigación WONT. Papeles del Psicólogo, 35, 22–30.
Salanova, M., Rodríguez, A. M., Schaufeli, W., & Cifre, E. (2014). Flowing together: A lon-
gitudinal study of collective efficacy and collective flow among workgroups. The Journal
of Psychology, 148, 435–445.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Skadberg, Y. X., & Kimmel, J. R. (2004). Visitors’ flow experience while browsing a web site:
Its measurement, contributing factors and consequences. Computers in Human Behaviour,
20, 403–422.
Trevino, L. K., & Webster, J. (1992). Flow in computer-mediated communication. Commu-
nication Research, 19, 539–573.
Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Walker, C. J. (2010). Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone?
Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 3–11.
Yan, Y., Davison, R. M., & Mo, C. (2013). Employee creativity formation: The roles of
knowledge seeking, knowledge contributing and flow experience in Web 2.0 virtual
communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1923–1932.
7
APPLICATIONS OF FLOW
TO WORK
Giovanni B. Moneta

In the early 1970s, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi interviewed surgeons, rock climb-

ers, composers, dancers, chess players, and athletes, asking them to report their
experience when they engaged in the most challenging phases of their preferred
endeavors, and he reported the findings in the seminal book Beyond Boredom and
Anxiety (1975/2000). The interviews produced a wealth of textual descriptions
that, although coming from persons with different backgrounds and working in
different domains, shared six main themes: (1) focused concentration on the present
activity, with centering of attention on a narrow stimulus field (e.g., “When I start,
I really do shut out the world”), (2) merging of action and awareness (“I am so involved
in what I am doing . . . I don’t see myself as separate from what I am doing”), (3) loss
of self-consciousness (e.g., “I am less aware of myself and my problems”, (4) sense of
control over one’s own actions (e.g., “I feel immensely strong”), (5) unambiguous
feedback from the activity (e.g., “You don’t feel you have all sorts of different kinds
of demands, often conflicting, upon you”), and (6) autotelic experience – that is, the
sense that the activity is an end in itself, and hence runs independently of external
rewards (e.g., “The act of writing justifies poetry”). Csikszentmihalyi named flow
the simultaneous enactment of these six themes, and set out to search for its origins
and consequences. In the early 1990s, Csikszentmihalyi (1996) investigated through
interviews the experiences that ninety-one outstanding individuals had prior to
conceiving novel ideas and seeing them recognized by peers as innovations. Intense
and recurrent flow at work emerged as the main theme underlying each innovation
across the domains of science, art, and business.
In the past two decades, researchers in the fields of organizational psychology
and management have increasingly focused on the occurrence of flow in the work
context across a wide range of occupations and organizational contexts, including
scientists (Quinn, 2005), medical doctors (Delle Fave & Massimini, 2003), software
engineers (Debus, Sonnentag, Deutsch, & Nussbeck, 2014), and school teachers
120 Giovanni B. Moneta

(Salanova, Bakker, & Llorens, 2006). They identified important antecedents of

flow at work, including individual difference components (e.g., Eisenberger, Jones,
Stinglhamber, Shanock, & Randall, 2005), work environment characteristics (e.g.,
Mäkikangas, Bakker, Aunola, & Demerouti, 2010), and the additive or interactive
effects of the two (e.g., Bakker, 2005; Moneta, 2012b; Salanova et al., 2006). Schol-
ars also identified important consequences of flow at work, including enhanced
employee psychological well-being (Debus et al., 2014; Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009)
and enhanced job performance (e.g., Demerouti, 2006; Eisenberger et al., 2005), in
general, and creative contributions to work (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996), in particular.
These findings have raised interest among scholars, managers, and employees in the
possibility of modifying the existing work environments and management processes
to foster flow for individual workers, teams of workers engaged in a common work
project, and entire organizations.
The present chapter focuses on the role of flow in organizations and the strate-
gies organizations could adopt to redesign the work environment in order to foster
their employees’ experience of flow at work. Because the research findings on flow
do not translate directly and easily into applications, this chapter is exploratory
in essence, and it highlights both the promises of the field and its most pressing
unanswered questions. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part outlines
and critically reviews a selection of research on flow that is directly relevant to any
organizational intervention. The second part outlines four promising strategies that
organizations can adopt to foster their employees’ flow at work.

The nature of flow at work

Antecedents and indicators of flow

Although the core concept of flow remained stable since its inception, the models
and operationalizations of flow that researchers developed changed substantially
over time. In particular, there is still a lively debate on the number of distinct facets
or dimensions of flow. On one extreme, Schiefele and Raabe (2011) described flow
simply as absorption – that is, as a state of being deeply immersed in an activity. On
the other extreme, Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi (1999) described flow as a state
characterized by nine components. Six of them are the components that Csikszent-
mihalyi (1975/2000) identified from the onset of flow research and were listed
at the beginning of this chapter: concentration, merging of action and awareness,
loss of self-consciousness, sense of control, unambiguous feedback, and autotelic
experience. The remaining three components emerged in more recent research:
dynamic balance between challenge and skill, clear proximal goals, and loss of time-awareness
or time acceleration. Other researchers adopted somewhat intermediate definitions of
flow that include from three (e.g., Moneta, 2012a) to eight facets (e.g., Engeser &
Schiepe-Tiska, 2012). These differences are important for any attempt to modify
the work environment in order to enhance flow. In particular, the number of fac-
ets used to define flow determines the number of ultimate target variables for an
 Applications of flow to work 121

intervention: only one based on Schiefele and Raabe’s (2011) definition of flow, up
to nine based on Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi’s (1999) definition of flow.
A strictly linked and equally lively debate concerns the functional relation
between the hypothesized components of flow. Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi
(1999) have regarded the nine components of flow as correlated dimensions of
the flow construct that can trade off in determining the intensity of flow. Other
researchers have instead argued that only some of the nine components are indicators
of flow – that is, experiences that can be caused by flow – whereas the remain-
ing are antecedents of flow – that is, experiences that can cause flow. For example,
Quinn (2005) proposed and tested a chained-mediation model of flow for knowl-
edge workers in the field of national security in which flow is defined solely by the
indicator of merging of action and application, whereas loss of self-consciousness
and sense of control are defined as consequences of flow, and the remaining com-
ponents of Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi’s (1999) taxonomy play various roles as
antecedents of flow or other consequences of antecedents of flow. Several defini-
tional models of flow have been proposed in recent years (e.g., Kawabata & Mallet,
2011; Moneta, 2012a). Hoffman and Novak (2009) identified and compared thirty
definitional models of flow that various authors had proposed over the years, and
concluded that what they all have in common is a distinction of characteristics of
flow into the three categories of (a) antecedents of flow, (b) expressions of flow,
and (c) effects of flow. In all, the separation of variables into indicators of flow and
antecedents of flow is important for any attempt to modify the work environment
in order to enhance flow. In particular, while the key indicators of flow – arguably,
absorption and concentration – may not be intervened upon directly in organi-
zational settings, at least some of the antecedents of flow appear to be appropriate
target variables for organizational interventions.

The challenge-skill balance

The original flow model (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975/2000) posited that the flow state
is more likely to occur and is more intense when there is an equivalent ratio of
perceived challenges from the activity to perceived skills in carrying out the activ-
ity, and both variables are high. Empirical studies using the experience sampling
method (ESM; Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987; Csikszentmihalyi, Larson, &
Prescott, 1977) have corroborated that perceived challenge and skill, and their rela-
tive balance, are the most robust predictors of flow (e.g., Massimini, Csikszentmih-
alyi, & Carli, 1987; Pfister, 2002), and particularly so in achievement contexts (e.g.,
Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Moreover, it was found that the effects of chal-
lenge, skill, and their balance are linked to personality traits, such as trait intrinsic
motivation and interdependent self-construal (Moneta, 2004), and situational vari-
ables, such as goals, interests, importance of the activity, and state intrinsic motivation
(Csikszentmihalyi, Abuhamdeh, & Nakamura, 2005; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2005;
Ellis, Voelkl, & Morris, 1994; Fong, Zaleski, & Leach, 2015; Inkinen et al., 2014;
Rheinberg, Manig, Kliegl, Engeser, & Vollmeyer, 2007). Therefore, the perception of
122 Giovanni B. Moneta

challenges and skills when engaged in work tasks appears to be the core variables for
organizational interventions aiming at fostering flow in the workplace.
The focus on challenges and skills may at first glance appear reductive. Yet,
as Keller and Landhäußer (2012) argued, the other two flow characteristics that
researchers have most often regarded as antecedents of flow – clear goals and imme-
diate and unambiguous feedback – are implicitly incorporated in the construct of
challenge-skill balance. Clarity of goals entails that the worker is given clear task
instructions and understands the nature and structure of the task. Immediate and
unambiguous feedback presupposes that the goals of the task are clear, and entails
that the worker receives prompt and accurate diagnostic information on how fast
his progress toward the goal is. As such, a worker can construe meaningful percep-
tions of the challenges from the task and the skills possessed to tackle them only if
he has clear goals and receives accurate and prompt feedback on his actions. This
argument strengthens the idea that workers’ perceived challenges and skills should
be the primary target of organizational interventions.
The emphasis of flow theory is on perception of challenge and skill. What is
the relationship between subjective and objective challenges and skills? Abuhamdeh
and Csikszentmihalyi (2009, 2013) investigated variations in subjective experience
while playing chess in expert chess players. Using objective measures of the abil-
ity and performance of chess players, these studies found significant but moderate
relationships between subjective and objective challenges and skills. For example,
the correlation between perceived challenges in a game and relative chess rating
(i.e., the difference in chess rating between the player and his opponent) was –.39,
and the correlation between perceived skills in a game and relative performance
(i.e., the difference in pieces still present on the chessboard between the player and
his opponent) was .33 (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2013). Also considering
the contextual differences between professional chess playing and work and the
unique psychological makeup of expert chess players, these preliminary findings
suggest prudence in applying the flow model to work using objective measures of
challenges and skills.
Can organizations intervene in and “tune” their employees’ levels of perceived
challenges and skills in an average workday? In principle, it seems possible to induce
a reduction or augmentation of an employee’s level of perceived challenges by
changing the level of difficulty of the work task or assigning the employee to a
different task of the appropriate level of difficulty. By the same token, it seems
possible to induce a growth in perceived skills through training and other personal
and professional development programs. In an educational context, Moneta and
Csikszentmihalyi (1999), based on the application of linear multilevel regression
models to ESM student data, proposed that in order to foster students’ flow, teaching
should aim at tuning the difficulty level in different ways depending on the phase
of the learning process: in the initial phase teachers should provide opportunities
for challenge-skill balance (easy beginning), and in the ending phase they should
provide opportunities for imbalance toward greater challenges (difficult ending).
By analogy, could managers foster their employees’ flow just by dosing the level of
 Applications of flow to work 123

task difficulty throughout the various phases of a work project? In order to answer
this question one needs to delve deeper into the processes that govern variations of
subjective experience and the emergence of flow at work.

Flow as a nonlinear dynamic process

In the past two decades or so, researchers modeled daily variations of subjective
experience (e.g., concentration, absorption, or enjoyment) over perceived challenges
and skills as a linear process. More recently, Ceja and Navarro (2009, 2011, 2012)
argued that the variations of subjective experience at work – and hence the occur-
rence of flow – conform to nonlinear dynamic models, and provided empirical
evidence in support of their claim (Chapter 5 of this book presents an extensive
coverage of nonlinear dynamical systems theory, their models and findings). Lin-
ear models assume that the change of outcome variables (e.g., concentration) as a
function of the change of predictor variables (i.e., challenges and skills) is smooth
and continuous. In contrast, nonlinear models assume that as the system (e.g., the
worker) departs from an equilibrium point its behavior will become increasingly
unstable and turbulent to the extent that change in the outcome variable as a func-
tion of predictor variables becomes abrupt and discontinuous. The simplest instance
of such abrupt changes is provided by Ceja and Navarro’s (2012; Navarro & Ceja,
2011) cusp catastrophe model of flow, which is shown in Figure 7.1. Figure 7.1
(a) highlights the edge of the cusp, which is the source of instability in this model.
When “walking” on the edge of the cusp, a worker faces a bifurcation: a minimal
fluctuation of his levels of challenges and skills may result in either a sharp improve-
ment of subjective experience or a sharp deterioration of subjective experience, and
the probability of either outcome is about 50%. This means that when in the cusp
zone, the approach to the flow state is an inherently unstable process that could
fail abruptly, and its instability is not due to random error but to a deterministic
mechanism. The bottom line is that, based on this model, the occurrence of flow
at work in the cusp zone is unpredictable although it is deterministic. In particular,
being in the cusp zone implies both the highest probability of experiencing flow
suddenly and the highest probability of experiencing the opposite of flow suddenly,
and hence the greatest variability of outcomes.
How does the nonlinearity of flow influence the way a worker can enter flow
at work? Figure 7.1 (b) shows the two extreme cases: smooth pathway and trouble-
some pathway to flow. On the one hand, the smooth pathway begins with low chal-
lenges and low skills, proceeds by just increasing skills until the point the worker feels
extremely skillful in handling low challenges, and finally proceeds by just increasing
challenges to reach the high-challenge, high-skill state of flow. On the other hand, the
troublesome pathway begins with high challenges and low skills, and proceeds by just
increasing skills until the point the worker can progress toward the flow state only if
he somehow manages to “climb” the steep inner wall of the cusp. As such, the smooth
passage to flow avoids the instability of the cusp, the troublesome pathway faces it fully,
and any other path in between the two faces intermediate levels of instability.
FIGURE 7.1 Cusp catastrophe model of flow experiences at work showing (a) the bifur-
cation edge, and (b) smooth and troublesome pathways to flow (adapted from Ceja &
Navarro, 2012, Navarro & Ceja, 2011)
 Applications of flow to work 125

Taken at face value, the model would suggest that the safest and most efficient
way for managers to foster flow in their employees is to keep them in a cottoned
practice state for a long time before asking them to engage fully in a complex work
task. However, this is not possible for two reasons. First, the safe pathway belongs
more to the educational context – with the caveat that it borders on spoon-feeding –
than to the organizational context, wherein training, professional development, and
managerial support are more tightly constrained to the need of producing results
rapidly and efficiently under the pressure of strong competition. Second, Ceja and
Navarro (2012) found that workers who are more often in the cusp zone have
more flow at work than those who are less often in the cusp zone. This they inter-
preted as evidence that perceived challenges play the key role in triggering flow. As
such, both organizational and psychological reasons indicate that any organizational
intervention aimed at fostering employees’ flow should guide them to reach flow
through troublesome pathways that involve staying in and closely around the cusp
zone. The key implication is that, because the cusp zone yields maximal instability,
any such intervention will result in high failure rates. In simple words, if an organi-
zation wants flow, it has to accept the risk and cost of frequent failure.

Is flow for all workers?

Given that entering flow at work appears to be a troublesome endeavor, any plan
for an organizational intervention should deal with the sticky issues of whether
every worker (a) can enter flow at work, and (b) likes entering flow at work. Mos-
ing et al. (2012) estimated the heritability of flow proneness, meant as individual
differences in how often people experience flow in their daily lives, in a sample
of Swedish identical twins, and found that the heritability across the domains of
work, maintenance, and leisure is moderate (.29–.35) and is explained by the same
genetic factors across the three domains. These findings imply that a small but
relevant proportion of the population cannot enter flow in general, and at work
in particular. These “non-flow-ers” cannot be identified when flow is measured
using scaled items, simply because even low scores obtained on absorption and con-
centration items would be automatically interpreted as “low flow” as opposed to
“nonflow.” Non-flow-ers, instead, can be identified using the Flow Questionnaire
(Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988), which proposes definitions of flow
and asks respondents to recognize them and describe the situations and activities in
which they experience flow. Confronted with extreme descriptions of absorption
and concentration (e.g.,“I think that the phone could ring, and the doorbell could
ring or the house burn down or something like that. When I start I really do shut
out the world”), a sizeable number of respondents state that they never had such
experiences. For example, 32.7% of respondents in a sample of British workers from
a wide range of occupations reported never having had flow experiences even if
these were described in moderate language. As such, the answer to the first sticky
question is that, no matter how effective it might be, an organizational intervention
will not be able to foster flow in all participating employees. The key implication
126 Giovanni B. Moneta

of this impossibility is that organizational interventions on flow may marginalize a

proportion of employees and create false expectations.
Although at least two of three workers experience flow, how many of them do
experience it at work? Moneta (2012b) used the Flow Questionnaire to ask flow-ers
to list freely up to five activities in which they experienced flow, and to pick the one
that best represented the proposed flow descriptions. The chosen flow-conducive
activities were then coded by independent judges into the “work” or “leisure”
categories. Findings showed that more than 58% of the flow-ers had the most rep-
resentative flow experiences in leisure activities. These findings suggest that a wide
proportion of the working population is a potential target for organizational inter-
ventions aimed at “converting” them from the flow of leisure to the flow of work.
However, there are three main reasons why not all leisure flow-ers can be converted.
First, the occurrence of flow at work is likely to depend heavily on the incentives
inherent to the specific work tasks an employee is assigned to, as well as to that
employee’s job as whole: in a number of cases a poor worker-job matching cannot
be improved within the organization by, for example, assigning the worker to differ-
ent tasks. Second, the cusp catastrophe model of flow implies that experiencing flow
at work requires being frequently in the unstable cusp zone, wherein downturns and
failure to reach flow are frequent: only some employees have the hardiness to with-
stand the inherent instability that is required for flow to occur. Finally, a number of
leisure flow-ers chose jobs that do not require them to be in flow: for them the job
functions as a resting platform to project into flow-conducive leisure activities –
such as rock-climbing, sailing, alpine skiing, or scuba diving – on the weekends
and holidays. Therefore, the answer to the second sticky question is that there is a
sizeable proportion of the work population who would be capable of experiencing
flow at work but on whom any organizational intervention would hardly sort out
the intended effect, and might even produce undesirable consequences.

Organizational strategies to enhance flow at work

Strategy 1: worker-job matching

Numerous studies have identified personality traits that influence the occurrence
of flow at work either directly or indirectly, by moderating the relation between
antecedents of flow and flow, and between flow and performance. Organizations
can profitably use these traits when making the decision to hire new employees, and
when planning the professional development and allocation to work tasks of their
employees. We will consider here a selection of two traits that link in well with clas-
sic theories of motivation: achievement motivation and intrinsic motivation.
Achievement motivation is seeking success in competition with a standard of
excellence (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953), wherein the standard
can be internal (i.e., competition is with self) and/or external (i.e., competition is
with others). The need of achievement stems from the enjoyment of the experi-
ence of doing better, and entails seeking situations in which to have such experience
 Applications of flow to work 127

(McClelland, 1985). Two studies unveiled the powerful influence achievement

motivation has on the occurrence of flow and its consequences for performance.
Eisenberger et al. (2005) administered the ESM to a sample of employees from
an electronics and appliances retailer in the United States, and examined how the
combinations of perceived challenges and skills at work influenced the employees.
They found that only for employees with high need for achievement the combi-
nation of high challenge and high skill (i.e., the “flow zone”) yielded scores of
positive mood, task interest, and organizational spontaneity – an important facet of
performance in that organizational context – that were higher than in any other
combination of challenge and skill. Demerouti (2006) investigated the relation
between the experience of flow – measured using the Work-Related Flow Inven-
tory (WOLF; Bakker, 2008) – and other-rated in-role and extra-role performance
in a worker sample from mixed occupations in the Netherlands. She found that
conscientiousness – a broad trait that incorporates achievement motivation as a key
facet – was an important moderator to the extent that there was a relation between
flow and performance only for employees who scored high on conscientiousness.
Taken together, the findings of these studies indicate that (a) achievement moti-
vation moderates the relation between the main antecedents of flow and flow in
such a way that only highly motivated employees “utilize” the flow zone to enter
flow, and (b) achievement motivation moderates the relation between flow and job
performance in such a way that only highly motivated employees “utilize” flow to
enhance performance.
Intrinsic motivation is the tendency to engage in tasks because one finds them
interesting, challenging, and enjoyable (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000)
and a key predictor of creative achievement (Amabile, 1996). When measured as
a trait in the work context (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994), intrinsic
motivation is the tendency to be driven by the engagement of novel and challeng-
ing work. Based on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci,
2000), one would expect trait intrinsic motivation to be conducive to flow at work.
However, based on the social psychology approach to creativity (Amabile, 1996),
one would expect such relation to be conditional on the job providing plenty of
open-ended problems, for which creativity is both possible and desirable. Moneta
(2012b) used the Flow Questionnaire to measure flow at work in a sample of highly
educated British workers from a wide range of occupations, and found (a) that
opportunity for creativity in the job moderates the relation between motivation
and the probability of experiencing flow in work relative to not experiencing flow
at all, in such a way that intrinsic motivation is positively associated with flow for
high opportunity, and it is less associated with flow for low opportunity, and (b) that
opportunity moderates the relation between motivation and the probability of expe-
riencing flow in work relative to experiencing flow in leisure, in such a way that
intrinsic motivation is positively associated with flow in work for high opportunity,
and it is negatively associated with flow in work for low opportunity. The findings
of this study indicate that intrinsic motivation can be “channeled” into flow only
if the job provides ample opportunity to do creative work, and that workers with low
128 Giovanni B. Moneta

intrinsic motivation are more likely to experience flow if the job provides them
with limited opportunity for creativity.
The found moderation patterns can be interpreted within the framework of
Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) person-environment (P-E) fit theory, which pos-
tulates that a worker will be more likely to experience positive outcomes, such
as high job satisfaction and engagement, if there is a consonance between worker
and work environment. In particular, there is high P-E fit when a worker provides
what the work environment needs (demand-ability fit) and the work environment
provides what a worker needs (need-supply fit). As such, the implication of the
found moderation patterns for organizations is that flow can be enhanced at work
by matching workers’ motivational profiles with job characteristics. In particular,
highly achievement-oriented employees should be assigned to tasks wherein they
can frequently experience the combination of high challenges and high skills (i.e.,
the flow zone); based on Atkinson’s (1957) model of achievement motivation these
are tasks that yield a clear distinction between success and failure, and are of medium
difficulty (i.e., the probability of success is about 50%). Workers with low intrinsic
motivation should be assigned to algorithmic tasks, in which they are given before-
hand a complete set of steps for completing the task, and completing the task is only
a question of carrying out the steps (Amabile, 1996). Finally, workers with high
intrinsic motivation should be assigned to heuristic tasks, in which discovering the
steps for completing the task is part of the task itself (Amabile, 1996). Because flow
and performance have a multifactorial etiology, these abstract person-job match-
ing principles should be traded off with other factors, such as employees’ skills and
expertise.

Strategy 2: applying and developing the progress

principle to team flow
Because most intellectually challenging and creative work being done in contem-
porary organizations occurs in team projects, it is important to consider the role of
flow in teams. To varying degrees, teams require communication and collaboration
among members. This raises the issue of whether flow, which was originally defined
within an individualistic phenomenology that depicts the person as separate from
nearly everything but the task at hand, can be applied to the understanding of team
work. A fast answer to the question can be found in sports. For example, Bakker et al.
(2011) investigated the effects of flow on performance in soccer players from talented
teams in the Netherlands. The soccer players completed the Flow State Scale (Jack-
son & Eklund, 2002), which is designed specifically for sport activities, with reference
to a specific match, and the coaches rated the performance of each of their players in
that match. The average flow score in a team (i.e., flow at the team level) was higher
in drawn and won matches than it was in lost matches, and it correlated with the
average coach rating of performance in the team (i.e., performance at the team level).
Therefore, flow – although it is commonly viewed as a solitary experience – appears
to be a team resource and a promoter of team performance.
 Applications of flow to work 129

In large corporations, teams are typically constituted by a group of peers and a

supervisor who is responsible for keeping the team project on target to comple-
tion and for liaising with upper management throughout the process. Amabile and
Kramer (2011) conducted a unique longitudinal study of twenty-six such project
teams from seven companies within three industries (consumer products, chemicals,
and high-tech) in the United States. According to top managers in the companies,
creativity was both possible and desirable in each of the teams’ projects. The study
did not focus on and did not assess flow, but it provides invaluable suggestions on
how team flow is created and maintained for the full duration of a team project.
Based on both quantitative and qualitative analyses of more than 11,000 daily
reports provided by the team members, Amabile and Kramer (2011) developed a
model of both individual and team performance. At the worker level, the model
posits that individual performance in every workday is a function of workday
events. Workday events influence perceptions about the organization, its manag-
ers, the work being done, and the extent to which work is accomplished, and fos-
ter positive or negative emotions. Perceptions and emotions go hand in hand and
influence each other, so that, for example, an instance of positive leader behavior
may foster positive affect, which in turn may foster a positive appraisal of manage-
ment. Perceptions and emotions conjointly influence work motivation, including
the identification of goals, the determination to pursue them, and the way they are
pursued. Finally, the whole workday inner life – including the perceptions, emo-
tions, and motivation lived in the course of a workday – determines the individual
performance on that workday.
How does good performance on a single workday evolve into good long-term
performance for the team as a whole? By focusing on specific project teams that
demonstrated remarkable resilience and performance, Amabile and Kramer (2011)
discovered that making real, meaningful progress in the team project day after day
boosts long-term performance by enhancing work-related emotions, perceptions of
the team and the organization, and hence work motivation, to create that virtuous
cycle that exemplifies the progress principle. The progress principle essentially states
that uninterrupted, stepwise progress feeds inner work life, which in turn fosters
more progress, leading to an upward spiral. The perception of progress includes
breakthroughs, small wins, goal completion, and demonstrable progress toward
goal completion. In a workday there might be many different kinds of positive
events, but what the progress principle states is that only the perception that real
and meaningful progress was made in the team project work has the power to boost
long-term performance. The bottom line is: what matters is progress, not just pleas-
ant emotions.
The best team leaders acted promptly on project setbacks in order to prevent
a vicious cycle that runs opposite to the progress principle. They achieved this by
providing catalysts, such as: (1) setting clear short-term and long-term goals, includ-
ing both direction and meaning of work, (2) allowing autonomy, with the aim of
supporting intrinsic motivation and creativity, (3) providing resources, (4) giving just
enough time to complete the work (but not too much time), (5) helping with work
130 Giovanni B. Moneta

when one needs it, (6) learning from both problems and successes, and (7) allowing
ideas to flow freely within the team. Reading between the lines of Amabile and
Kramer’s (2011) study with the lens of the nonlinear catastrophe model of flow, it
would appear that the best team leaders actually fostered their subordinates’ flow by
providing clear goals and unambiguous and immediate feedback on a daily basis,
which in turn enabled workers’ construal of accurate perceptions of challenges and
skills. Moreover, by directly helping team members in difficulty and by encourag-
ing free flow of ideas among them in problem solving, it would appear that the best
leaders supported directly and indirectly the team members when they were in the
turbulent “flow” zone, which entails the highest risk of setback. Finally, it would
appear that the best leaders, through these strategies, ensured that individual team
members held coordinated goals that were well integrated with the overarching
goal of the team project. In all, this reading of the progress principle advances that
teams are more likely to keep on track and achieve their project goals creatively if
their team members are frequently in flow and their flow states are coordinated and
synergistic. From this perspective, team leaders are good insofar as they are able to
make the synergism of flow in the team happen.
Is flow contagious? A wide literature under the rubric of emotional contagion –
“The tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize facial expressions, vocaliza-
tions, postures and movements with those of another person and, consequently, to
converge emotionally” (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994, p. 5) – indicates that
emotions can transfer to one another when people interact verbally or nonverbally.
Flow cannot be defined as an emotion. However, ESM studies found that momen-
tary flow states are typically followed by heightened positive affect (e.g., Engeser &
Baunmann, 2016; Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009), so that flow might spread because its
consequent emotions do and, in turn, foster flow. Moreover, in structured relations
involving individuals with varying levels of expertise, the flow-performance link
may foster modeling, so that the flow of models might spread because its conse-
quent success is noticed and emulated. It is therefore likely that flow crosses over
people who work in interaction with one another. Bakker (2005) investigated the
relationship between the experience of flow – measured using the Work-Related
Flow Inventory (WOLF; Bakker, 2008) – of music teachers and of their students, and
found a positive and moderate correlation (.35). As such, flow appears to be conta-
gious at least in artistic endeavors involving dyads with different levels of expertise.
Structured teams with a supervisor and teacher-student dyads involve power
relations such that the responsibility for collective flow resides heavily on a leader’s
shoulders. Does collective flow require such hierarchical relations? Sawyer (2006,
2007) consistently found that this is not the case. He started addressing the ques-
tion by observing jazz ensembles in Chicago in the 1980s, and then extended his
findings to improv theater groups, sports teams, and finally business teams. These
groups come to existence spontaneously, with people joining in and dropping out
at virtually any point in time throughout the life of the team. Team members have
generally equal status, except for they become rapidly aware of differences in skills
among their team members. These nonhierarchical, distributed teams were found to
 Applications of flow to work 131

be extremely successful in a variety of contexts. However, the success of such teams

was found to heavily depend on three main factors. First, the team project should
have a somewhat unpredictable outcome, rather than a firm endpoint. There of
course must be a goal, and it should be sufficiently focused and narrow to allow
that team members understand whether they are making progress, but open-ended
enough to allow for creative problem solving. Second, the team task must have a
moment-to-moment contingency structure, such that every action by a team mem-
ber depends on the prior action by the same or other team member. This ensures
that the team is working as whole rather than as a group of isolated individuals
who may also be in flow, but each on a different planet. Third, any team member’s
action at any given point in time can be later modified by the same and other team
members. This allows for progressive modifications of both problem solving and
problem finding, in that the team can modify or sharpen the goals of the project
pending on results and the progress made. The last two requirements imply that, in
order to function, a distributed team must be collaborative, with each member con-
tributing equally and hence holding equal status in practice. Sawyer (2006, 2007)
presented ample evidence that if these core requirements are fulfilled, distributed
teams develop and maintain team flow for the duration of the project, and by capi-
talizing on continued team flow tend to produce more creative team project output.
Because flow has been typically viewed as a solitary experience in indi-
vidual endeavors, one might question whether collective flow is as fulfilling and
growth-generating as individual flow is. Walker (2010) was the first to discover
that flow experienced in social interaction is more enjoyable than flow experienced
in social isolation. Paez, Rimé, Basabe, Wlodarczyk, and Zumeta (2015) replicated
Walker’s (2010) finding using correlational data gathered in two group activities –
spontaneous folkloric dance and experimentally induced protest demonstration –
and found, in addition, that group flow is associated with group efficacy. Salanova,
Rodríguez, Schaufeli, and Cifre (2014) replicated Walker’s (2010) finding using
two-wave data gathered in experimental conditions involving a simulated work
task, and found, in addition, that group flow and group efficacy have a reciprocal
longitudinal relation, such that more group flow fosters more group efficacy, and
vice versa. These studies indicate that collective flow in various contexts, including
work, is highly enjoyable and builds up psychological resources at least as much as
individual flow does. Therefore, group flow represents a new target variable for
organizational interventions.
Organizations can foster team flow and hence creativity at work informally – for
example, by facilitating free exchange of information and spontaneous collabora-
tion in the corridor as opposed to the committee meeting room. They can also
introduce formal programs that allow for the spontaneous creation of distributed
teams. For example, Google allows its engineers to devote up to 20% of their paid
work time on a project of their own liking, and this program has produced spon-
taneously a variety of applications that were eventually picked up by management
and implemented, such as Google News and AdSense for Content. This program
is not formally collaborative, but it could be made explicitly so in a variety of
132 Giovanni B. Moneta

organizational contexts. If introduced as optional, a formal collaborative program

would allow for self-selection, and hence avoid the risks inherent in pressuring
people toward flow and creativity.

Strategy 3: selection of work flow-ers

Up to this point, we have considered strategies that can be implemented in ideal
organizational contexts, wherein companies are profitable and well positioned in
their markets, and have plenty of resources to invest for the professional develop-
ment and retention of their employees. However, since the outbreak of the world-
wide economical recession in 2008, the scenario for companies and their employees
has drastically deteriorated across the board, and there has been a fast growth in the
number of start-up companies. Start-up companies confront difficulties in posi-
tioning themselves in the markets, have shortage of funds, staff, and competencies,
and hold a limited temporal outlook for development because they face a high risk
of sudden merging or failure. What recruitment strategy should these companies
adopt? One plausible emergency strategy is, other things being equal, to select work
flow-ers – that is, persons who experience more flow at work no matter what. Based
on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) one would
expect work flow-ers to be comparatively more intrinsically motivated and hence
more flexible and resilient in a non-autonomy-supporting environment. Moreover,
based on the phenomenology of flow as a state of deep concentration on a limited
field of stimuli that isolates and buffers the person from the surrounding environ-
ment, one would expect work flow-ers to engage more in work and perform better
particularly when the work conditions are adverse.
De Fraga and Moneta (2016) conducted a pilot correlational study on a multi-
cultural sample of 177 workers of mixed occupations to test the broad conjecture
that flow functions as a buffer and makes a worker less sensitive to perceptions of
the work environment. As a starting point of the investigation they adopted the
self-determination model of work engagement, which has been corroborated in
both individualist and collectivist cultures (e.g., Deci et al., 2001). The model posits
that perceived managerial autonomy support fosters satisfaction of intrinsic psycho-
logical needs – autonomy, competence, and relatedness – and, in turn, satisfaction
of these needs fosters work engagement and well-being. De Fraga and Moneta
hypothesized that flow at work would moderate (1) the positive relation between
perceived managerial autonomy support and work engagement, in such a way that
for persons with more flow at work the relation would be weaker, and (2) the posi-
tive relation between perceived managerial autonomy support and satisfaction of
the intrinsic psychological needs, in such a way that for persons with more flow at
work all three relations would be weaker. Flow was measured using the Flow Short
Scale (FSS; Engeser & Rheinberg, 2008). Regression analysis using a set of Hayes’s
(2013) moderated mediation models supported hypothesis 1, showing that there is
no association between perceived managerial autonomy support and work engage-
ment for workers with high levels of flow at work. The analysis also supported
 Applications of flow to work 133

hypothesis 2 but limitedly to the needs of competence and relatedness, showing that
the positive relation between perceived managerial autonomy support and these
needs is weaker for workers with higher levels of flow at work. In all, these find-
ings support the broad conjecture that work flow-ers are more capable of engaging
in work when the work environment is less than ideal. As such, work flow-ers are
attractive candidates for companies that are in dire straits.

Strategy 4: fostering the metacognition of flow

A final and crucial question affecting any flow-enhancing intervention in the work-
place is whether and to what extent flow can be self-regulated. It is well known that
when people read about flow or respond to flow questionnaires, they generally rec-
ognize flow in their life experiences and construe it as a very positive phenomenon.
Nevertheless, how many can make flow happen at will in their average workday? If
workers were able to decide when it is time to rest and when it is time to venture
into the “flow zone,” and were able to proactively seek clarity of goals and unam-
biguous feedback when these do not come to them, would the managerial work
become more “agile,” strategic, and effective? Moreover, if there were individual
differences in workers’ ability to make flow happen, could we learn the lesson from
those championing flow and use it to coach the others? These questions raise the
possibility for organizations to intervene on and enhance the natural predisposition
workers have to enter flow at work.
There is ample but anecdotal evidence suggesting that eminent intellectuals
know how and when to enter and exit flow in their work endeavors. Currey (2013)
provided some sharp and hilarious portraits of the daily rituals famous artists used
to perform in order to drive themselves into the flow of art making. Among them,
Ernest Hemingway is arguably the one who developed the deepest insight in the
function and use of flow exit: “I had learned already never to empty the well of
my writing, but always stop when there was still something there in the deep part
of the well, and let it refill at night from the springs that fed it” (Hemingway, 2004,
pp. 15–16); and in the use of resting time: “All I must do now was stay sound and
good in my head until morning when I would start to work again” (Hemingway,
2004, p. 45). He also had a clear understanding that when in flow it is difficult
to evaluate the quality of one’s own work: “I was sure this was a very good story
although I would not know truly how good until I read it over the next day”
(Hemingway, 2004, p. 4). In sum, Hemingway and other outstanding intellectual
workers who lived before the term flow was introduced had a clear understanding
of the usefulness of flow for their work, of how to get into it, how to get out of it at
the appropriate time, and how to alternate flow and rest in their daily work sched-
ule in order to maximize their work performance. What about “normal” workers?
Wilson and Moneta (2012) used the Flow Questionnaire to perform textual
analyses of flow descriptions in a British worker sample from a wide range of
occupations using open-ended questions that were developed by Massimini, Csik-
szentmihalyi, and Delle Fave (1988). The questions concerned how the flow state
134 Giovanni B. Moneta

started, how it felt during the activity, and how they kept the flow state going.
The qualitative analysis of the textual data revealed that respondents with high job
responsibilities, such as operating surgeons, were the most aware of the benefits of
being in flow while engaged in complex and risky job tasks, and were believed to be
able to activate and use flow at will to cope with difficult situations. These findings
suggest that at least workers in high-responsibility jobs have a metacognition of flow
that helps them to enter flow when the situation requires it.
Metacognition refers to the knowledge and beliefs about one’s own cognitive
regulation and the capability to deconstruct and understand them through reflec-
tion and problem solving (Flavell, 1979). The study of metacognitions has been
applied in the fields of clinical psychology (Wells, 2009; Wells & Matthews, 1994)
and positive psychology (Beer & Moneta, 2010, 2012). The development and appli-
cation of metacognitive therapy (MCT; e.g., Wells, 2009) has shown that interven-
ing on metacognitive beliefs can be more effective than intervening on the content
of those beliefs. For example, changing one’s beliefs about the uncontrollability of
worry can be more effective in reducing anxiety than trying to prevent one from
worrying. By analogy, it is possible that strengthening one’s beliefs that flow is useful
and can happen at will can be more effective in fostering flow than trying to foster
flow by means of external influence. The development and initial application of
the Flow Metacognitions Questionnaire (FMQ; Wilson & Moneta, 2016) indicate
that flow-specific metacognitions predict the intensity of flow in work better than
measures of maladaptive and adaptive metacognitions, and the frequency of flow in
work better than established measures of flow intensity. As such, metacognition is a
candidate target for flow-enhancing interventions.
Although the study of flow-specific metacognitions is still at an early stage, orga-
nizations may consider fostering awareness of and insight into the causes and con-
sequences of variations in subjective experience at work. Chapter 5 of the present
book explains that the estimation of nonlinear dynamic flow models requires appli-
cations of the ESM that last for at least three weeks. Such applications could also be
used to conduct metacognitive interventions using the technique of event history
analyses. Event history analysis is used to discern whether and to what extent a
certain class of events influences the subsequent behavior of one or more outcome
variables, which in this instance could be flow and some facets of job performance.
Encouraging employees to engage in the history analysis of their own streams of
experiential data, coupled with insight coming from the statistical analysis of their
personal data, could result in more flow at work indirectly, by enhancing a worker’s
flow-specific metacognitions.

Conclusion
The first section of the chapter proposed that it is possible to foster employ-
ees’ flow at work by means of organizational interventions. However, a range of
research findings converges in indicating that it is an inherently complex endeavor,
is risky, and is subject to constraints. The section highlighted the importance of
 Applications of flow to work 135

specifying the operationalization of flow and the model of flow on which to base
an intervention, as well as the need of drawing a detailed map of the constraints
of the organizational context within which an intervention is conducted. The
second section of the chapter focused on four interesting organizational strategies
that have the potential to tackle the task at the appropriate level of complexity.
These were sorted from solidly grounded in empirical research to more specula-
tive. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of these and other organizational strate-
gies there is the need to conduct randomized clinical trials with relatively long
follow-ups.
This chapter did not explicitly cover a paramount issue. No matter how moti-
vated and supported they might be, workers would risk extinction if they were in
flow at all times. In particular, workers who are in a state of poor recovery in the
morning tend to experience less flow later in the workday (Debus et al., 2014).
Moreover, excessive flow is deemed detrimental to one’s own health to such an
extent that workers at times devise strategies to disrupt it in order to recover from
exhaustion (e.g., Guptill, 2012). As such, excessive flow at work might be an instance
of “too much of a good thing” (Grant & Schwartz, 2011), and even lead to lower
job performance. Arguably, workers need breaks in which they restore the energy
needed for a new task engagement. Research has not yet identified the best type
of rest, ranging from chatting with colleagues about sports to shifting attention to
more creative work tasks, and the optimal alternation between flow and other states
at work. Among the nonflow states, one should consider other optimal states, such
as mindfulness, which do not require the tunneling of attention typical of flow but
were nonetheless found to foster employees’ well-being and performance (e.g., Reb,
Narayan, & Chaturvedi, 2014). A shift of research focus from single optimal states
to optimal sequences of states, including flow, holds a great potential for enhancing
employees’ well-being and performance.

References
Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orienta-
tions in the competitive context: An examination of person–situation interactions. Journal
of Personality, 77, 1615–1635.
Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). Attentional involvement and intrinsic moti-
vation. Motivation and Emotion, 36(3), 257–267.
Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). The importance of challenge for the enjoy-
ment of intrinsically motivated, goal-directed activities. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 38, 317–330.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. (1994). The Work Preference
Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967.
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy,
engagement, and creativity at work. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64, 359–372.
136 Giovanni B. Moneta

Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44.
Bakker, A. B. (2008). The Work-Related Flow Inventory: Construction and initial validation
of the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 400–414.
Bakker, A. B., Oerlemans, W., Demerouti, E., Bruins Slot, B., & Karamat Ali, D. (2011). Flow
and performance: A study among talented Dutch soccer players. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 12, 442–450.
Beer, N., & Moneta, G. B. (2010). Construct and concurrent validity of the Positive Meta-
cognitions and Positive Meta-Emotions Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 49, 977–982.
Beer, N., & Moneta, G. B. (2012). Coping and perceived stress as a function of positive
metacognitions and positive meta-emotions. Individual Differences Research, 10, 105–116.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2009). Dynamics of flow: A nonlinear perspective. Journal of Happi-
ness Studies, 10, 665–684.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of flow in the workplace: Characterizing
within-individual variability using a complexity science approach. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 32, 627–651.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2012). “Suddenly I get into the zone”: Examining discontinuities and
nonlinear changes in flow experiences at work. Human Relations, 65, 1101–1127.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975/2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and
play (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New
York: Harper & Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot & C. S.
Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598–608). New York: Guilford.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi. I. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of
flow in consciousness. Cambridge: University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling
method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526–536.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R., & Prescott, S. (1977). The ecology of adolescent activity
and experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 281–294.
Currey, M. (2013). Daily rituals: How artists work. New York: Knopf.
Debus, M. E., Sonnentag, S., Deutsch, W., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2014). Making flow happen:
The effects of being recovered on work-related flow between and within days. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99, 713–722.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001).
Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former East-
ern bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942.
De Fraga, D., & Moneta, G. B. (2016). Flow at work as a moderator of the self-determination model
of work engagement. In L. Harmat, F. Ørsted Andersen, F. Ullén, F. J. Wright, & G. Sadlo (Eds.),
The flow experience: Empirical research and applications (pp. 105–123). New York: Springer.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2003). Optimal experience in work and leisure among teach-
ers and physicians: Individual and bio-cultural implications. Leisure Studies, 22, 323–342.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal experience and apathy:
Developmental and psychosocial implications. European Psychologist, 10, 264–274.
Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of
conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.
 Applications of flow to work 137

Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow
experiences at work: For high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
755–775.
Ellis, G. D., Voelkl, J. E., & Morris, C. (1994). Measurements and analysis issues with expla-
nation of variance in daily experience using the Flow model. Journal of Leisure Research,
26, 337–356.
Engeser, S., & Baunmann, N. (2016). Fluctuation of flow and affect in everyday life: A second
look at the paradox of work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 105–124.
Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, moderators of challenge-skill-balance and perfor-
mance. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 158–172.
Engeser, S., & Schiepe-Tiska, A. (2012). Historical lines and an overview of current research.
In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 1–22). New York: Springer.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Fong, C. J., Zaleski, D. J., & Leach, J. K. (2015). The challenge–skill balance and antecedents
of flow: A meta-analytic investigation. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 425–446.
Fullagar, C. J., & Kelloway, K. (2009). “Flow” at work: An experience sampling approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 595–615.
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and oppor-
tunity of the inverted U. Psychological Science, 6, 61–76.
Guptill, C. (2012). Injured professional musicians and the complex relationship between
occupation and health. Journal of Occupational Science, 19, 258–270.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hemingway, E. (2004). A moveable feast. Reading, UK: Arrow Boks.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2009). Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 23–34.
Inkinen, M., Lonka, K., Hakkarainen, K., Muukkonen, H., Litmanen, T., & Salmela-Aro, K.
(2014). The interface between core affects and the challenge-skill relationship. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 15, 891–913.
Jackson, S. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports: The keys to optimal experiences
and performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State
Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24,
133–150.
Kawabata, M., & Mallet, C. J. (2011). Flow experience in physical activity: Examination of
the internal structure of flow from a process-related perspective. Motivation and Emotion,
35, 393–402.
Keller, J., & Landhäußer, A. (2012). The flow model revisited. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Introduction
to flow research (pp. 51–64). New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement
motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Mäkikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., Aunola, K., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Job resources and flow
at work: Modelling the relationship via latent growth curve and mixture model method-
ology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 795–814.
138 Giovanni B. Moneta

Massimini, F., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Carli, M. (1987). The monitoring of optimal experi-
ence: A tool for psychiatric rehabilitation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 175,
545–549.
Massimini F., Csikszentmihalyi M., Delle Fave A. (1988). Flow and biocultural evolution. In
M. Csikszentmihalyi, I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience.Psychological Studies of
Flow inconsciousness (pp. 60–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moneta, G. B. (2004). The flow model of state intrinsic motivation in Chinese: Cultural and
personal moderators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 181–217.
Moneta, G. B. (2012a). On the measurement and conceptualization of flow. In S. Engeser
(Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 23–50). New York: Springer.
Moneta, G. B. (2012b). Opportunity for creativity in the job as a moderator of the relation
between trait intrinsic motivation and flow in work. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 491–503.
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills
on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64, 275–310.
Moneta, G. B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Models of concentration in natural environ-
ments: A comparative approach based on streams of experiential data. Social Behavior and
Personality, 27, 603–637.
Mosing, M. A., Magnusson, P.K.E., Pedersen, N. L., Nakamura, J., Madison, G., & Ullén,
F. (2012). Heritability of proneness for psychological flow experiences. Personality and
Individual Differences, 53, 699–704.
Navarro, J., & Ceja, L. (2011). Dinámicas complejas en el flujo: Diferencias entre trabajo y
no trabajo [Complex dynamics of flow: Differences between work and nonwork activi-
ties]. Revista de Psicología Social, 26(3), 443–456.
Páez, D., Rimé, B., Basabe, N., Wlodarczyk, A., & Zumeta, L. (2015). Psychosocial effects of
perceived emotional synchrony in collective gatherings. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 108, 711–729.
Pfister, R. (2002). Flow im alltag: Untersuchungen zum quadrantenmodell des flow-erlebens und zum
konzept der autotelischen perso ¨nlichkeit mit der Experience Sampling Method (ESM) [Flow in
everyday life: Studies on the quadrant model of flow experiencing and on the concept of the autotelic
personality with the experience sampling method (ESM)]. Bern: Peter Lang.
Quinn, R. W. (2005). Flow in knowledge work: High performance experience in the design
of national security technology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 610–641.
Reb, J., Narayan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: Two studies on the influ-
ence of supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Mindful-
ness, 5, 36–45.
Rheinberg, F., Manig, Y., Kliegl, R., Engeser, S., & Vollmeyer, R. (2007). Flow bei der Arbeit,
doch Glück in der Freizeit. Zielausrichtung, Flow und Glücksgefühle [Flow during work
but happiness during leisure time: Goals, flow-experience, and happiness]. Zeitschrift für
Arbeits und Organisationspsychologie, 51, 105–115.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral
of personal resources and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 1–22.
Salanova, M., Rodríguez, A. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & Cifre, E. (2014). Flowing together: A
longitudinal study of collective efficacy and collective flow among workgroups. The Jour-
nal of Psychology, 148, 435–455.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books.
 Applications of flow to work 139

Schiefele, U., & Raabe, A. (2011). Skill-demands compatibility as a determinant of flow expe-
rience in an inductive reasoning task. Psychological Reports, 109, 428–444.
Walker, C. J. (2010). Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone? The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 3–11.
Wells, A. (2009). Metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression. New York: Guilford.
Wells, A., & Matthews, G. (1994). Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective. Hove, UK:
Erlbaum.
Wilson, E. E., & Moneta, G. B. (2012). Flow as a way of coping: A qualitative study of the
metacognitions of flow (pp. 133–150). In B. Molinelli & V. Grimaldo (Eds.), Handbook of
the psychology of coping: New research. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Wilson, E. E., & Moneta, G. B. (2016). The Flow Metacognitions Questionnaire (FMQ): A
two factor model of flow metacognitions. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 225–230.
8
FLOW IN THE CONTEXT
OF INDUSTRIAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY
The case of work motivation

Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples

Flow is a subjective state experienced when individuals are completely absorbed in

an enjoyable activity. It comprises an exclusive, intense concentration on the task
at hand, and subsequent enhancement of subjective experience (Csikszentmihalyi,
1975). Although limited, there is evidence that flow may be associated with posi-
tive organizational outcomes (Eisenberger, Jones, Stinglhamber, Shanock, & Ran-
dall, 2005) and work performance (Demerouti, 2006). As evidenced by the current
volume, we are witnessing the emergence of interest in incorporating flow into the
work psychology literature.
However, it can be argued that, to date, the concept of flow has not garnered
significant attention in industrial and organizational psychology (I/O) research and
theory, at least in the United States. The term “flow” does not appear in the sub-
ject indices of three separate handbooks of I/O psychology published since 2003
(Weiner, Borman, Ilgen, & Klimoski, 2003; Weiner, Schmitt, & Highhouse, 2013;
Zedeck, 2011). A search for “flow” in the titles and abstracts of all programs and
presentations at the annual conferences of the Society for Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology from 2003 to 2014 reveals only twelve poster presentations (Cul-
bertson, Fullagar, Simmons, & Zhu, 2014; Eisenberger, Jones, Shanock, & Teglund,
2004; Freeman, Waples, Fullagar, & Knight, 2011; Fullagar, 2006; Fullagar & Kello-
way, 2008; Fullagar, Knight, & Sovern, 2009; Ross, Wood, & Keiser, 2014; Rupayana,
2009; Sackett, Schmidt, & Shanock, 2007; Waples, Knight, & Fullagar, 2013; Waples,
Stetzer, & Knight, 2014, Waples, Stetzer, Knight, Sackett, & Fullagar, 2012), nine of
which, incidentally, had authors associated with a single academic department. A
PsychINFO search for the terms “flow” or “optimal experience” in the titles of arti-
cles published in the leading academic journal in I/O, the Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, found no hits as of June 2014. The same was true for Academy of Management
Journal, Academy of Management Review, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, and Personnel Psychology. Three articles meeting these search criteria were
 The case of work motivation 141

found in the Journal of Organizational Behavior (Ceja & Navarro, 2011; Demerouti,
Bakker, Sonnentag, & Fullagar, 2012; Eisenberger et al., 2005), two in the Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009; Mäkikangas,
Bakker, Aunola, & Demerouti, 2010), and two in the Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology (Demerouti, 2006; Nielsen & Cleal, 2010). Of course, research on flow at
work has been published in other outlets, but the topic has had sparse exposure in
the “mainstream” I/O literature. Although flow has gained acceptance in other spe-
cializations within psychology, it does not seem to be making substantial headway
among I/O psychologists, despite its status as an established construct.
There are several possible explanations for the lack of attention devoted to flow
in the I/O literature. One is that flow is conceptually similar to other constructs,
specifically engagement, which I/O psychologists have studied for years (Rupayana,
2009), raising questions about the necessity of studying another variable. While
there are similarities between flow and engagement, and this may explain some
reluctance to study flow among I/O researchers, we believe that the specific compo-
nents of flow described by Csikszentmihalyi provide adequate conceptual distinc-
tion between it and other constructs. For example, Newman, Joseph, and Hulin
(2010; Harrison & Newman, 2013) argue that popular measures of engagement
(e.g., Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002) actually assess general
job affect. Flow, while incorporating what Csikszentmihalyi (1990) calls an autotelic
experience, or a sense that the task provides an intrinsically satisfying experience, also
includes several experiential dimensions that are conceptually distinct from affect.
It is interesting that a recent review of burnout and engagement research (Bakker,
Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014) fails to mention flow, suggesting that its authors,
who have each published numerous articles on flow, also see a clear distinction
between flow and engagement.
It is our contention that flow has failed to attract the attention of I/O researchers
at least in part because the bulk of flow research has not explicitly considered the
construct’s relevance and implications for established work-behavior theories. Con-
sequently, the possible relationships between flow and many work-related psycho-
logical constructs have been neither conceptualized nor tested. That is, the question
of where flow falls in relationship with such constructs, and how it contributes to
our understanding of their impact on work behavior, needs to be more thoroughly
and systematically explored. Building upon this conclusion, this chapter presents a
few examples of how the construct of flow might contribute to the understanding
of the operation and limitations of established I/O theories, as well as how such
theories might expand the understanding of the operation and limitations of flow.

Work motivation
A prime candidate for understanding the potential role of flow in work behav-
ior is motivation theory. Research has shown flow to be related to performance
(e.g., Eisenberger et al., 2005), which may be attributable to its proposed ties to
motivation (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). To date, discussion of flow’s
142 Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples

implications for work motivation has been largely limited to Deci and Ryan’s
(2000) self-determination theory. In the following sections, we discuss the nature of
motivation, the current status of work motivation theory, and how the constituent
components of flow might help us better understand worker motivation (and vice
versa). We do not attempt to consider every possible relationship between work
motivation and flow, but hope to illustrate some of the possible links between the
two constructs.
Motivation is defined as the process that determines the direction, intensity, and
persistence of behavior (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, 2008; Mitchell & Daniels,
2003). That is, a useful motivation theory should explain the specific tasks in which
a person engages, the amount of effort expended in performing those tasks, and the
duration of the person’s engagement in those tasks. In the context of work, motiva-
tion theories are thus focused on understanding factors that determine why workers
engage (or fail to engage) in specific work-related tasks, the effort (typically con-
ceptualized as time and resources expended) applied to those tasks, and the degree
to which they maintain engagement in the tasks across time.
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) has described tasks that invoke flow as being intrinsi-
cally rewarding. Such tasks lead to internal states that serve as reinforcement for
performing the tasks. That is, flow is thought to motivate individuals through the
association between its positive experiential features at the cognitive and emotional
levels and the antecedent performance of the flow-inducing task. The most obvi-
ous example of this process might be the potentially reinforcing properties of flow
as an autotelic experience. The positive and enjoyable experience associated with
performing flow-inducing tasks can be expected to motivate people to continue
to engage in those tasks. Similar reinforcing effects might be expected from expe-
riencing other aspects of flow, such as action-awareness merging, a strong sense of
control, or a loss of self-consciousness. While the reinforcing potential of the flow
experience is logical and compelling, work motivation theory and research over the
past several decades have largely abandoned purely operant explanations in favor
of cognitive approaches, that strive to document the mental processes that explain
motivation and performance. We believe that for flow theory to contribute to the
work motivation literature, its implications for the processes included in modern
motivation theories must be examined.
Over the last several decades a number of compelling theories of work moti-
vation have been proposed and tested, ranging from behavioral approaches (e.g.,
Komaki, Coombs, & Shepman, 1991; Skinner, 1990) to more complex perspec-
tives, such as cognitive (e.g., Vroom, 1964) and trait-based (Kanfer & Heggestad,
1997, 2000) theories. These theories have traditionally been treated as competing
explanations for motivated work behavior. Recently, however, Schmidt, Beck, and
Gillespie (2013) argued that the research literature on work motivation has come to
be dominated by goal-based theories, and that many established motivational con-
structs can be understood and integrated via their relationships with goal processes.
This perspective provides a relevant and convenient framework for examining
the relationship between motivation and flow in the workplace. By considering the
 The case of work motivation 143

ways in which flow might be associated with different components of the goal pro-
cess, the possible contributions of flow to work motivation theory may be clarified.

Goal setting and flow

Goal processes in motivation can be divided into goal setting and goal striving com-
ponents (Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, & Sears, 1944; Schmidt et al., 2013). Of these,
research in I/O psychology has traditionally focused on goal setting, or the manner
by which performance goals are established. In particular, the goal-setting theory of
Locke and Latham (1990, 2002) has been the focus of extensive empirical research,
with consistent and supportive findings. Goal-setting theory states that specific,
difficult goals will result in higher performance than less difficult or less specific
goals. It is believed that difficult and specific goals focus attention and effort on
a task, while providing clear performance standards that serve to determine task
persistence (Locke & Latham, 2002; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). When
accompanied by adequate feedback, difficult, specific goals have indeed been con-
sistently found to result in higher performance than no goals, easy goals, or vague,
“do-your-best” goals.
Goal setting appears to be a logical avenue by which to incorporate flow into
work motivation theory. Csikszentmihalyi (1997; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi,
2002), in describing the nature of flow, included three factors that can be consid-
ered not as aspects of the subjective flow experience but rather as preconditions that
encourage or contribute to the experience of flow. These include challenge-skill bal-
ance, clear goals, and unambiguous feedback. These conditions are determined, wholly
or in part, by task characteristics or situational factors, and define circumstances
under which flow is most likely to emerge.
Specifically, challenge-skill balance exists when task demands and individual capa-
bilities are matched, so people can effectively cope with those demands (Csikszent-
mihalyi, 1990). That is, either the challenge presented by the task must be tailored
to the skill of the individual, or the skill of the individual appropriately enhanced
when tasks are too demanding. To maximize flow, both challenge and skill should
be “personally high” (Jackson & Marsh, 1996, p. 18). Clear goals refer to a per-
son having “a strong sense of what he or she is going to do” (Jackson & Marsh,
1996, p. 19). Prescriptively, flow might be encouraged by establishing appropriate
goals in advance, or by clarifying and emphasizing cues intrinsic to task perfor-
mance. Unambiguous feedback refers to information by which individuals can judge
their progress. When tasks provide this information, flow experiences should be
enhanced. External feedback is necessary for tasks lacking intrinsic feedback.
The potential relationships among the performance benefits of goal setting and
the subjective experience of flow can be seen in the apparent parallels between the
preconditions for flow and the prescriptions of goal-setting theory. Challenge-skill
balance is analogous to goal-setting’s recommendation that goals should be dif-
ficult yet attainable. The requirement in flow theory for clear goals is similar to
goal setting’s prescription that goals be specific. Finally, both theories emphasize
144 Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples

the importance of performance feedback. It therefore seems logical to expect that

circumstances designed to enhance task performance through setting specific, dif-
ficult goals would also promote the onset of the experience of flow during the
performance of those tasks. Further, given the well-established relationship between
goal setting and task performance, one would expect a positive relationship between
flow and performance.
These hypotheses were tested by Waples, Knight, and Fullagar (2013), using
an experimental design that required participants to perform a standardized task,
once with specific, difficult goals (tailored to individual skill levels) and once with
do-your-best (DYB) goals. The goal conditions were counterbalanced, with half of
the participants first performing a trial with the goal, and half performing a DYB
trial first. The expected effect of goal setting was found, with higher performance in
trials with specific, difficult goals. The predicted positive relationship between flow
and performance was also obtained. (This latter effect, while encouraging, was based
on retrospective measures of flow, which could have been influenced by participants’
knowledge of their performance.)
Unexpectedly, flow was lower on trials with difficult, specific goals than on DYB
trials. Further analyses showed that participants who operated under DYB goals first
had uniformly high flow across both trials, but those who were given specific, diffi-
cult goals first had substantially lower flow on their first trial. The flow experienced
by this latter group was higher on the second trial, where they were given DYB
goals, but their reported flow levels never reached those of the DYB-first partici-
pants. Waples et al. (2013) suggested that the inhibition of flow in the presence of
goals early in the task is consistent with substantial research on the overjustification
effect (e.g., Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999, 2001). This literature demonstrates the
negative effect of external constraints (e.g., performance rewards) on both interest
in and intrinsic motivation to perform a task. One explanation for the effects of
external constraints, derived from self-perception theory (Bem, 1967), is that exter-
nal constraints shift an individual’s attribution for his or her behavior from internal
to external causes, resulting in a decrease in intrinsic motivation and interest. Spe-
cific goals may represent an external constraint similar to extrinsic rewards. If so,
participants performing the initial trial with specific goals may have been less likely
to experience flow because their attention was focused on external performance
demands, rather than the intrinsic aspects of the task. Alternately, those participants
who had first performed under DYB conditions, and had already experienced rela-
tively high levels of flow, did not suffer a reduction in flow once goals were intro-
duced in the second set. Considering effects on performance, however, Waples et al.
found that an early experience of high flow was related to increased performance
on later trials, even in the absence of specific goals.
This study, the only one we are aware of to examine the relationship between
goal setting and flow, suggests complex relationships. It may be that initial perfor-
mance goals inhibit the experience of flow while performing a task, but that after
flow has been experienced it has a positive association with performance. Further
research on these relationships might help anchor flow theory to mainstream work
 The case of work motivation 145

motivation theory, and perhaps provide ways to improve the implementation of

goal setting.

Goal striving and flow

Goal-setting theory is concerned with the way in which performance goals are
established, and the effects of goals on task performance. Goal setting has argu-
ably been the primary focus of work motivation research for three decades. More
recently, in an effort to better understand the cognitive mechanisms by which goals
operate, there has been increasing attention paid to the investigation of goal striving,
as manifested in self-regulation processes that operate as individuals strive to accom-
plish goals across time (Schmidt et al., 2013). This research is based on the principles
of control theory (e.g., Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, & Hall, 2010), which describes
a “discrepancy reduction loop,” by which goals help define a desired state to which
individuals compare their current status. If the current status is discrepant with the
goal, behavior intended to reduce that discrepancy is initiated, and the efficacy of
that behavior is assessed by comparing the resulting state to the goal. This process
continues as long as goal discrepancy exists.
Certain experiential aspects of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) might be affected
by and affect the self-regulation process described earlier. Specifically, self-regulation
requires careful monitoring of the discrepancy between current and desired (goal)
states. Such monitoring necessitates awareness not only of immediate task perfor-
mance but also of the goal state and of the effects of task behavior on changes to
the current state. Three of the dimensions of flow would seem to have implica-
tions for the ability of individuals to engage in effective self-regulation. These are
(1) action-awareness merging, which occurs when involvement in a task becomes so
deep that there is no awareness of the self as being separate from the task; (2) concen-
tration on the task at hand, which results in a feeling of total focus or concentration on
the task; and (3) loss of self-consciousness, which manifests as a loss of concern for the
self, and “becoming one with the activity” (Jackson & Marsh, 1996, p. 21).
It could be hypothesized that these dimensions of the flow experience, by
enhancing the individual’s awareness of and engagement in the task, would facilitate
self-regulation. Certainly, when these aspects of flow are present it can be expected
that the status of current task performance will be foremost in the awareness of the
individual. However, task awareness is only one aspect of the self-regulation pro-
cess. It may be that in experiencing flow people become less aware of situational
constraints, such as goals, and fail to monitor the status of goal discrepancy as they
perform job tasks. This would be analogous to Waples et al.’s (2013) suggestion that
goals might focus attention on external constraints, thereby serving to distract from
the task and hindering the onset of flow. If flow served to reduce awareness of per-
formance goals and goal discrepancy, it might follow that goal-setting effects would
be mitigated by the experience of flow.
One aspect of self-regulation that has been found to be related to both motiva-
tion and attitudes is the rate at which goal discrepancy is reduced. Rapid reduction
146 Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples

in goal discrepancy has been found to be associated with several positive outcomes,
including positive mood (Lawrence, Carver, & Scheier, 2002), greater satisfaction and
higher performance expectations (Chang, Johnson, & Lord, 2010), greater mental
focus and reduced downward goal revision (Elicker et al., 2010). As with the general
self-regulation process, it is not clear whether the experience of flow, through greater
cognitive and affective involvement with the task, would enhance the effects of rapid
discrepancy reduction, or if it would instead interfere with the accurate perception of
discrepancy reduction by inhibiting attention to external constraints.

Goal framing
Another example of a goal-process variable that might help us to understand the
possible role of flow in motivation is goal framing. Whereas goal setting addresses
how goal levels are determined, and self-regulation processes aim to explain how
individuals monitor progress toward goals, goal framing examines the manner by
which goals are presented to, or understood by, individuals. The framing of a goal
does not have implications for the goal itself, but rather how the goal is represented.
Multiple goal frames have been suggested, the most common involving the distinc-
tion between approach goals and avoidance goals (Carver & Scheier, 1998). Approach
goals involve discrepancy reduction, and are typical of the goals conceptualized in
most goal-setting and self-regulation research. Avoidance goals, on the other hand,
involve increasing discrepancy, or circumventing unwanted states. As outlined earlier,
it is possible that goals may affect, positively or negatively, the development of flow.
If so, whether goals are framed as approach or avoidance goals may moderate any
such effects. Specifically, it would seem that the requirement for clear goals in the
flow literature is couched in terms of approach goals. The effects of avoidance goals,
and the avoidance of unwanted consequences, have not been addressed in the flow
literature to date.
Perhaps more relevant to the experience of flow is the distinction between preven-
tion goals and promotion goals (Higgins, 1997). Prevention goals are framed in terms
of fulfilling duties and obligations, whereas promotion goals are framed in terms of
achieving ideal outcomes. Compared to promotion goals, prevention goals have
been associated with working more slowly and the minimization of mistakes
(Förster, Higgins, & Bianco, 2003), as well as enhanced goal commitment (Shah &
Higgins, 1997). Prevention goals have also been associated with a greater ability to
subdue thoughts of competing goals (Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002). Taken
together, these findings suggest that describing goals using a prevention frame will
promote several of the dimensions of the flow experience described by Csikszent-
mihalyi (1997), including concentration on the task at hand and a sense of control.

Expectancy theory and flow

Schmidt et al.’s (2013) argument that goal processes provide a general framework for
modern work motivation theory is compelling. However, there are well-established
motivation theories that do not focus primarily on performance goals, and which
 The case of work motivation 147

may have implications for the application of flow to work behavior. One such
cognitively based approach is expectancy theory (e.g., Vroom, 1964), to which we
now turn to further explore the potential relationships between flow and work
motivation.
Expectancy refers to “the perceived likelihood that an action will lead to a par-
ticular outcome” (Schmidt et al., 2013, p. 318). Though having been a continuing
topic of interest among motivation researchers for nearly a century (Lewin, 1935;
Tolman, 1932), expectancy has found widespread application to the world of work
primarily as a result of Vroom’s (1964) conceptualization of expectancy theory.
Sometimes referred to as valence-instrumentality-expectancy (VIE) theory, on the
basis of its key components, the core elements of Vroom’s theory have remained
largely unchanged since its inception, and suggest that an individual’s expected
motivational force can be predicted by using a multiplicative function of his or her
related perceptions of valence, instrumentality, and expectancy.
Valence is typically framed as a perceived property of a given outcome and, as a
function of anticipated satisfaction, ranges from positive (expected to satisfy) to neg-
ative (expected to dissatisfy; Vroom, 1964). To the extent that the collective valence
of considered outcomes is positive (negative), an individual can be expected to be
more likely to experience motivation to approach (avoid) the associated behavior or
task. Though VIE theory was, in its original conceptualization, focused on extrinsic
outcomes, early revisions to the theory suggested the addition of valences associ-
ated with intrinsic outcomes (Galbraith & Cummings, 1967; House, 1971, 1996).
House (1971, 1996) argued in support of two unique types of intrinsic valences
that warranted inclusion under a more broadly conceived notion of the construct:
(1) intrinsic valence associated with goal-directed behavior, and (2) intrinsic valence
associated with work-goal accomplishment. It is the former that offers an appealing
connection to flow theory.
The autotelic characteristic of the flow experience has long been one of the
theory’s defining elements (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Appreciating task completion
for its own sake, regardless of corresponding extrinsic outcomes, is consistent with
the development of positive intrinsic valence perceptions. It follows that, over time,
assessments of task valence would be positively influenced simply by experiencing
flow while performing the task. Assuming that other components of the VIE model
are held constant, flow can be expected to increase motivation to perform tasks
from which it emerges.
Instrumentality was Vroom’s (1964) most obvious addition to earlier forms of
expectancy theory. It refers to the perceived relationship between task perfor-
mance and receipt of secondary outcomes (e.g., pay, promotion). Conceptually,
positive instrumentality is characterized by the perception that successful task per-
formance will lead to receiving a given outcome. Although, as a perceptual con-
struct, instrumentality remains a subjective assessment, it is perhaps most strongly
affected by externally established structures (e.g., compensation mechanisms, trust
in management). Such sensitivity to external forces makes instrumentality distinct
from valence and expectancy, which are both more strongly rooted in individual
148 Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples

preferences and interpretations. Historically, it has been precisely that sensitivity

that has provided an opportunity for organizational management to create systems that
foster motivation via greater clarity regarding the relationship between performance
and rewards (House, 1971, 1996).
Similarly, creating an environment in which the prerequisite conditions for flow
emergence have been met represents an opportunity for management to foster flow
in the workplace (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). While there are many
antecedents of instrumentality perceptions (see Sims, Szilagyi, & McKemey, 1976),
some overlap would seem to exist with the preconditions for flow. In particular, the
availability of performance feedback and goal clarity are both required precondi-
tions for flow and antecedents of perceived instrumentality (Nakamura & Csik-
szentmihalyi, 2002; Sims et al., 1976; Teas, 1981). By improving feedback processes
and ensuring clear goal structures, management has an opportunity to clarify the
relationship between task performance and outcomes (i.e., instrumentality), and
simultaneously to enhance the likelihood of flow.
Expectancy, as defined previously, refers to the perceived likelihood of an action
leading to an outcome. More specifically, as it relates to task performance, expec-
tancy refers to the likelihood that a given level of effort will lead to a given level of
performance (Schmidt et al., 2013; Vroom, 1964). That is, expectancy reflects the
degree to which performance is believed to depend on the individual’s discretion-
ary effort, as opposed to perceiving that external forces determine the likelihood
of successful task performance. For some tasks, expectancy will be naturally high
(e.g., physical tasks), while for others, it is likely to be lower, due to the influence of
external constraints (e.g., retail sales). Nevertheless, as for valence and instrumental-
ity, the determination is internal and subjective.
Of the three elements of VIE theory, flow is conceptually most similar to
expectancy. As a state of effortful task immersion, flow occurs during the very
effort-to-performance conversion that drives subsequent expectancy perceptions
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). For a repeated task, reflection on previous experience
should prompt consideration of flow characteristics. Action-awareness merging is
strongly associated with automation of task-relevant behaviors (Jackson & Marsh,
1996), which should serve to clarify the relationship between effort and perfor-
mance. Similarly, having previously perceived oneself as being in firm control of task
elements can be expected to encourage a greater sense of self-determination with
regard to future task completion (Sims et al., 1976).
In combination, expectancy, instrumentality, and valence summarize a system of
cognitive evaluation targeting anticipated progression from effort to performance
(expectancy), performance to outcome (instrumentality), and outcome to personal
interests (valence). At each step of the evaluation process, flow has the potential for
involvement. It is possible that, by fostering the emergence of flow, one should be
able to increase performance motivation via the tenets of expectancy theory.
Before leaving this discussion, it should be noted that since flow is a momen-
tary experience, and therefore necessarily assessed retrospectively, the predictive,
future-oriented nature of expectancy may constitute a challenge when considering
 The case of work motivation 149

the intersection of flow and expectancy theories. However, the repetitiveness of

tasks in typical work settings allows for the influence of previous experiences on
subsequent thoughts and behaviors. Accordingly, the cognitions associated with
each element of expectancy theory may be affected by earlier task experiences (e.g.,
flow state emergence).

Flow and self-efficacy

As mentioned earlier, in addition to cognitive approaches to understanding motiva-
tion, such as goal theories and expectancy theories, there has been growing interest
in examining the role of individual differences in work motivation (e.g., Kanfer &
Heggestad, 1997, 2000). One of the most widely studied individual variables in the
motivation literature has been self-efficacy. Understanding the relationships between
self-efficacy and the components of the flow experience would help anchor flow
theory more strongly within the motivation literature.
Self-efficacy refers to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation,
cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands”
(Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 408). Initially devised as an explanatory mechanism
for behavioral change (Bandura, 1977), self-efficacy has seen consistent applica-
tion to mainstream motivational theories since its conceptualization (Bandura, 1986,
1997; Locke & Latham, 2002). Within goal setting theory alone, self-efficacy has
been identified as a key moderator and mediator, while carrying its own note-
worthy direct effects. Generally speaking, increases in domain-specific self-efficacy
are thought to promote greater motivation and greater performance, though some
recent research has identified potential downfalls of heightened self-efficacy beliefs
(see Schmidt et al., 2013, for a brief review).
Though there has been relatively little overlap between their respective bodies of
literature, self-efficacy perceptions and the experience of flow seem to have inter-
esting implications for one another. Self-efficacy, like expectancy theory, consists
of future-oriented cognitive appraisal (Bandura, 1997). Accordingly, its integration
with flow theory is complicated by the issue of temporal precedence. Though we
have attempted to delineate the manner in which self-efficacy and flow may influ-
ence each other, it should be noted that the interplay between these constructs has
been conceptualized as reciprocal across task repetitions (e.g., Salanova, Bakker, &
Llorens, 2006).
Research on self-efficacy in the context of goal setting has consistently found
support for a positive relationship between self-efficacy and willingness to accept
challenging goals (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002). For self-set goals, those with
high self-efficacy have been found to set more challenging goals than those with low
self-efficacy, and for assigned goals, self-efficacy has been positively related to goal
commitment. By broadening the level of challenge an individual sees as within reach
of personal skill levels, self-efficacy has the potential to increase the range of tasks
for which the challenge-skill balance precondition of flow is met. In this manner,
self-efficacy increases the likelihood of experiencing flow across a variety of tasks.
150 Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples

As experience with a given task increases and efficacy perceptions become more
accurately refined, the necessity for additional information about task progress and
performance is attenuated by knowledge garnered from that previous experience
(Gist & Mitchell, 1992). It follows that, as experience accumulates and self-efficacy
increases, the perceived need for external task feedback would be reduced. By
reducing that perceived need, the flow precondition that task performance feedback
be available becomes more easily met. Consequently, as experience and efficacy
increase, flow emergence becomes more likely.
Flow, on the other hand, can be expected to enhance efficacy perceptions as a
function of its characteristics. Of flow’s established characteristics, four are consis-
tent with increased self-efficacy: action-awareness merging, sense of control, intense
task concentration, and a loss of self-consciousness. All four of these elements are
consistent with task mastery processes that underlie development of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997).
The proposed positively reciprocal nature of self-efficacy and flow emergence
bears striking similarity to the “upward spiral” described by broaden-and-build
theory (Fredrickson, 2001). While broaden-and-build is focused more specifically
on the continuity of positive emotional experiences, the theory also details the
role of accumulated personal resources as a mechanism for resilience in the face
of obstacles. Self-efficacy itself may represent one such personal resource (Salanova
et al., 2006) that can effectively buffer against stress and promote well-being (Ban-
dura, 1997). In a broader study of the relationship between flow and the availability
of resources (both organizational and personal), Salanova et al. (2006) found support
for the reciprocity of flow and self-efficacy. In particular, the authors found that
while self-efficacy did indeed predict flow state emergence, the influence of flow
on self-efficacy was greater still.

Flow and job characteristics

As efforts to integrate flow with the workplace have evolved, exploration of the
intersection of flow and Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics model
(JCM) has begun (Demerouti, 2006; Nielsen & Cleal, 2010). On the surface, the JCM
seems to offer an excellent framework for designing jobs to encourage the emer-
gence of flow, as the antecedents of flow essentially describe task characteristics.
The JCM’s core characteristics have conceptual similarity with both the ante-
cedents of flow and elements of the flow experience. Starting with the most similar
characteristics, feedback is an essential component in both flow theory and the JCM.
In both cases, it includes the availability of task-relevant feedback as a function of
performing the task (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Auton-
omy, in the JCM, would seem to underlie one’s sense of control during flow, at least
to the extent that an individual perceives control over his or her own task-related
behaviors. Perceptions of task identity, “the degree to which the job requires doing
a whole and identifiable piece of work” (Oldham & Hackman, 2010, p. 464), and
task significance are arguably similar to Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) prerequisite sense
 The case of work motivation 151

of goal clarity. Even skill variety, “the degree to which the job requires a variety of
different activities . . . involving the use of a number of different skills and talents
of the person” (Oldham & Hackman, 2010, p. 464), has been argued to be concep-
tually similar to challenge-skill balance in flow theory (Demerouti, 2006).
Given such similarities, application of the JCM in pursuit of greater flow emer-
gence among employees would seem to be a viable option. Findings regarding
the relationship between job characteristics and flow have been mixed, however.
While Demerouti (2006) found a positive relationship between the JCM’s formu-
laic motivating potential score (MPS) and flow, others found that more generic job
characteristics (e.g., cognitive demands, influence) were unrelated to flow experi-
ences (Nielsen & Cleal, 2010). Regardless of these minor inconsistencies, the general
motivational benefits of enhanced JCM core characteristics and their potential for
increasing a job’s capacity for inducing flow make such implementations appealing
on both fronts.

Flow and alternative performance criteria

In examining the potential relationships between flow and established processes in
work motivation theory, it became evident that the complex and dynamic nature
of modern work may have implications for the role of flow in understanding work
behavior. Several aspects of the flow experience suggest a very high level of con-
centration and engagement in a specific task, on which workers strive to achieve
specific goals, framed in one of several possible ways. These aspects of flow include
action-awareness merging, concentration on the task at hand, a sense of control,
and loss of self-consciousness (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Clearly, workers who are
experiencing flow are very focused on a specific task, and tend to filter out stimuli
and information that are extraneous to performance of that task. The extent of this
concentration is illustrated by another experiential flow characteristic, the transfor-
mation of time, in which the perception of time itself is altered, with the sense of
time slowing, accelerating, or becoming irrelevant (Jackson & Marsh, 1996).
While this sort of intense engagement in a task may indeed be positively associated
with performance on that task, contemporary models of work go beyond consider-
ation of individual tasks when defining work performance. At the most basic level, it
must be acknowledged that workers perform multiple tasks, each with its own goal
or goals, which need to be monitored simultaneously for effective self-regulation
(Lord & Levy, 1994). The sort of intense concentration on, and absorption in, the
performance of a single task, as typified by flow, may at best make it difficult for
workers to regulate their behavior with respect to other tasks. While it may be the
case that there are times when a single task becomes the exclusive focus of a worker’s
job, such instances are most certainly the exception in modern society.
The importance of monitoring multiple tasks or objectives is illustrated by the
construct of adaptive performance (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000),
which involves the capability to adjust behavior to changing circumstances in the
workplace. Adaptability has probably always been an important skill, but as both
152 Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples

the complexity of work and the rate at which jobs evolve have increased in recent
decades, not only being able to adapt but also being able to monitor circumstances
that cue the need for adaptation have become critical. Pulakos et al. (2000) went
beyond the obvious issues stemming from increasingly complex and changing work,
and presented a taxonomy of adaptive performance with eight distinct factors.
Some of these factors (e.g., handling work stress, solving problems creatively) do not
necessarily require ongoing regulation processes, but some of the others do imply
a level of vigilance that may be difficult to maintain while deeply immersed in a
task (e.g., dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work situations, demonstrating
interpersonal adaptability). Of course, while it may be the case that experiencing
flow could limit adaptability by reducing self-regulation processes, it is also possible
that effects could operate in the opposite direction, with working in an environ-
ment that requires a high degree of adaptability limiting the development of flow.
Another alternative criterion of work performance that has received a great deal
of attention in the I/O research literature in recent years is citizenship behavior. These
are behaviors that are not part of workers’ core task responsibilities, but rather sup-
port the environment within which core tasks are carried out (Borman & Motow-
idlo, 1993; Organ, 1997). Such behaviors as volunteering, persisting with enthusiasm,
and helping coworkers when they are in need are common examples of organi-
zational citizenship. Proposed explanations for citizenship behaviors have included
social exchange (e.g., Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), prosocial dispositional orienta-
tions (e.g., De Dreu & Nauta, 2009), and impression management (Rioux & Penner,
2001). Whatever the reasons that workers engage in citizenship behaviors, however,
it would seem to be necessary that they regularly monitor the social environment of
the workplace in order to be aware of needs or opportunities for citizenship. As with
adaptive behaviors, it seems reasonable to speculate that experiencing flow, and the
intense absorption in a task that accompanies flow, might limit a worker’s ability to
adequately engage in this monitoring. Clearly, the implications for the development
of flow of the alternative (nonwork task) performance criteria that permeate the
experience of modern workers should be studied and understood more fully.

Conclusion
In this chapter, we have attempted to describe some of possible areas of com-
monality between established work motivation theories and constructs and Csik-
szentmihalyi’s (1990) theory of flow. The specific issues that we have raised are far
from exhaustive, but illustrate the potential for flow theory to contribute to the
understanding of work motivation. We began our discussion by documenting the
relative lack of attention that flow has garnered in the I/O psychology literature,
which we attributed to a general failure to make explicit links between flow and
established work motivation constructs. Increased attention to flow in the main-
stream I/O research literature is likely to materialize when the utility of considering
flow for better understanding worker motivation and performance has been more
fully demonstrated. Flow researchers, however, should take advantage of the vast
 The case of work motivation 153

existing work motivation literature when considering the motivational implications

of workers’ optimal experience. Work motivation is a “mature” area of inquiry, in
which current research generally extends and clarifies accepted theories (Schmidt
et al., 2013). Flow has the potential to expand our understanding of work motiva-
tion when considered in light of these theories.

References
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement:
The JD-R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behav-
ior, 1, 389–411.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychologi-
cal Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance
phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S., J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel
selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of flow in the workplace: Characterizing
within-individual variability using a complexity science approach. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 32, 627–651.
Chang, C.-H., Johnson, R. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Moving beyond discrepancies: The
importance of velocity as a predictor of job satisfaction and motivation. Human Perfor-
mance, 23, 58–80.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond freedom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New
York: Basic Books.
Culbertson, S., Fullagar, C., Simmons, M., & Zhu, M. (2014, May). Contagious flow: Antecedents
and consequences of classroom optimal experience. Poster session presented at the 29th Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 627–668.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in
education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1–27.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nauta, A. (2009). Getting stuck or stepping back: Effects of obstacles
and construal level in the negotiation of creative solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94, 542–548.
154 Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples

Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of
conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Sonnentag, S., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Work-related flow and
energy at work and at home: A study on the role of daily recovery. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 33, 276–295.
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J., Shanock, L., & Teglund, A. (2004, April). High skill and challenge at
work: Optimal experience for whom? Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Chicago.
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J. R., Stinglhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A. T. (2005). Flow
experiences at work: For high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
755–775.
Elicker, J. D., Lord, R. G., Ash, S. R., Kohari, N. E., Hruska, B. J., McConnell, N. L., & Med-
vedeff, M. E. (2010). Velocity as a predictor of performance satisfaction, mental focus, and
goal revision. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 495–514.
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task per-
formance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 90, 148–164.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: They broaden
and build theory. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Freeman, T., Waples, C., Fullagar, C., & Knight, P. (2011, April). Timelessness and flow. Poster
session presented at the 26th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Orga-
nizational Psychology, Chicago.
Fullagar, C. (2006, May). “Flow” among architecture students: Promoting well-being at work. Poster
session presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Orga-
nizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2008, April). “Flow”: State or trait? Poster session presented at
the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
San Francisco.
Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). “Flow” at work: An experience sampling approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 595–615.
Fullagar, C., Knight, P., & Sovern, H. (2009, April). Flow and performance anxiety. Poster session
presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Galbraith, J., & Cummings, L. L. (1967). An empirical investigation of the motivational
determinants of past performance: Interactive effects between instrumentality, valence,
motivation, and ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 237–257.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants
and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Harrison, D. A., & Newman, D. A. (2013). Absence, lateness, turnover and retirement: Nar-
row and broad understandings of withdrawal and behavioral engagement. In I. B. Weiner
(Series Ed.), N. W. Schmidt, & S. Highhouse (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Vol. 12:
Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 262–291). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
16, 321–339.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated the-
ory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352.
Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure opti-
mal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35.
 The case of work motivation 155

Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). The three C’s of work motivation: Context,
content, and change. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation:
Past, present, and future (pp. 1–16). New York: Psychology Press.
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered per-
spective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 826–835.
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (2000). Individual differences in trait motivation: Develop-
ment of the Motivational Trait Questionnaire (MTQ). International Journal of Educational
Research, 33, 751–776.
Komaki, J., Coombs, T., & Shepman, S. (1991). Motivational implications of reinforcement
theory. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (pp. 87–107).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lawrence, J. W., Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F. (2002). Velocity toward goal attainment in
immediate experience as a determinant of affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32,
788–802.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. (1944). Level of aspiration. In J. M. Hunt
(Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (pp. 333–378). Oxford, UK: Ronald Press.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task perfor-
mance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. G. (2010). Self-regulation at
work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 548–568.
Lord, R. G., & Levy, P. E. (1994). Moving from cognition to action: A control perspective.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 43, 335–398.
Mäkikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., Aunola, K., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Job resources and flow
at work: Modelling the relationship via latent growth curve and mixture model method-
ology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 795–814.
Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.), W. C. Bor-
man, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Vol. 12: Industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 225–254). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & Hulin, C. L. (2010). Job attitudes and employee engagement:
Considering the attitude “A-factor”. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), The handbook of employee engage-
ment: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 43–61). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2010). Predicting flow at work: Investigating the activities and job
characteristics that predict flow states at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15, 180–190.
Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The
future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 463–479.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time.
Human Performance, 10, 85–97.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the
workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 85, 612–624.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior:
A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306–1314.
156 Patrick Knight and Christopher Waples

Ross, S., Wood, K., & Keiser, H. (2014, May). Predicting optimal experience (flow): Individual
differences versus task characteristics. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.
Rupayana, D. (2009 April). Engagement and flow: Different degrees of the same? Paper presented
at the 24th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, New Orleans, LA.
Sackett, A., Schmidt, P., & Shanock, L. (2007, April). Goals, performance and time: Applying goal
setting to flow theory. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.
Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral
of personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 1–22.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Schmidt, A. M., Beck, J. W., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2013). Motivation. In I. B. Weiner (Series
Ed.), N. W. Schmidt, & S. Highouse (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Vol. 12: Industrial
and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 311–340). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On antecedents and
consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1261–1280.
Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Expectancy value effects: Regulatory focus as determinant
of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 447–458.
Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., & McKemey, D. R. (1976). Antecedents of work-related expec-
tancies. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 547–559.
Skinner, B. F. (1990). Can psychology be a science of mind? American Psychologist, 45,
1206–1211.
Teas, R. K. (1981). An empirical test of models of salespersons, job expectancy, and instru-
mentality perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 209–226.
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Appleton-Century.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Waples, C., Knight, P., & Fullagar, C. (2013, April). The role of goal setting in the emergence of
flow. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.
Waples, C., Stetzer, M., & Knight, P. (2014, May). The role of competition in the emergence of
flow. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.
Waples, C., Stetzer, M., Knight, P., Sackett, A., & Fullagar, C. (2012, April). Challenge-skill bal-
ance and flow: An experimental examination of imbalance. Paper presented at the 27th Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Weiner, I. B. (Series Ed.), Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (Vol. Eds.) (2003).
Handbook of psychology.Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Weiner, I. B. (Series Ed.), Schmitt, N. W., & Highhouse, S. (Vol. Eds.) (2013). Handbook of
psychology.Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mech-
anisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
407–415.
Zedeck, S. (Ed.) (2011). APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
9
WORK, CULTURES, AND
THE CULTURE OF WORK
Flow across countries and professions

Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

Introduction
As shown in the other chapters of this volume, work does not merely represent a
means of subsistence; it can be a source of optimal experience, enriching one’s life
and contributing to the community prosperity. A growing amount of studies high-
light that work is a relevant source of both meaning and opportunities for personal
growth and skill development which individuals can seize based on their predispo-
sitions, interests, previous experience, and personal goals (Delle Fave & Bassi, 2009;
Page & Vella-Brodrick, 2009). Investigating the cultural and individual components
of the work experience can thus have important consequences for individuals, com-
munities, organizations, and nations at large.
To this purpose, the present chapter will adopt an integrated theoretical approach,
addressing the interplay between cultures and individuals in the phenomenology
of flow at work. Based on this framework, we will illustrate findings obtained in
diverse cultural contexts, but also across occupations, paying attention to similarities
and differences in flow-related tasks and associated quality of experience within
the work domain. We will also discuss flow at work in relation to future goals
in the long-term perspective of psychological selection (Massimini & Delle Fave,
2000). Finally, we will focus on migration, addressing the role of work in promoting
flow, as well as sociocultural adjustment and psychological adaptation.

Culture and psychological selection

According to Bates and Plog (1990), a “culture is a system of shared beliefs, values,
customs, behaviors, and artifacts that the members of a society use to cope with
their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to
generation through learning” (p. 7). This broad definition subsumes two important
158 Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

aspects of culture that are of interest for our analysis of flow at work. The first one is
represented by the structural and historical variations that may be identified within
and across cultures. The second aspect refers to the individual’s active interplay with
the opportunities and values characterizing the cultural environment.
Cultures are meaning-making evolutionary systems, representing sets of rules
and values that offer solutions to universal problems related to the biological and
cultural survival of individuals and communities (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961;
Massimini & Calegari, 1979). Work represents one of these problems, which are
classified in three main categories: community survival and livelihood; production,
circulation, and transmission of cultural information among community members;
and development and application of values, rules, and norms that influence the
community structure and organization (Massimini & Delle Fave, 2000; Csikszent-
mihalyi & Massimini, 1985). Work is included within the category of community
survival. Although all human communities share the same universal problems, a
remarkable variety of solutions can be detected across societies according to eco-
logical, historical, and cultural peculiarities. For example, access to specific jobs may
be related to demographic features, such as gender or social status. Variations may
also occur in terms of emphasis or priority placed on a given problem with respect
to other universal problems. In some countries free health care and education are
basic rights of all citizens, independent of their occupation, while in other countries
access to learning and/or medical services depends on job position and income.
Cultural differences may further emerge according to historical events and pro-
cesses. Today’s instability in the global economic situation, leading some countries
to face financial crises and other countries to thrive (Awad, 2009), poses new chal-
lenges to workers, organizations, and professionals who are in charge of well-being
promotion at the workplace.
The second important aspect subsumed in the definition of culture reported
earlier is that individuals undergo a lifelong learning process of enculturation (Her-
skovitz, 1948) through which they acquire the values of their community. These
values become essential constituents of individuals’ daily experience and behav-
ior: research studies have highlighted the role of cultural values in directing indi-
viduals’ attention to environmental and contextual stimuli (Hedden et al., 2002),
influencing the expression of personal feelings, and shaping goals and motivations
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Likewise, a great amount of evidence was gathered
on the role of cultures in fostering opportunities for growth and self-expression
in daily behavior, as well as the development and cultivation of culturally relevant
personal skills (Bond, 2013; Vaalsiner, 2007). However, besides being influenced
by culture, individuals are active agents in the interaction with their environment,
giving rise to a process that Csikszentmihalyi and Massimini (1985) defined as psy-
chological selection.
Psychological selection results from the individuals’ differential investment of
attention and resources in the information available in their environment. In this
process, a prominent role is played by two specific factors: the quality of experience
associated by individuals to the daily activities and information available to them in
 Work, cultures, and the culture of work 159

the environment, and the personal long-term meaning they attribute to this infor-
mation (Delle Fave, 2009). These two factors are often combined. A wide range
of studies have highlighted that individuals preferentially cultivate activities, values,
and relationships according to their potential association with optimal experience.
However, the association of an activity with flow does not guarantee its mean-
ingfulness for the person. People often report optimal experience in recreational
leisure that is surely beneficial in the short run, but not relevant to lifelong goals.
The dimension of meaningfulness and long-term goals has been recently included
in studies on flow (Delle Fave & Massimini, 2005). Cross-cultural findings have
highlighted that individuals more frequently report flow in tasks and domains that
they perceive as relevant and coherent with their own world outlook, life goals, and
core beliefs (Delle Fave, 2007).
The replication of meaningful flow-related activities (or optimal activities) over
time has important consequences for single individuals and their communities (Mas-
simini & Delle Fave, 2000; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). At the personal
level, the cultivation of these activities brings about growth in complexity: in order
to replicate the experience, the individual will look for increasing challenges and
consequently refine the personal skills and abilities necessary to face them (Csik-
szentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). From this perspective, optimal experience
can also influence individuals’ long-term life trajectories (Delle Fave, Massimini, &
Bassi, 2011). At the cultural level, individuals learn and exchange information with
others. Through the selection, replication, and transmission of specific optimal activi-
ties, each person can contribute to the long-term shaping of her culture, helping to
preserve certain values as well as bringing about innovative cultural changes.
Over the last three decades, this broad theoretical framework has guided our
investigation of flow across cultures and has been increasingly refined based on
constantly incoming empirical evidence (Delle Fave et al., 2011; Massimini & Delle
Fave, 2000). In the following paragraphs we will summarize some of the findings
collected by our research group on flow in the domain of work, together with
results deriving from other research projects.

Work, values, and meaning

As briefly outlined in the previous pages, among the universal problems humans
have to face, work is recognized as a fundamental concern that contributes to the
survival of any community (Massimini & Calegari, 1979). Culture-specific solu-
tions to the work problem have brought about an extensive gamut of economic sys-
tems, differently regulating means of production, access to work, and labor division.
At the same time, cross-cultural variations exist in the weight attributed to work
vis-à-vis other human problems. They can provocatively be reflected in today’s dif-
ferential investment in work policies, with some nations devoting more resources to
war plans than to economic development.
Nonetheless, empirical findings showed that, at the personal level, work uni-
versally represents an extremely important value. This result stems from a large
160 Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

international investigation among participants from seven countries (Delle Fave,

Brdar, Wissing, & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). Through the self-report questionnaire
Eudaimonic and Hedonic Happiness Investigation (EHHI), participants were asked
to report the three most meaningful things in their lives – that is, sources of mean-
ing – and then to explain why each of these things was meaningful to them. As
concerns the most meaningful things, work was mentioned by 44% of the respon-
dents, ranking second to family (that was acknowledged as meaningful by 84% of
the participants). In particular, and in line with a project-oriented conceptualization
of meaning (Emmons, 2005), answers mainly referred to the relevance of work as
an opportunity for personal growth, competence development, and satisfaction.
Differences emerged among linguistic/cultural groups, identified as Romance,
Germanic, and Slavic (Delle Fave, Wissing, Brdar, Vella-Brodrick, & Freire, 2013),
with a significantly higher percentage of Romance and Slavic participants provid-
ing answers referring to the intrinsic value and meaningfulness of work, while
Germanic respondents more frequently quoted satisfaction with work. Globally,
however, only a limited percentage of participants referred to the extrinsic value
of work, such as job stability and security. Motives underlying the perceived work
meaningfulness were in line with these findings. Work was described as a basic
constituent of individual life, making life worth living, and giving rise to feelings of
personal expressiveness.

Work cultures: a neglected topic in flow research

Work has been identified as a privileged opportunity for optimal experience
(Bassi & Delle Fave, 2012; Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Delle Fave & Mas-
simini, 2003; Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007). Previous chapters have
summarized research investigating the job conditions and resources favoring flow
at work. However, studies were primarily carried out in Western countries, which
by and large share similar postindustrial service economies, work histories, and
policies, paying little attention to cultural differences, in particular those concern-
ing individualistic versus collectivistic features (Hofstede, 1980; Smith & Bond,
1999; Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995), which are reflected – even
if not deterministically – in the social structure, including work organization and
rules, workers’ rights and duties, job and career opportunities, and income distribu-
tion (Kagitçibasi, 1997).
Moreover, even in the case of cross-cultural research, a disproportionately large
amount of studies in the work domain involve office employees and factory workers,
while other categories of workers are ignored. The two only exceptions are teachers
and health professionals, whose work experience has been recently explored in rela-
tion to flow (Bakker, 2005; Bassi & Delle Fave, 2012; Bringsén, Ejlertsson, & Ander-
sson, 2011; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2003; Rodríguez, Salanova, Cifre, & Schaufeli,
2011; Salanova, Bakker, & Llorens, 2006). In contrast, traditional work activities,
such as farming and handicrafts, but also semiskilled and unspecialized jobs directly
related to industry production have been substantially neglected, in spite of the fact
 Work, cultures, and the culture of work 161

that they represent the basic subsistence means for the vast majority of people and
communities on the planet.
It is also interesting to notice that overall in the psychological literature activities
such as gardening, farming, arts, and crafts are prominently considered hobbies or
rehabilitation practices, and are therefore investigated within the domain of leisure,
occupational therapy, and psychiatric and physical rehabilitation (Harris, 2008). Several
studies have shown the positive features of the experience associated with handicrafts
and their well-being related outcomes among people diagnosed with mental disor-
ders, adopting flow either as a theoretical point of reference for interpreting narratives
(Caddy, Crawford, & Page, 2012; Griffiths, 2008; Reynolds, Vivat, & Prior, 2008) or as
an empirical measure (Bassi, Ferrario, Ba, Delle Fave, & Viganò, 2012). Studies in occu-
pational therapy have emphasized the positive physical and psychological consequences
of participation in arts and crafts to preserve identity, self-esteem, and well-being after
retirement (Reynolds, 2009) or after migration (Boerema, Russell, & Aguilar, 2010).
This approach is culturally biased, in that it conveys the disguised ideological assump-
tion that workers are per antonomasia company employees, executive officers, or factory
workers. Such an assumption is clearly reflected in the common language, in that the
term “working class” originally refers to these restricted categories of citizens.
A quick exploration of PsychINFO shows that other disciplines within the social
sciences have been paying more attention to farmers and artisans. This is par-
ticularly true of anthropology, sociology, and economics. Researchers from these
domains have investigated the quality of life and well-being of farmers and handi-
craftsmen from a variety of perspectives. Economists have investigated the impact
of fair trade practices on these workers’ well-being (Bacon, 2005; Becchetti, Castri-
ota, & Solferino, 2011). Other studies have highlighted the importance of relying
on the expertise of farmers and artisans to develop intervention aimed at their
well-being promotion (Brookfield & Gyasi, 2009; Doshi, 1990; Nederlof & Dan-
gbégnon, 2007). Sociologists and anthropologists have focused on the relationship
between traditional work and social status, addressing issues related to gender (Pren-
tice, 2012; Soni-Sinha, 2011), ethnic minorities (Portisch, 2009), and cultural tran-
sitions (Gowlland, 2012; Karides, 2005; Sayce, Ackers, & Greene, 2007; Wherry,
2008). However, studies exploring the positive work experiences of these popula-
tions, including flow, are completely missing.

Empirical evidence of flow at work across

cultures and occupations
In order to shed light on the relationship between the specific features of different
jobs and flow occurrence, we will now summarize and further analyze the find-
ings obtained from studies conducted by our research group among participants
belonging to different western and nonwestern societies and work contexts (Delle
Fave et al., 2011).
We will merge results provided by 767 adult participants, 308 women and
459 men, aged 15–78 (average age thirty-five). Among them, 251 (32.7% of the
162 Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

sample) belonged to nonwestern, prominently Asian cultures: India, Indonesia,

Iran, Philippines, West Africa (Ivory Coast and Ghana), North Africa (Morocco
and Tunisia), and Somalia. In this sample, thirty-eight Africans and thirty-four
Asians were first-generation immigrants living in Italy. This group also comprised
sixty Rom Gypsies, settled in Italy but preserving their original language, lifestyle,
and values: they lived in camps located in city outskirts, following a separation
pattern of acculturation. Nonwestern participants were involved in various jobs:
forty-one were craftsmen, nineteen were self-employed as shopkeepers and trad-
ers, twenty-four worked as helping professionals (teachers, social workers), seven-
teen were clerks and finance consultants, sixteen were factory workers, eighteen
were employed as housemaids, seventeen were postgraduate and PhD students,
sixty-three were housewives, and twenty-seven (twelve African immigrants and
fifteen Rom participants) were irregularly employed as nonskilled workers. The
western sample comprised 516 Italian participants (67.3% of the sample), liv-
ing in urban and rural areas, and engaged in a variety of traditional and modern
jobs. More specifically, the group included 150 factory workers, sixty-five office
employees, seventy production and sales managers, 103 postgraduate students and
researchers in the areas of mathematics, physics, and engineering, seventy-eight
craftsmen (prominently tailors, knitters, carpenters, goldsmiths, and hairdressers),
and fifty weavers running family textile enterprises. Among the factory workers,
fifty lived in an area of northwest Italy in which most families integrate wage with
the income derived from agriculture; they owned or had rented small land plots,
and devoted a relevant part of their time to farming.
Participants were administered the Flow Questionnaire (FQ; Delle Fave & Mas-
simini, 1988) and the Life Theme questionnaire (LT; Delle Fave, 2004; Delle Fave &
Massimini, 1988). The FQ consists of both scaled items and open-ended questions
inquiring about participants’ flow experience. In particular, participants are asked
to read quotations describing optimal experience, to report whether they have ever
had such experience, and, if so, to list the associated activities. Participants are then
invited to select from their list the activity associated with the most intense and
pervasive flow states, and to rate the related experience on 0–8 scaled items. Items
investigate the levels of challenges and skills perceived in the situation, as well as
the level of cognitive, affective, and motivational variables: involvement, wish to
do the activity, excitement, ease of concentration, enjoyment, concentration, relax-
ation, control of the situation, perception of clear feedback from the ongoing task
and of clear goals in performing it (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Csikszentmihalyi &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). The LT expands the focus on participants’ psychological
selection, posing a number of open-ended questions about positive and negative life
influences, current challenges, future goals, and major life accomplishments.
Data analysis highlighted specific features of flow activities and experience across
cultures and professions. Overall, the activity categories associated with flow were
substantially similar among western and nonwestern participants. The majority of
answers referred to leisure activities and productive tasks, and this trend was confirmed
in the distribution of the prominent optimal activities selected by the participants.
 Work, cultures, and the culture of work 163

TABLE 9.1 Percentage distribution of the activity categories associated with the most perva-
sive optimal experiences

Activity categories Western N a (%) Nonwestern N a (%)

Work 141 (32.19) 77 (36.32)

Study 31 (7.08) 14 (6.60)
Volunteering 5 (1.14) 1 (0.47)
Social relations 16 (3.65) 5 (2.36)
Leisure 202 (46.12) 74 (34.90)
Family interactions 29 (6.62) 22 (10.38)
Thoughts, introspection 5 (1.14) 8 (3.77)
Religious practices 6 (1.60) 10 (4.72)
Other 3 (0.69) 1 (0.47)
Total N 438 (100.0) 212 (100.0)
a
N of participants (each participant could select only one flow activity)

As reported in Table 9.1, work (including paid jobs, as well as unpaid activities
at home) and leisure (comprising sports, hobbies, reading, and media use) largely
predominated. A significant between-group difference was, however, detected con-
cerning leisure, quoted by a lower percentage of nonwestern participants (Fisher’s
exact test = 0.0069). This difference, consistent with previous studies (Delle Fave
et al., 2011), can be related to cultural variations in the amount of time devoted to
work and leisure, and in the availability of leisure opportunities. It can be also con-
nected to different conceptualizations of work and leisure (Delle Fave & Massimini,
1988; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990): for example, in traditional contexts work activities
are often not restricted to specifically identified spaces and timetables; they can
be shared with other family or community members, thus allowing for develop-
ment and implementation of social connections, and they serve a variety of needs,
ranging from biological survival to competence development and self-actualization
(Delle Fave & Bassi, 2014). By contrast, in industrial and postindustrial societies
work activities primarily take place in well-defined space and time compartments,
becoming synonymous with duty and constraint. People prominently look at work
as instrumental to earn a living, whereas the preferential domain to pursue full
self-actualization is represented by leisure, through which one can express and
develop personal talents and competences, and engage in creative activities.

Flow and the work paradox: recurrent phenomenon

or job-related feature?
Differences between work and leisure as perceived opportunities for flow were
identified by other researchers as well. These differences emerged in particular as
concerns the features of the flow experience associated with these two domains.
164 Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

Several studies highlighted that, during work, flow is characterized by significantly

high values of cognitive variables (e.g., concentration, control of the situation, clear
feedback from the activity), and perceived clear goals; however, variables related to
affect (e.g., enjoyment) and intrinsic motivation (e.g., wish to do the activity) score
below or around average (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989; Haworth & Hill, 1992;
Rheinberg, Manig, Kliegel, Engeser, & Vollmeyer, 2007). This phenomenon was
defined as the work paradox.
The work paradox also emerged from the studies conducted by our research
group (Delle Fave & Massimini, 2005) and from the data presented here. As shown
in Table 9.2, a comparison between flow at work and flow in other activities high-
lighted that, at the motivational level, work was associated with significantly higher
values of goal pursuit, but with lower values of intrinsic desirability. However, this
was true only of western participants. The detection of this cultural difference led
us to further explore the findings, taking into account the potential role of the
specific work tasks selected by the participants in shaping their flow experience.
The job variety that characterizes our sample allowed us to analyze flow experience
at work across occupations. This decision was also based on evidence obtained in
previous studies (Bassi & Delle Fave, 2012; Delle Fave & Massimini, 2003), showing

TABLE 9.2 Optimal experience associated with work and other activities among western and
nonwestern participants

Western participants Nonwestern participants

Work Other Z (p) Work Other Z (p)

(N=141)a (N=297)a (N=76)a (N=135)a

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Involvement 6.6 (1.3) 6.7 (1.5) 7.3 (1.2) 7.4 (1.2)

Clear feedback 7.0 (1.3) 6.7 (1.7) 7.4 (1.2) 7.2 (1.4)
Wish to do the 6.9 (1.6) 7.3 (1.4) Z=3.9, 7.1 (1.7) 7.4 (1.5)
activity p <.0001
Excitement 7.5 (1.1) 7.5 (1.0) 7.8 (0.7) 7.8 (0.7)
Ease of concentration 5.9 (2.5) 6.1 (2.4) 7.3 (1.5) 7.2 (1.5)
Enjoyment 6.9 (1.4) 6.9 (1.6) 7.6 (1.0) 7.5 (1.2)
Concentration 6.6 (1.6) 6.2 (2.0) 7.2 (1.2) 7.1 (1.5)
Relaxation 6.2 (2.2) 6.4 (2.1) 7.2 (1.5) 7.1 (1.8)
Clear goals 7.3 (1.2) 6.7 (1.9) Z=2.8, 7.7 (1.0) 7.4 (1.3) Z=2.1,
p <.006 p <.04
Control of situation 6.8 (1.4) 6.5 (1.8) 7.4 (1.1) 7.3 (1.2)
Challenges 6.7 (1.3) 6.5 (1.7) 6.7 (1.8) 6.1 (2.5)
Skills 6.8 (1.3) 6.4 (1.6) Z=2.3, 6.7 (1.6) 6.4 (1.9)
p <.03
a
N of participants
 Work, cultures, and the culture of work 165

that among highly skilled professionals, such as teachers and physicians, the levels of
intrinsic motivation and activity desirability associated with work tasks are high and
not significantly different from those reported in other flow activities. The work
paradox thus does not seem to apply to these professional categories.
Moving from these premises, we investigated which particular work activities
were selected as occasions for the most pervasive optimal experiences by the par-
ticipants in our widely heterogeneous sample.
As reported in Table 9.3, a significantly higher percentage of both western and
nonwestern participants (68.1% and 83.1% respectively) prominently referred to tra-
ditional work, such as farming, handicrafts, and housework (mainly cooking and
sewing), while modern office and factory work were selected by a minority of par-
ticipants in both groups (Fisher’s exact test = 0.0168). As shown in Table 9.3, during
traditional work activities flow was characterized by higher values of affective vari-
ables (excitement, enjoyment, and relaxation), and by a more autonomous pattern
of behavioral regulation (wish to do the activity and effortless concentration). These
results suggest that the work paradox can be a characterizing feature of factory and
office work, which indeed represent the vast majority of the occupations in which
this phenomenon was detected and subsequently confirmed in the flow literature.
These results also provide additional insight into the separation between work
and leisure domains characterizing industrial and postindustrial societies (Parker,
1997). Such separation surely calls into play social and organizational factors, but also
psychological ones. In particular, in traditional societies work provides individuals

TABLE 9.3 Optimal experience during traditional and modern work activities

Traditional work Modern work Z (p)

(N=160)a (N=58)a

M (SD) M (SD)

Involvement 7.0 (1.3) 6.7 (1.4)

Clear feedback 7.3 (1.1) 6.9 (1.6)
Wish to do the activity 7.2 (1.5) 6.3 (1.9) Z=3.0, p <.003
Excitement 7.7 (0.8) 7.2 (1.4) Z=3.0, p <.003
Ease of concentration 6.7 (2.0) 5.6 (2.7) Z=2.7, p <.007
Enjoyment 7.3 (1.1) 6.8 (1.6) Z=2.1, p <.04
Concentration 6.9 (1.5) 6.7 (1.6)
Relaxation 6.9 (1.7) 5.7 (2.5) Z=3.1, p <.003
Clear goals 7.5 (1.1) 7.3 (1.3)
Control of situation 7.1 (1.2) 6.7 (1.5)
Challenges 6.7 (1.5) 6.7 (1.4)
Skills 6.8 (1.4) 6.7 (1.4)
a
N of participants
166 Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

TABLE 9.4 Distribution of traditional and modern work activities selected as occasions of
pervasive optimal experiences across occupations

Artisans Weavers Factory workers Executives Clerks

Traditional work Na (%) 38 (56.7) 18 (48.6) 36 (26.2) 2 (3.7) 2 (3.4)

a
Modern work N (%) 1 (1.5) 1 (2.8) 21 (15.4) 14 (25.9) 7 (11.9)
a
Total flow at work N (%) 39 (58.2) 19 (51.4) 57 (41.6) 16 (29.6) 9 (15.3)
Total flow 67 (85.9) 37 (74.0) 137 (91.3) 54 (77.1) 59 (90.8)
a
N of participants (each participant could select only one flow activity)

with opportunities for flow experiences that are globally optimal, at the cognitive,
affective, and motivational levels. Traditional activities clearly differ according to the
local cultural heritage, but they all present common characteristics of complexity
and challenge. They require dexterity and imply a definite visible outcome (a crop,
a woolen sweater, a carved table). In modern jobs, the standardization of behavior
and of its products inevitably leads to restrictions in individual initiative and to a
decrease in the variation of activity structure and outcomes. Consumption prevails
on transformation and effective use of environmental resources (Oskamp, 2000). By
contrast, creativity, autonomy, and skill development favor optimal experiences at
work (Delle Fave et al., 2011).
These considerations are further supported by a closer examination of the flow
activities selected by a subsample of the western workers, sharing the same cultural
background but involved in different occupations, such as office and factory work, hand-
icrafts, and weaving (Table 9.4). Although the vast majority of participants in all groups
(ranging from 74 to 91%) reported optimal experiences in their lives, the percentage of
participants associating work with the most pervasive flow experiences steadily declined
from 58.2 for artisans to 15.3 for clerks. The predominance of traditional work activities
among factory workers is due to the answers provided by participants who, besides their
daily job as blue collars, derived part of their income from farming, classified as tradi-
tional work. Among women employed as factory workers, clerks, and executives the
traditional work activities associated with flow prominently included cooking.
The better quality of experience reported by participants during traditional work
tasks can be finally related to the value of these activities in relation to personal and
cultural meanings. Traditional jobs are often transmitted by parents or relatives, thus
contributing to the preservation and strengthening of family ties, as well as of the
workers’ personal and cultural identities (Nelson, LaBat, & Williams, 2005).

Work-related goals: a key component

of psychological selection
As reported in Table 9.2 and Table 9.3, the experience associated with work is over-
all characterized by high values of perceived goals across job categories. Pursuing
clear goals through the task at hand thus represents a core component of flow at
 Work, cultures, and the culture of work 167

TABLE 9.5 Percentage of participants who identified work as a goal and/or as an occasion
for pervasive flow

Work as occasion of Work not occasion of Total

pervasive flow N a (%) pervasive flow N (%)

Work as a goal 92 (42.2) 246 (44.8) 338

Work not a goal 126 (57.8) 303 (55.2) 429
Total 218 (100.0) 549 (100.0) 767
a
N of participants (each participant could select only one flow activity)

work. Moving from the momentary experience to the long-term perspective, the
specific role of work-related goals in orienting the lifelong process of psychological
selection was investigated in the present sample through the LT, by inviting partici-
pants to list their most important future goals. As shown in Table 9.5, 44.1% of the
participants in the total sample identified work as a relevant goal. This percentage
included both people who associated work with pervasive flow experiences and
people who did not. These results were confirmed also when the analyses were run
on the western and nonwestern subgroups separately. They suggest that the associa-
tion of work with flow is not a necessary prerequisite to the identification of work
as a goal.
These findings are consistent with those obtained through the Eudaimonic
and Hedonic Happiness Investigation, described in the previous pages (Delle Fave,
Wissing, et al., 2013), in which work was acknowledged as a prominent future
goal, second only to family, by participants across countries. The role of work as
a component of psychological selection can thus be related – on the one hand –
to the complex structure of some jobs and their potential in fostering flow through
the recruitment of individual attention and concentration. On the other hand, the
manifold roles of work in the lifelong perspective – as a culturally shared value, as a
means to satisfy family needs, and as a major pathway to achieve social integration –
can further strengthen its relevance for individual well-being (when it is associated
with flow) or counterbalance its structural and experiential limitations (when it is
not associated with flow).

Migration and work: promoting integration

through flow
In the last few decades the number of people leaving their native countries in search
of better life opportunities abroad has steadily increased. Finding a job is the first
step to settling down and earning a living in the new land. In the migration process,
individuals carry cultural values that deeply shape their expectations, adjustment
opportunities, and well-being in the new country. The new environment poses a
number of challenges, first of which is acculturation – that is, the process of change
168 Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

in collective and individual behaviors that allows a minority group to interact with
the norms and habits of a dominant social system (Berry & Sam, 1997).
Among the various acculturation strategies that have been identified (Berry,
1997), the most adaptive one is integration, through which acculturating individu-
als acquire values and behaviors of the dominant culture while preserving their
own traditions and habits. This strategy fosters flexibility and complexity in both
individuals and cultural systems (Delle Fave & Massimini, 1999).
A prerequisite of integration is sociocultural adjustment (Ward, 2001), by which
migrating individuals acquire new skills and behaviors through learning and inter-
action with host citizens. Key predictors of sociocultural adjustment are the length
of residence in the new country, the relationships with host nationals, the immigrant
status (having a residence permit versus being “illegal”), and the education level
(Ward & Kennedy, 1994; Zlobina, Basabe, Paez, & Furnham, 2006). Integration is
also related to psychological adaptation (Searle & Ward, 1990) – namely, individuals’
emotional well-being, satisfaction, and self-actualization.
In this domain, research has primarily focused on the mental and psychosomatic
disorders related to migration (Finch & Vega, 2003; Kazarian & Evans, 2001), while
a much more limited amount of studies have explored the positive consequences of
migration on perceived well-being (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Jaakkola, & Reuter,
2006; Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001). Among them, the studies
conducted by our research group on flow among immigrants cast some light on this
complex social and psychological phenomenon.
Migration indeed represents a fracture in individual daily habits and life trajec-
tory. As concerns flow, migrants may not be able to practice the activities they
associated with optimal experience in their native country. Nevertheless, the host
environment can provide new challenges, and thus new opportunities for flow that
can contribute to individuals’ well-being and successful acculturation (Delle Fave
et al., 2011; Fianco & Delle Fave, 2006). Results derived from first-generation immi-
grants settled in Italy from African, Asian, and Latin American countries, as well as
from Eastern Europe (Delle Fave & Bassi, 2009), underlined the role of the socio-
cultural components of adaptation in providing participants with opportunities to
experience flow. More specifically, and consistent with previous studies (Zlobina
et al., 2006), length of stay in Italy, immigrant status, cultural distance between the
homeland and the hosting country, and support from a social and family network
played a crucial role in this process. In addition, a pervasive component of socio-
cultural adaptation that emerged from our study was access to job opportunities.
Although participants’ main reason for migration was search for a job and higher
standard of living for themselves and their families, not all of them had achieved
this goal at the time they were enrolled in our study. Moreover, many participants
who could rely on a stable job – especially women from South America and Eastern
Europe – were occupied in activities characterized by lower skill complexity and
social status, compared to those they practiced in their homeland. This problem is
relatively common among migrants, and especially among women (Suto, 2009).
They are often employed in unskilled and part-time jobs, but they also frequently
 Work, cultures, and the culture of work 169

leave to their husbands the role of family earners, investing their resources in family
responsibilities and domestic chores (Meares, 2010; Purkayastha, 2005). This deci-
sion is partially related to the financial constraints that prevent immigrant families
from getting domestic help to manage housework and daily parental commitments.
In spite of these constraints, many of the participants were able to exploit their
jobs to acquire competences and build interpersonal relations facilitating their inte-
gration process at the linguistic, social, and cultural levels. This was, however, not
true of the African men included in the study, who earned a living through pre-
carious and temporary occupations not only different from the traditional work
activities they performed at home, but also low in complexity and requiring unspe-
cialized skills, thus preventing these participants from building new competencies
or refining existing ones. These differences in employment status were reflected
in the perceived opportunities for flow at work. While Indians, South Americans,
and Eastern Europeans prominently associated optimal experience with work tasks,
leisure was the major flow domain for Africans.
Although most participants’ work conditions were far from being adequate, the
results deriving from their answers to the Life Theme questionnaire showed that
work was globally perceived as an important current challenge and future life goal.
However, Africans quoted as their prominent goal finding a stable job in the short
term, whereas participants in other groups – who had already achieved a relatively
stable job position – mentioned long-term objectives, such as career advancement
or improvement of work conditions. For African participants finding a job repre-
sented a means to satisfy basic survival needs, a substantial prerequisite to pursue
the more complex and autonomously regulated goals identified by the other immi-
grants (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004).
Further evidence concerning, on the one hand, the role of work features in
shaping flow experience and, on the other hand, the manifold role of work for
migrants comes from the data collected among two groups of women working
in Italian hospitals as registered nurses, thirty-one Italians and twenty-five Eastern
Europeans. The large majority (fifty-two, 92.9%) reported flow in their lives. Out of
them, fourteen participants (26.9%) selected their job as opportunity for pervasive
optimal experiences; however, most of them belonged to the migrant group (ten
participants, 41.7% of the twenty-four Eastern Europeans who identified flow in
their lives), while only four were Italians (14.3% of the twenty-eight participants
reporting flow in this group). This difference was statistically significant (Fisher’s
exact test = 0.0332). As concerns the features of optimal experience reported at
work and during other activities, the findings presented in Table 9.6 confirm previ-
ous studies suggesting that the work paradox does not apply to highly complex and
socially relevant jobs. For these nurses, optimal experience at work was character-
ized by significantly higher levels of concentration and lower levels of relaxation,
compared with flow in other activities.
These findings are consistent with those obtained in a recent study conducted
among Finnish health professionals (Vivoll Straume & Vitterso, 2012), showing
that complex work tasks promote eudaimonic dimensions of well-being – such as
170 Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

TABLE 9.6 Optimal experience associated with work and other activities among nurses from
Italy and Eastern Europe

Work (N=14)a Other (N=38)a Z (p)

M (SD) M (SD)

Involvement 6.9 (1.1) 7.0 (1.3)

Clear feedback 7.0 (1.0) 6.3 (1.5)
Wish to do the activity 5.4 (2.7) 6.6 (2.0)
Excitement 7.2 (1.3) 7.5 (0.8)
Ease of concentration 6.4 (1.7) 5.5 (2.1)
Enjoyment 6.9 (1.3) 6.6 (1.4)
Concentration 7.4 (0.9) 5.5 (2.4) Z=3.0, p< .005
Relaxation 6.5 (1.2) 7.3 (1.0) Z=2.4, p < .02
Clear goals 7.4 (0.9) 6.6 (1.7)
Control of situation 6.4 (1.3) 6.1 (2.0)
Challenges 6.6 (1.1) 6.6 (1.5)
Skills 6.7 (1.2) 6.4 (1.6)
a
N participants (each participant could select only one flow activity)

inspiration and absorption. They also confirm the potential of work in promoting
well-being after migration, especially when job opportunities are adequate to the
migrants’ skills and competences.
No cultural difference was instead detected in the percentage of nurses report-
ing their job as a long-term goal (45.2% of the Italians and 32% of the Eastern
Europeans). This result further supports the findings derived from the international
studies described in the previous pages, showing the long-term role of work as
a component of the psychological selection process, not necessarily related to its
association with flow.

Conclusions
Work represents a highly challenging research topic in psychology, due to the vari-
ety of its manifestations, and its manifold valences at the individual, social, and
cultural levels. In this chapter we attempted to illustrate some of the aspects of work
that support its role in the promotion of individual and community well-being,
with specific reference to its potential in fostering flow and long-term goal setting.
We have also highlighted some of the still unexplored areas in the domain of
work psychology. In particular, very little information is presently available on
the work experience of people involved in traditional activities, such as farming and
handicrafts, while researchers have privileged studies conducted among employees
working in factories and tertiary sector companies, in which office and automated
 Work, cultures, and the culture of work 171

tasks are prominent. The international economic crisis affecting large productive
sectors (from industries to public services, finance, administration, and consulting)
and the increasing dissatisfaction with the rhythms and rituals of postindustrial life
manifested by citizens of affluent countries are bringing this neglected issue back
to the attention of psychologists. Gardening, handicrafts, and creative activities are
becoming increasingly popular as ways to escape the constraints of daily life, but
also as opportunities to strengthen individual identity and social belongingness, and
to identify new sources of income and survival (Dickie, 2003; Jalas, 2006). Yet psy-
chologists pay very little attention to the job and life experience of the millions of
people who, not only in distant countries and cultures but also in Europe, Northern
America, and Australia, invest their skills and resources in agriculture, handicrafts,
and other traditional occupations. The investigation of these topics, however, requires
broadening the “work culture” notion, and reintegrating in it a remarkable though
neglected component: the “workmanship of risk” (Schwalbe, 2010), as opposed to the
“workmanship of certainty,” that today’s crisis calls into play. The former is related to
the openness needed in the craft practice (referred to both material and intellectual
creations), which entails a creative and flexible interaction with both the raw materi-
als and the tools used to transform them into products – be they objects or symbolic
outcomes. The latter is related to the faithful reproduction of material or intellectual
objects, following specific rules that guarantee the outcome quality and characteris-
tics. This expansion in perspective is indeed necessary if we want to successfully cope
with the new challenges that the growing number of unemployed and disaffected
workers is posing to psychology researchers and clinical practitioners.
From a different perspective, the international economic crisis severely affecting
the industrial sector entails serious consequences for the blue-collar workers directly
employed in production tasks. Yet, within the broad domain of modern jobs, this
category of workers is substantially neglected by psychologists, in spite of its key
role in the industrial productivity chain. In the light of the social and economic
transformations taking place worldwide, a fairer and more exhaustive investigation
of the diversity of problems and resources characterizing the work context cannot
be further postponed.

References
Awad, I. (2009). The global economic crisis and migrant workers: Impact and response (2nd ed.).
Genève: International Labour Organization.
Bacon, C. (2005). Confronting the coffee crisis: Can fair trade, organic, and specialty coffees
reduce small-scale farmers vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua? World Development, 33,
497–511.
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 66, 26–44.
Bassi, M., & Delle Fave, A. (2012). Optimal experience among teachers: New insights into
the work paradox. Journal of Psychology, 146, 533–557.
Bassi, M., Ferrario, N., Ba, G., Delle Fave, A., & Viganò, C. (2012). Quality of experience
during psychosocial rehabilitation: A real-time investigation with experience sampling
method. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 35, 447–453.
172 Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

Bates, D. G., & Plog, F. (1990). Cultural anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Becchetti, L., Castriota, S., & Solferino, N. (2011). Development projects and life satisfac-
tion: An impact study on fair trade handicraft producers. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12,
115–138.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An Inter-
national Review, 46, 5–34.
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H.
Segall, & C. Kagitçibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology.Vol. 3: Social behavior and
applications (pp. 1–49). Needam Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Boerema, C., Russell, M., & Aguilar, A. (2010). Sewing in the lives of immigrant women.
Journal of Occupational Science, 17, 78–84.
Bond, M. H. (2013). The pan-culturality of well-being: But how does culture fit into the
equation? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 158–162.
Bringsén, A., Ejlertsson, G., & Andersson, I. H. (2011). Flow situations during everyday
practice in a medical hospital ward. Results from a study based on experience sampling
method. BMC Nursing, 10, 3. doi:10.1186/1472-6955-10-3
Brookfield, H., & Gyasi, E. A. (2009). Academics among farmers: Linking intervention to
research. Geoforum, 40, 217–227.
Caddy, L., Crawford, F., & Page, A. C. (2012). Painting a path to wellness: Correlations
between participating in a creative activity group and improved measured mental out-
come. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 19, 327–333.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. New York: Wiley.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (Eds.) (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological
studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Massimini, F. (1985). On the psychological selection of bio-cultural
information. New Ideas in Psychology, 3, 115–138.
Delle Fave, A. (2004). A feeling of wellbeing in learning and teaching. In M. Tokoro &
L. Steels (Eds.), A learning zone of one’s own (pp. 97–110). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Delle Fave, A. (2007). Individual development and community empowerment: Suggestions
from studies on optimal experience. In J. Haworth & G. Hart (Eds.), Well-being: Individual,
community, and societal perspectives (pp. 41–56). London: Palgrave McMillan.
Delle Fave, A. (2009). Optimal experience and meaning: Which relationship? Psychological
Topics: Special Issue on Positive Psychology, 18, 285–302.
Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2009). Sharing optimal experiences and promoting good com-
munity life in a multicultural society. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 280–289.
Delle Fave, A., & Bassi, M. (2014). Work and the dynamics of development: An integrated
model. In C. Biron, R. J. Burke, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Creating healthy workplaces: Stress
reduction, improved well-being, and organizational effectiveness (pp. 37–50). Franham, UK: Gower.
Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Wissing, M., & Vella-Brodrick, D. (2013). Sources and motives for
personal meaning in adulthood. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 517–529.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1988). Modernization and changing contexts of flow in
work and leisure. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experi-
ence: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 193–213). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1999). Inter-cultural relations: A challenge for psychology.
In A. Delle Fave & F. Meli (Eds.), Modernization and cultural identity (pp. 11–22). Milan:
Edizioni Dell’Arco.
 Work, cultures, and the culture of work 173

Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2003). Optimal experience in work and leisure among
teachers and physicians: Individual and bio-cultural implications. Leisure Studies, 22,
323–342.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (2005). The investigation of optimal experience and apathy:
Developmental and psychosocial implications. European Psychologist, 10, 264–274.
Delle Fave, A., Massimini, F., & Bassi, M. (2011). Psychological selection and optimal experience
across cultures: Social empowerment through personal growth. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
Delle Fave, A. Wissing, M. Brdar, I. Vella-Brodrick, D., & Freire. T. (2013). Perceived meaning
and goals in adulthood: Their roots and relation with happiness. In A. Waterman (Ed.),
The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonic functioning (pp. 227–247).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dickie, V. A. (2003). Establishing worker identity: A study of people in craft work. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 250–362.
Doshi, B. V. (1990). Planning for a community: Vidyadhar Nagar. International Social Science
Journal, 42, 387–394.
Emmons, R. A. (2005). Striving for the sacred: Personal goals, life meaning and religion.
Journal of Social Issues, 61, 731–745.
Fianco, A., & Delle Fave, A. (2006). Donne migranti e qualità dell’esperienza soggettiva: Uno
studio con experience sampling method [Migrant women and quality of subjective expe-
rience: A study with experience sampling method]. Passaggi, 11, 101–122.
Finch, B. K., Vega, A. W. (2003). Acculturation stress, social support, and self-rated health
among Latinos in California. Journal of Immigrant Health, 5, 109–117.
Gowlland, G. (2012). Learning craft skills in China: Apprenticeship and social capital in and
artisan community of practice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43, 358–371.
Griffiths, S. (2008). The experience of creative activity as a treatment medium. Journal of
Mental Health, 17, 49–63.
Harris, E. (2008). The meanings of craft to an occupational therapist. Australian Occupational
Therapy Journal, 55, 133–142.
Haworth, J., & Hill, S. (1992). Work, leisure and psychological well-being in a sample of
young adults. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 147–160.
Hedden, T., Park, D. C., Nisbett, R. E., Ji, L., Jing, Q., & Jiao, S. (2002). Cultural variation in ver-
bal versus spatial neuropsychological function across the lifespan. Neuropsychology, 16, 65–73.
Hektner, J., Schmidt, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measur-
ing the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Herskovitz, M. J. (1948). Man and his works: The science of cultural anthropology. New York: Knopf.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
London: SAGE.
Jalas, M. (2006). Making time: The art of loving wooden boats. Time & Society, 15, 343–363.
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Jaakkola, M., & Reuter, A. (2006). Perceived discrimination,
social support networks, and psychological well-being among three immigrant groups.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 293–311.
Kagitçibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C.
Kagitçibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol. 3: Social Behavior and Applica-
tions (pp. 1–49). Needam Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Karides, M. (2005). Whose solution is it? Development ideology and the work of
micro-entrepreneurs in Caribbean context. International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy, 25, 30–62.
Kazarian, S. S., & Evans, D. R. (2001). Handbook of cultural health psychology. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variants in value orientation. New York: Row Peterson.
174 Antonella Delle Fave and Marta Bassi

Markus, R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Massimini, F., & Calegari, P. (1979). Il contesto normativo sociale [The social normative context].
Milan: Angeli.
Massimini, F., & Delle Fave, A. (2000). Individual development in a bio-cultural perspective.
American Psychologist, 55, 24–33.
Meares, C. (2010). A fine balance: Women, work and skilled migration. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 33, 473–481.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The construction of meaning through vital
engagement. In C. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing (pp. 83–104). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association Books.
Nederlof, E. S., & Dangbégnon, C. (2007). Lessons from farmer-oriented research, experi-
ence from a West African soil fertility management project. Agriculture and Human Values,
24, 369–387.
Nelson, N. J., LaBat, K. L., & Williams, G. M. (2005). More than “just a little hobby”:
Women and textile art in Ireland. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28, 328–342.
Oskamp, S. (2000). A sustainable future for humanity? American Psychologist, 55, 496–508.
Page, K. M., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2009). The “what”, “why” and “how” of employee
well-being. Social Indicators Research, 90, 441–458.
Parker, S. (1997). Work and leisure futures: Trends and scenarios. In J. T. Haworth (Ed.),
Work, leisure, and well-being (pp. 180–191). London: Routledge.
Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration,
and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493–510.
Portisch, A. O. (2009). Techniques as a window onto learning, Kazakh women’s domestic
textile production in Western Mongolia. Journal of Material Culture, 14, 471–493.
Prentice, R. (2012). “No one ever showed me nothing”: Skill and self-making among Trini-
dadian garment workers. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43, 400–414.
Purkayastha, B. (2005). Skilled migration and cumulative disadvantage: The case of highly
qualified Asian Indian immigrant women in the US. Geoforum, 36, 181–196.
Reynolds, F. (2009). Taking up arts and crafts in later life: A qualitative study of the expe-
riential factors that encourage participation in creative activities. The British Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 72, 393–400.
Reynolds, F., Vivat, B., & Prior, S. (2008). Women’s experiences of increasing subjective
well-being in CFS/ME through leisure-based arts and crafts activities: A qualitative study.
Disability and Rehabilitation: An International, Multidisciplinary Journal, 30, 1279–1288.
Rheinberg, F., Manig, Y., Kliegel, R., Engeser, S., & Vollmeyer, R. (2007). Flow bei der Arbeit,
doch Glück in der Freizeit. Zielausrichtung, Flow und Glückgefühle [Flow during work
but happiness during leisure time: Goals, flow experience and happiness]. Zeitschrift für
Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 3, 105–115.
Rodríguez, A. M., Salanova, M., Cifre, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). When good is good:
A virtuous circle of self-efficacy and flow at work among teachers. Revista de Psicología
Social, 26, 427–441.
Salanova, M., Bakker, A., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence for a gain spiral of
personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 1–22.
Sayce, S., Ackers, P., & Greene, A. M. (2007). Work restructuring and changing craft identity:
The tale of the disaffected weavers (or what happens when the rug is pulled from under
your feet). Work, Employment, and Society, 21, 85–101.
Schwalbe, M. (2010). In search of craft. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 107–111.
Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment
during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 449–464.
 Work, cultures, and the culture of work 175

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of
goal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue
it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475–486.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1999). Social psychology across cultures. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Soni-Sinha, U. (2011). Invisible women: A study of jewellery production in West Bengal,
India. Journal of Gender Studies, 20, 105–123.
Suto, M. (2009). Compromised careers: The occupational transition of immigration and
resettlement. Work – A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation, 32, 417–429.
Triandis, H. C., Chan, D.K.S., Bhawuk, D., Iwao, S., & Sinha, J.B.P. (1995). Multimethod
probes of allocentrism and idiocentrism. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 461–480.
Vaalsiner, J. (2007). Personal culture and conduct of value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and
Cultural Psychology, 1, 59–65.
Vivoll Straume, L., & Vitterso, J. (2012). Happiness, inspiration and the fully functioning
person: Separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in the workplace. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 7, 387–398.
Ward, C. (2001). The A, B, Cs of acculturation. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of
culture and psychology (pp. 411–445). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and
socio-cultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Inter-
cultural Relations, 18, 329–343.
Wherry, F. F. (2008). Global markets and local crafts: Thailand and Costa Rica compared. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
Zlobina, A., Basabe, N., Paez, D., & Furnham, A. (2006). Sociocultural adjustment of immi-
grants: Universal and group predictors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30,
195–211.
10
WILL WORK EVER
BE FUN AGAIN?
Sam Spurlin and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

What is work?
The question seems purely rhetorical – immersed as we are everyday in the hustle
and bustle of workers around us, from the sanitation truck loading our trash at
dawn to the waitresses in the restaurant at night; and in between these our own
work at desks or in schools, hospitals, construction sites, or boardrooms – we
certainly know what work is. Yet as with many other aspects of life, familiarity
with a given phenomenon does not imply understanding it. So is it with work:
generally we assume that it is a necessary evil one has to put up with, something
to get rid of as soon as possible so we can enjoy ourselves doing something else –
watching TV, playing an electronic game, or, if nothing better is available, gazing
outside the window.
Most scientific analysis of the work experience, conducted by psychologists or
sociologists, takes the existence of work as a given, and tries to understand how it
affects the individuals who are doing it. Until recently, however, little systematic
attention has been paid to what is actually meant by “work.” In this chapter, we shall
start by taking a closer look at some of the characteristics that make work either a
positive or a negative human experience, before considering suggestions for imple-
menting conditions leading to more positive work experiences.
First of all, work is not a stable, unchanging process. Under favorable conditions
it can be the best part of life; under badly designed social conditions it can be an
almost unendurable burden. We do not have any way of knowing how our ances-
tors living 20,000 years ago or earlier experienced work. But the work of anthro-
pologists who have observed contemporary groups of hunter-gatherers have often
remarked that in these “primitive” societies men and women seem to enjoy what-
ever work they have to do to survive – and that for them, the distinction between
what we would call “work” and what we would call “leisure” – such as dancing,
 Will work ever be fun again? 177

playing music, telling stories around the campfire – was practically nonexistent
(Evans-Pritchard, 1974; Sahlins, 1972; Turnbull, 1961). A man on a hunt did not
think of himself as living any differently than when he was beating the drums at the
evening dance. Both the “work” and the music were expressions of different aspects
of his selfhood, motivated by real needs he could not help feeling.
It took a long time for work to become an alienated experience. What made it so
was the evolution of technology that allowed people to accumulate food like grains
and cereals, which could be stored without spoilage; in turn, this allowed some sec-
tions of the population to become full-time soldiers, others to farm full-time, or to
become masons, carpenters, servants, and scribes. Society turned from a democratic
group made of people who all did the same thing for a living to an increasingly dif-
ferentiated workforce held in place by the armies of despotic tyrants.
As technologies advanced, so did opportunities for the exploitation of labor.
Some of the worst cases occurred during the Industrial Revolution of the eigh-
teenth and nineteenth centuries, when the small farmers and craftsmen of England,
Germany, the United States, and pretty much elsewhere in the “developed world”
were no longer able to make a living selling their products against the bigger
and faster machines that took over the economy. It was quite usual for a former
farm-boy not quite eight years old in Manchester in the 1700s to have to get out
of bed by three or four in the morning, rush to the cotton-mills without breakfast,
and then work for ten or twelve hours, stoking the furnaces that provided steam
for the mechanical weaving looms. If the boy was lucky, he lived to become a
man; however, for him “work” would remain anathema forever (Scitovsky, 1976;
Thompson 1963).
Fortunately, the labor movements across the industrialized world eventually
redressed some of the most inhuman aspects of this situation. It still exists in coun-
tries recently colonized by the expansion of the capitalist economy, like Indone-
sia or the Philippines. But by and large, even though most of the workers of the
industrial world cannot experience their work as an extension of what is best in
themselves – as a hunter or a farmer could – the conditions under which they work
are immeasurably better than what they have been in some of the worst periods of
human history.
In reality some of the most satisfying and meaningful moments of life happen
when we are working (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1968).
The reason for it is not difficult to find. Living organisms are built for extracting
energy from the environment, and when they are allowed to do it well, they usu-
ally feel a deep sense of satisfaction, or even enjoyment. Bees living in a mountain
meadow full of flowers might lazily flit in the sun, while still filling their hive with
fine nectar. An arctic wolf might have to travel exhausting trails for many days and
never find any food that it needs for its survival. But no matter how hard an animal
has to work, it is difficult to say that it finds the struggle stressful or boring. In fact,
most animals – at least those that are close enough to us to observe and interpret –
are at their best when engaged in what we would call “work” – that is, when they
practice the activity that makes it possible for them to survive.
178 Sam Spurlin and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

Thinkers across the ages have remarked that living things are at their best when
they do what they specifically adapted to do. The poet and philosopher Dante
Alighieri expressed this idea best, about 700 years ago:

For in every action . . . the main intention of the agent is to express his own
image; thus it is that every doer, whenever he does, enjoys (delectatur) the
doing. Because everything that is, desires to be, in doing the doer unfolds his
being, and so enjoyment naturally follows.
(Alighieri, 1921 [1317] Book 1, Chap. 13, our translation)

In a less poetic vein, the recently developed discipline of positive psychology

is reaching similar conclusions. Individuals have different strengths – twenty-four
according to Peterson and Seligman (2004) – and when they are using their strengths
they not only are more efficient but also feel more positive moods. A good example
was quoted in the recent obituary of Richard Grossman, a physician specializing in
the treatment of burn victims, whose “fierce dedication” to his work and the new
techniques he developed for alleviating the pain of his patients had become legend-
ary. When he was asked what led him to become so addicted to such grueling work,
he did not mention the good he was accomplishing, but simply answered, “You
develop a skill, and you want to use it” (Nelson, 2014). Dante Alighieri would have
understood. But this is true not only of professionals or other fortunate individuals.
People involved in seemingly simple farming chores, who apparently would have
very little to enjoy about their work, are often as eloquent about what they do for a
living as a poet or a physician. “I still take care of the cows and tend the orchard,”
says a sixty-two-year-old woman living in the Italian Alps. “I feel special satisfaction
in caring for the plants: I like to see them grow day by day. It is very beautiful.” Or, a
fifty-year-old farmer from the same village: “For me to work means taking care of
the fields and the animals. Especially the animals . . . I had other jobs in France, but
I am glad I came back . . . I like to be close to them. It gives me a lot of satisfaction”
(Delle Fave & Massimini, 1988, p. 197, 199).
And yet, surveys around the world keep showing that “work” is often disliked
and rarely found satisfying by most adults. Despite improved working conditions,
something is still clearly lacking. It is still very rare for workers to feel that their job
is an expression of their best qualities, that it is a meaningful activity, that it is fun.
Where can we look for ideas that can change this state of affairs?

Reconstructing enjoyable work

Autonomy at work has emerged as one of the main variables responsible for posi-
tive organizational outcomes. Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000)
and the job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) both include it as
a component of their respective models. In terms of self-determination theory,
autonomy is included as a basic component of motivation along with relatedness and
competence. The theory has been productively used as a basis and justification in
 Will work ever be fun again? 179

many organizational studies seeking to unravel the connections between individual

motivation and positive organizational outcomes (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Greguras &
Diefendorff, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
The job characteristics model provides a framework for thinking about the rela-
tionship that connects individuals to the specific characteristics of jobs. Auton-
omy is one of five characteristics that Hackman and Oldham include in their
model. Nielsen and Cleal (2010) showed that the core job characteristics included
in the job characteristics model – including autonomy – are positively related to
work-related flow. Additionally, Saavedra and Kwun (2000) have linked autonomy
to positive affect at work, and Fried and Ferris (1987) have made a connection
between autonomy and motivation. Autonomy orientation and autonomy support
within an organization have also been linked to an increase in prosocial activities
(Gagné, 2003). More generally, Demerouti (2006) has shown that motivating job
characteristics (including autonomy) are positively related with flow at work and
that conscientiousness moderates the relationship between flow at work and job
performance.
While there are certainly individual differences that make autonomy more
salient to some people than to others (Ryan & Deci, 2006), it has been well estab-
lished that it is often a vital trait of engaged, motivated, and productive employees
(Spector, 1986; Stone, Deci, & Ryan, 2009). In addition to the support offered by
several decades of organizational psychology research, the importance of auton-
omy is spreading across the public consciousness as well. Several organizational
trends highlight its importance across industries. For example, many companies are
embracing the cost-saving benefits of remote and virtual teams. Allowing employ-
ees to work from home and utilizing information technology that makes immediate
communication among dispersed teams possible help companies attract the best tal-
ent. For many employees, the option of working from home full- or part-time is a
crucial consideration when looking at available jobs. Even within more traditional
organizations there has been a movement toward self-managing teams, open floor
plan offices, and results-only work environments (ROWE) – all of which place a
greater focus on autonomy in making decisions about work.
There is also a growing class of workers who are forgoing traditional employment
entirely and crafting independent careers built around their own entrepreneurial
efforts. Entrepreneurship is growing in popularity, as success stories like Facebook
and the start-up culture of Silicon Valley convince more and more people to try
building their own product or service instead of working for someone else. Even
freelancing, traditionally viewed as the unfortunate result of a weak labor market or
the inability to land a full-time job, is becoming an important part of the economy
and a career many people are consciously choosing and embracing. In each of these
cases, increase in autonomy is perhaps the hallmark characteristic that best describes
the reason why this is happening in each of these organizational activities.
The impulse may be to assume that an increase in autonomy across the board,
from traditional employees and organizational structures to the growth of inde-
pendent work, is an unquestionable step in a positive direction. As Deci and Ryan
180 Sam Spurlin and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

have clearly articulated in their SDT, autonomy (along with relatedness and com-
petency) is one of the key motivational factors. However, one should also analyze
the flip side of this expansion in autonomy. By definition, greater autonomy means
a reduction in supervision and management. In a world where workers are given
more autonomy and responsibility can productivity be kept high, quotas met, and
standards maintained? If greater autonomy leads to more motivated and productive
employees, then why hasn’t this change happened already?
It’s obviously a gross oversimplification to view an increase in autonomy as a
cure-all for organizational and economic woes. There is a necessary role for manage-
ment, leadership, and supervision in most, if not all, industries. However, the increase
in autonomy that is being viewed across the spectrum of productive activity, from self-
managing manufacturing teams to white-collar telecommuters working from home
offices, to entrepreneurship, and to the individuals selling their experience and skills
on a shifting basis as freelancers, cannot be denied. How can this trend be effectively
used to not only increase work and life satisfaction of workers but also allow orga-
nizations to be productive and profitable? Do these two forces, employee well-being
and profitability, have to be in opposition to each other?
In a world where autonomy is moving toward a more primary role in the way we
think about how jobs and organizations are structured, we are suggesting that flow
will play a growing and important role. Workers who are given more autonomy
in the way they approach and complete their work will have more control over how
they can find flow at work. Some who enjoy working alone will have a chance to
do so; those who enjoy working early in the morning can wake up early and quit at
midday; those who hate some aspect of their job might have a chance to delegate it
to someone who enjoys doing it.
Workers who are in control of how to do their job are likely to spend more of
their time at work in flow, be more engaged in what they do, and work at their
peak capacity. Being in flow while doing your primary job is likely to set off a posi-
tive cascade where increasing challenges must be found to match increasing skills.
This constant positive pressure is what should keep productivity high, quotas and
standards met, and workers satisfied, happy, and committed to their organizations.
Very simply, a fully engaged worker is not looking to shirk responsibilities, steal time
from the organization, or otherwise find ways to cut corners. When it becomes a
flow experience, work becomes more like a game – a game where cheating is not
an option, because it would destroy the point of the activity. Challenges are sought,
skills are consciously developed, and job tasks and responsibilities are tweaked to
allow individuals to lose themselves completely in the task at hand.
The growing trend of autonomy in the workplace may be a major contribut-
ing factor to people finding work fun again. With flow rising to an increased
level of importance as part of a more autonomous work style, what is the role of
the organization in this new reality? One could be tempted to simply argue that
an organization that wants to harness the best of its more autonomous employees
must simply get out of the way and let them do what they must to find greater flow
in work. However, that would be an oversimplified way to conceptualize the role of
 Will work ever be fun again? 181

the organization. Instead, organizations can take active roles in providing the envi-
ronment, resources, and support that allow workers to find flow more easily.
To start, this could simply be providing professional development opportunities
to teach employees about how to find enjoyment in their work. The first step to
employees finding more flow in work is increasing their understanding of what it
is and how to find it. Secondly, organizations can explicitly support employees by
talking about flow-inducing and flow-blocking components of the work during
performance reviews and other opportunities where managers or leaders can hear
from employees. Managers can help employees figure out ways to overcome the
parts of their job that seem to be resulting in boredom, anxiety, or any other nega-
tive states. Finally, organizations can provide the resources to allow employees the
opportunity to develop their skills and provide more challenging opportunities. A
likely consequence of being in flow is that the skills of employees will constantly
grow. In order to remain in flow, employees need to have greater challenges on
which they can utilize their increasing skills. Organizations that fail to provide for
the growth of their employees will likely experience an unmotivated workforce as
boredom and apathy set in.

Building flow into the future of work

We know that work is trending toward greater autonomy in many different ways.
Traditional organizations are frequently adopting flatter hierarchies and giving real
decision-making authority to self-managing teams. Outside the world of organi-
zational work, independent workers, such as freelancers, solopreneurs, and contrac-
tors, are creating viable and rewarding careers. Given this increase in autonomy
across various work modalities, how can individuals use flow theory to increase
their well-being at work?
This question falls under the purview of job crafting research. Job crafting
refers to the idea that individuals can deliberately and consciously alter their jobs
in ways that align better with their skills and interests (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001). A robust body of research has emerged from this initial idea, with researchers
investigating the role personality plays in predicting job crafting behaviors (Bakker,
Tims, & Derks, 2012), the impact of job crafting on the proactive behaviors of
dyads (Bakker, Rodríguez-Muñoz, & Sanz Vergel, 2016), the relationship between
job crafting and job performance (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015), its impact on
meaningfulness (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013) and work engagement, to
name but a few areas of inquiry (Tims, Bakker, Derks, & van Rhenen, 2013). The
goal of this chapter is not to comprehensively review the extant job crafting litera-
ture but to simply ask about the inevitable importance of this concept in the highly
autonomous future we are both predicting and already observing. What does job
crafting based on flow look like in a world where workers have ever-increasing
autonomy over the what, where, and how of work?
There are three major components to keep in mind when trying to create the
possibility of finding flow in any activity: clear goals and a sense of progress, prompt
182 Sam Spurlin and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

and appropriate feedback, and a balance between challenge and skill (Csikszentmih-
alyi, 1990). Having clear goals allows an individual to have a sense of purpose while
working. Immediate feedback allows for the adjustment of effort toward an overall
sense of progress. Finally, the balance between challenge and skill allows an indi-
vidual to work without entering the realm of anxiety (when the situation is more
challenging than the current skill level will tolerate) or boredom (when the situa-
tion is less challenging than the current skill level). In the world of highly autono-
mous work, individuals have control over how they approach and structure their
work and environment to support these three conditions of the flow experience.

Goals and progress

The first condition for having flow at work is the ability to set one’s goals – not
necessarily the long-range goals, but the moment-by-moment goals that need to
be met as the task proceeds in order to achieve the overall goal of the enterprise.
In every activity we have studied, the flow experienced by the actor is contingent
not on the overall goal but on the enjoyment experienced from overcoming the
obstacles presented by the task along the way. The main enjoyment of a musician
does not come from reaching the end of the song he is playing, but by playing each
note and each chord as well as he can. The main enjoyment of a rock climber usu-
ally comes from each move, each small progress she makes on the rock, not from
reaching the end of the climb. Similarly, to improve the quality of the work experi-
ence what matters most is not the ultimate goal of the task but how we can organize
the ways needed to reach it.
In any job, there are several variables that can be modified so as to define more
clearly how the task ought to be done. The first, of course, is what product or
service the worker is expected to provide. This decision in a contemporary work
setting run along traditional lines is likely to remain a top-down decision dictated
by management and unions, and not directly by the worker himself. However, the
details of how the task is to be accomplished leave an enormous latitude to the
worker. And, as the architect Mies van der Rohe used to say, “God is in the details.”
In the first place, as far as the worker is concerned, the goal might be very differ-
ent from what the job description stipulates. As Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001)
have shown, one cleaning woman at a hospital might describe her task as keeping the
patient’s bed and bathroom clean, while another hired to do the same job describes it
as making the patient happy and comfortable in her hospital room. Not surprisingly,
the second woman is likely to find her job more challenging and rewarding – even
though she essentially goes through the same motions as the first one.
Middle-level managers often report that what they like least about their job is hav-
ing to turn in weekly written reports to their superiors, which are time-consuming
to write, boring to read, and rarely noticed or commented upon by the boss. It does
not take too much effort, however, to make these managers see that if they redefine their
task as that of writing a little essay that concisely but accurately describes what
their team has accomplished, and turn the routine report into an elegant personal
 Will work ever be fun again? 183

statement, then the dread task becomes a win-win proposition: the writer will enjoy
it more, and so will the reader. Perhaps the report will even lead to some actionable
improvement in the workflow of the organization.
In traditional organizational contexts goals were usually handed down from an
authority figure or supervisory position. Tasks were clear and goals were clearly
defined every step of the way. Progress against some sort of externally imposed
quota was the primary concern for both management and the employee. However,
as autonomy increases across many work modalities this highly directed and regi-
mented approach to goals and progress is shifting to the purview of the individual
worker or self-managed team. How are decisions about goals made when an increase
in autonomy means there is no longer a boss or supervisor dictating specific goals for
employees to execute?
Self-leadership, the process by which individuals control their own behavior
through behavioral and cognitive strategies, may become a much more prominent
factor in the highly autonomous work of the future (Manz, 1986). Self-leadership is
generally broken into three types: behavior-focused strategies, natural reward strate-
gies, and cognitive thought pattern strategies. These strategies all revolve around
the conscious decisions individuals make about how to structure and interact with
their work and environment in order to achieve their goals. In a work environ-
ment where autonomy is very prevalent the successful utilization of self-leadership
strategies becomes even more important. Breevaart, Bakker, and Demerouti (2014)
found support for this concept with a study that showed maternity nurses who used
daily self-leadership behaviors had greater work engagement via the mechanism of
greater resourcefulness of the daily work environment (i.e., more skill variety, feed-
back, and developmental opportunities).
Individuals need to be able to set their own goals and gauge their progress without
the guiding hand of an external supervisor. Knowledge of flow and the conditions that
lead to it becomes a powerful piece of knowledge for the independent worker trying
to figure out how to best work with little supervision and a seemingly endless array
of possibilities in terms of strategies and behavior. Flow is found as goals are set so as
to provide a sense of progress while working in a highly autonomous environment.
For example, the solopreneur who can break a nebulous goal, like “Start a profit-
able company,” into concrete and ultimately doable goals is likely to find more flow
than the individual who has not clearly defined any specific goals. This goal setting
and progress checking must be an individually motivated activity in a work envi-
ronment where supervision is limited. Without it the pervading feeling of workers
in the future, regardless of specific industry, is likely to be one of dull frustration as
they encounter amorphous goal after amorphous goal.

Feedback
Another primary component of finding flow is timely feedback. Immediate feed-
back allows the individual to make slight alterations to behavior that guide progress.
For the flow-engaged rock climber that feedback is simply the fact they are still
184 Sam Spurlin and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

clinging to the rock face and making progress toward the summit. For the pianist,
the feedback of hearing a wrong note allows changes to be made and skills devel-
oped. For the highly supervised worker, this feedback may come in the form of
praise or criticism from an ever-vigilant boss, customers, or coworkers. True, in the
world of highly autonomous work, external feedback is often lacking.
In many cases, the sources of feedback are highly dependent on the type of work.
In manufacturing and other industries where physical products are manipulated and
created, feedback can be generated visually or through quality control processes.
Highly skilled workers may be able to create feedback for themselves by simply
observing the final product. In a modern manufacturing facility the assembly line
approach may divorce the individual worker from any sense of actionable feedback
because the result of their work is not clearly observable and the overall task identity
is nonexistent. For this reason many manufacturing facilities have shifted production
from a pure division of labor model to self-managed teams that are involved in pro-
duction from the beginning to the end. Teams of this nature can receive the feedback
of observing and testing the final product, which provides valuable information for
future work, or from the other team members (e.g., Bakker, 2005; Walker, 2010).
It is clear how making things can provide tangible sources of feedback, but what
about the realm of knowledge work? Knowledge workers rarely produce physical
products and can spend the entirety of their workday sitting in front of comput-
ers. In this context, feedback needs to be generated by the individual. The ultimate
source of feedback is that which is generated by the expert who is competent to
judge what it takes to do his job well. A master worker knows when he or she is
creating excellent or mediocre work. In a highly autonomous work environment,
this master worker has the freedom to monitor his or her physical and mental
energy. Knowing when work is beginning to suffer and taking the proper course
of action to rectify the slip in quality, whether taking a power nap or moving to a
less taxing activity, are the mark of a master worker. Master workers are able to find
flow in their work because they can find real-time, meaningful feedback on their
own progress. When the feedback begins to show a decline in quality, autonomous
workers can decide how to best use their time and attention to be productive. Feed-
back is no longer the purview of the higher levels of the organizational hierarchy,
but an intra-individual process for making decisions about how to work.

Balancing challenge and skill

In order to find flow one must find the balance between the perceived opportunities
for action – or challenge – an activity offers and the skills related to that activity
one has at one’s disposal. Autonomy in work provides a great amount of leeway
for making adjustments to bring these two characteristics into alignment. Whereas
low-autonomy work situations often result in individuals having much greater skill
than needed for a particular situation, thus resulting in boredom, high autonomy
allows individuals to tweak the amount of perceived challenge and ideally find flow
in a larger proportion of their work.
 Will work ever be fun again? 185

Finding the flow “channel” and staying in it for as long as possible has the added
bonus of allowing the individual to improve his or her skill in a certain domain. As
workers improve their skills, they must find greater challenges in order to continue
experiencing flow. Many nonautonomous work situations do not give individuals
an opportunity to increase the challenge of their work once they have acquired the
necessary amount of skill to no longer make it a flow activity. On the other hand, a
highly autonomous job, whether working for an organization or as an independent
professional, may allow the individual to seek out and engage with higher-challenge
situations as they develop their skills.
For example, a new digital design freelancer may find the process of completing
simple logo creation assignments a very challenging endeavor. The process of find-
ing a small client, such as a local retail store, developing a logo, incorporating feed-
back, and eventually delivering a final product may be incredibly flow-inducing.
However, as the freelancer gains skill in each of these areas he may feel compelled
to find more challenging assignments and larger clients in the future. By noticing
when he is and is not experiencing flow in his current work, he can make better
decisions about how to grow his business and engage in more challenging, and
ultimately more rewarding, work.
To remain in flow, a person should not be distracted by stimulation that is irrel-
evant to the task at hand. Some people can concentrate better when they work
alone in a quiet and neutral space, while others are more efficient in focusing when
there are people moving around and there is background noise. A one-size-fits-all
workplace is certainly easier to set up and probably cheaper, but is likely to waste
a great deal of the attention of the workers – which after all, is the most important
asset the organization possesses – distracting them with boredom induced by soli-
tude, or with anxiety due to unexpected social intrusions. The same applies to the
surroundings: some persons can concentrate better in minimalist spaces without
any visual distraction; others can focus better amid the clutter of personal objects
and images.
Applying the perspective of flow theory to the workplace of the future suggests
one basic conclusion: in order to achieve the best results, we should create produc-
tive organizations that can make the best use of the psychic energy of its members,
while at the same time endeavoring to make the process of work as enjoyable,
meaningful, and engaging as possible. If the worker experiences flow at work, he or
she will focus mental energy on the task – thus achieving organizational goals – and
at the same time feel that the energy is well spent because it is fun.

Measurement and the future of flow at work

While organizations have an important role in the support and development of flow
among employees, individuals also have the opportunity to take on greater respon-
sibility in making their work a more enjoyable expression of their strengths and
values. As autonomy continues to increase in the organizational setting, employees
can take an increasing role in their day-to-day experience of work. The problem
186 Sam Spurlin and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

is very often workers might feel a general sense of dissatisfaction with their job,
without knowing what it is that they feel. We seldom have an objective sense of
our inner lives – of what it is that bothers us, and why. Yet if we want to achieve
flow at work, it is necessary to have reasonably accurate information about how the
activities, the people, and the tasks that make up our job affect us. Only then can
we begin to change the parameters of the job, and find out, by trial and error, what
might make it better.
One way this could be done in the near future – short of difficult and time-
consuming training in systematic introspection – could be achieved through the
application of “wearable technology.” Wearable technology refers to the growing
class of technological gadgets embedded within everyday objects or adorning our
bodies. They are full of sensors that passively monitor and record various aspects of
our physiology and environment. Over the next several years, wearable technology
is likely to be one of the largest areas of innovation in consumer electronics. We
are already seeing the vanguard of this movement with products like Google Glass,
a computer/glasses hybrid. Smart watches are being developed (e.g., the Apple
Watch) which allow individuals to have access to various forms of data easily acces-
sible on their wrist instead of on a phone in their pocket; or in the case of Hitachi,
on electronic chips worn on a necklace. Even smartphones are entering the realm of
wearable technology with their ability to track movement. Smartphone app devel-
opers and accessory creators have released heart rate monitors, GPS-based running
assistants, and a multitude of other gadgets that can monitor changes in the body
and present the user with that information.
The measurement of flow has always had a relationship with technology as early
ESM studies utilized programmable beepers at a time when that was highly unusual
in psychological research (see Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989). Then study par-
ticipants had to be given the beeper and trained in its use in order to record their
data. Now, the vast majority of potential participants in flow studies, especially in
the realm of white-collar knowledge work, already carry a smartphone of their
own. The use of mobile apps like PACO to facilitate data collection has made ESM
studies easier and cheaper to initiate.
However, the even greater potential lies in the ability of individual users to track
their own experience over time with their own smartphones or other wearable tech.
There is no reason an app could not be created today that makes it easy for individu-
als to set up an ESM-like self-study that would allow them to track how often and
under what conditions they experience flow. In this scenario, the app facilitates their
ability to track and manage their own experience of flow at work. The combina-
tion of the knowledge of what flow is, why it’s beneficial, actual data on when the
individual does and does not experience flow, and the latitude to make changes in
aspects of his or her work environment could unlock the potential for individuals
to experience more flow at work.
Looking into the future a little bit further could unlock an even easier way for
individuals to track flow throughout the day. Traditional ESM studies have always
 Will work ever be fun again? 187

struggled with the fact that they require the participant to shift attention from
whatever they were doing in the moment to the survey they are being prompted to
respond to about what they are doing in that moment. Ironically, the measurement
of flow can actually disrupt the experience itself. Wearable technology that moni-
tors the body for biological markers can help work around this challenge. Imagine
that a worker puts on his technology-infused glasses that measure his brain waves
and a technology-infused shirt that monitors his skin conductance, heart rate, and
several other biological markers as he gets ready for work in the morning. He goes
through the day experiencing varying levels of stress, affect, flow, and boredom
while wearable technology sits silently in the background, recording data. At the
end of the day he opens the flow app on his smartphone (which is able to com-
municate with a calendar that records what he was doing and who he was with at
specific points of the day) and is presented with an easy-to-understand visualization
of his flow levels throughout the day. He learns that he experienced a high level
of flow during the morning drive into the office (except when he was cut off a
few miles away and silently fumed for the rest of the trip). The meeting which he
prepared for very well turned out to be another high-flow activity during the day,
whereas the emergency meeting later in the day in which he felt unprepared was
another low point. With an understanding of what flow is and what factors affect
whether he experiences it, his wearable technology and smartphone application
offer a nearly limitless way to tweak experience at work to be more flow-like.

Conclusion
The last several pages have explored what the future may look like. Our predictions
are based on sound evidence, but predicting the future is a difficult endeavor for any-
body, particularly empirically minded scientists. If our predictions about the future
of work are correct – that autonomy will continue to grow in importance and the new
class of “independent workers” will move more and more into the spotlight – then
it stands to reason that flow will continue to have an important role in designing
and crafting work to be more meaningful and fulfilling.
The world of work holds the potential to be a great source of well-being in
the lives of individuals, or a great source of sorrow, drudgery, and exploitation.
The experience of work itself has evolved and gone through cycles that have
mapped onto the social evolution of the human species. Our hope is that work
can move once again toward an intrinsically rewarding and motivating source of
self-expression for an increasing number of people. Learning about the antecedents
to flow, self-monitoring our personal data with the astonishing advances in wear-
able technology, and then crafting our jobs based on that information are a series
of steps in the direction of experiencing work as a positive force in life. Indeed, in
the future we might perhaps turn Dante’s insight into reality, and work will once
again provide the ultimate enjoyment that comes from expressing our images, and
unfolding our beings.
188 Sam Spurlin and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

References
Alighieri, D. [1317 (1921)] De Monarchia. Firenze: Rostagno. Book 1, Chapter 13. Carpenter.
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak
experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44.
Bakker, A. B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., & Vergel, A.I.S. (2016). Modelling job crafting behav-
iours: Implications for work engagement. Human Relations, 69(1), 169–189.
Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The
role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359–1378.
Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work.
Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace, 81–104.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Daily self-management and employee
work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 31–38.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business. New York: Viking.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Le Fevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815–822.
Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1988). Modernization and the changing context of flow in
work and leisure. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal expe-
rience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 192–213). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of
conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1974). Nuer religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in the engage-
ment of prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Link-
ing person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-
determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159.
Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes
in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585–600.
Nelson, V. J. (2014). A. Richard Grossman: A specialist in burn treatment. Los Angeles Times,
March 15, Section AA1, p. 1.
Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2010). Predicting flow at work: Investigating the activities and job
characteristics that predict flow states at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15(2), 180–190. doi:10.1037/a0018893
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classifica-
tion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy:
Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74,
1557–1586. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6494.2006.00420.x
 Will work ever be fun again? 189

Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. (2000). Affective states in job characteristics theory. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 120–132.
Sahlins, M. D. (1972). Stone-Age economics. Chicago: Aldine Press.
Scitovsky, T. (1976). The joyless economy. New York: Random House.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning
autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005–1016. doi:10.1177/
001872678603901104
Stone, D. N., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Beyond talk: Creating autonomous moti-
vation through self-determination theory. Journal of General Management, 34(3), 75–91.
Thompson, E. P. (1963). The making of the English working class. New York: Viking.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudi-
nal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914–928.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., Derks, D., & van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job crafting at the team and
individual level: Implications for work engagement and performance. Group & Organiza-
tion Management, 38(4), 427–454.
Turnbull, C. M. (1961). The forest people. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Walker, C. J. (2010). Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone?
Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 3–11.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active
crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.
INDEX

Note: Italicized page numbers indicate a figure on the corresponding page. Page numbers
in bold indicate a table on the corresponding page.

absorption and flow 68 clear goals 30, 74, 143

academic implications for flow 93–101, Clifton, Jif 99
95, 96 cognitive evaluation theory 6
action-awareness merging 145 collective flow 114
adaptive performance 151–2 conceptualization of expectancy theory 147
affective events theory (AET) 72–3 conservation of resources theory (COR)
Alighieri, Dante 178, 187 69–70
alternative methods of flow 61–2 Creusen, Utho 100
alternative performance criteria 151–2 critical psychological states (CPS) 8
antecedents and indicators of flow 120–1 Crooke, Michael 100
assessment questionnaires of flow 30 cross-cultural variation 159, 160
autonomy 8, 68–9, 178–83 Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly: flow, defined by
autotelic state/experience 4, 13–14, 36, 141 50, 119; flow as critical psychological state
69; “good work in business” project 31;
balance in flow 30; see also challenge-skill intrinsic motivation 54; introduction 4, 6,
balance 28; organizational practices 99–101; theory
behavior-primacy theory 2 of flow 152; work-related flow 51–2
between-person differences 52–4 cultures/culture of work: conclusions
Beyond Boredom and Anxiety 170–1; empirical evidence of 161–7, 163;
(Csikszentmihalyi) 6, 119 introduction 157; migration and work
broaden-and-build theory of positive 167–70, 170; paradox of 163–6, 164,
emotions (B&B theory) 72, 111, 150 165, 166; psychological selection 157–9;
work, values, and meaning 159–60;
catastrophe theory 91, 91–3, 92 work cultures 160–1; work-related goals
centering attention component 29–30 166–7, 167
challenge ratings in tasks 34 cusp catastrophe model 91, 91–3, 123, 126
challenge-skill balance 121–3, 143
chaos and flow at work 88–9 day reconstruction method (DRM) 61–2
chaotic dynamic 97 declarative measures of flow 30, 31–40, 33,
citizenship behavior 152 36, 38, 39, 40
 Index 191

demand-control model 75 67–8, 120–1; developing framework for

demand ratings in tasks 34 8–12; fad or folderol 16–19; intrinsic and
demand-skill balance 32–5, 33 extrinsic motivation 1–4; introduction
discrepancy reduction loop 145 1; overview 4–8; remaining questions
Dispositional Flow Scale 13 12; state vs. trait 13–14; see also within-
do-your-best (DYB) goals 144 person changes at work
Dyson, Freeman 81–2 flow at work, applications in organizations:
antecedents and indicators of 120–1;
emotional contagion 130 conclusion 134–5; introduction 119–20;
employee conscientiousness and flow 55 metacognition of flow 133–4; nature
enjoyment and flow 37, 68, 107 of 120–6; nonlinear dynamic models
enjoyment of work see work enjoyment 18, 123–5, 124; selection of workers
entropy force 81–2 132–3; strategies for 126–34; worker
ergodic theorems 84 demographics 125–6
Eudaimonic and Hedonic Happiness flow at work, consequences: conclusions
Investigation (EHHI) 160, 167 114–15; defined 107–8; as driver of
event-based protocols 59 performance 112–14; introduction
expectancy theory 146–9 106–7, 120; measurement of 108–9;
experience fluctuation model (EFM) 108 model of 108; overview 109–14; personal
Experience Sampling Form (ESF) 33, and job resources 111–12; well-being
33–4, 113 and 109–11
experience sampling method (ESM): flow at work, measuring: components of
challenge-skill balance 121; momentary 28–30; conclusion 43–4; declarative
vacillations in work flow 13–14; measures of flow 30, 31–40, 33, 36,
overview 32–4, 59–61; stationarity 85; 38, 39, 40; interview studies 31–2;
well-being and 109–10; work enjoyment introduction 28; nondeclarative measures
186–7 30, 40–2; questionnaires 32–40, 33, 36,
extrinsic motivation 1–4, 6–7 38, 39, 40
flow at work predictors: conclusion 76;
Falk, Stefan 100 flow at work, defined 67–8; introduction
feedback 8, 68 66–7, 67; job characteristics 68–9; job
first-generation immigrant studies 162 resources 69–71; other predictors 75–6;
flow: absorption and 68; academic overview 73–5; positive affect of 72–3;
implications for 93–101, 95, 96; preconditions of flow 74–5; theoretical
alternative methods of 61–2; antecedents frameworks 68–73
and indicators of 120–1; assessment flow at work redefined: academic and
questionnaires 30; balance in 30; practitioner implications 93–101, 95,
collective flow 114; defined 50; employee 96; catastrophe theory 91, 91–3, 92;
conscientiousness and 55; enjoyment chaos and 88–9; conclusions 101;
and flow 37, 68, 107; goal setting healthy variability 89–91; homogeneity
143–5; healthy variability in 89–91; 84–5; introduction 81–3; nonergodic
heritability of 125; metacognition of process 83–7, 86; nonlinear dynamical
133–4; momentary flow and recovery systems (NDS) theory 83, 87–93, 91, 92;
57; practitioner implications 93–101, 95, stationarity 85–7, 86, 86
96; preconditions of 74–5; psychological flow channel model 108
selection 157–9; questionnaires in “flowing” zone 82, 133
measuring 32–40, 33, 36, 38, 39, 40; Flow Metacognitions Questionnaire
self-efficacy and 149–50; subjective (FMQ) 134
experience 5; task in 30; well-being and Flow Questionnaire (FQ) 43, 125–6, 162
109–11, 170, 180; see also WOrk-reLated Flow Short Scale (FSS) 39–40, 40, 132
Flow inventory Flow State Scale 38–9, 39, 128
flow at work: challenge-skill balance 121–3; functional autonomy notion 2
chaos and 88–9; collective phenomenon functional magnetic resonance imaging
15; concluding remarks 19; defined (fMRI) 41
192 Index

Gallup International Positive Institute 100 managerial autonomy support 132

Gallup Organization 99 meaning-making evolutionary systems 158
generalized linear model (GLM) 94–5 mean squared successive difference (MSSD)
goals: clear goals 30, 74, 143; do-your-best 85–6
(DYB) goals 144; framing of 146; metacognition of flow 133–4
long-range goals 182; moment-by- Microsoft 100
moment goals 182; prevention goals 146; moderate sympathetic activation 42
progress toward 182–3; promotion goals momentary flow and recovery 57
146; setting of 143–5; striving for 145–6; momentary vacillations in work flow
work-goal accomplishment 147; 13–14
work-related goals 166–7, 167 moment-by-moment goals 182
goal-setting theory 11, 142–6, 149 motivating potential score (MPS) 151
“good work in business” project 31 motivation: defined 142; extrinsic
Green Cargo 100 motivation 1–4, 6–7; work motivation
Grossman, Richard 178 141–3; see also intrinsic motivation
multigroup confirmatory factor analyses
healthy variability in flow 89–91 (MCFA) 107–8
heritability of flow 125
high parasympathetic activation 42 National Institute of Mental Health 6
homogeneity 84–5 neuronal indicators 41–2
humanistic psychology 2 nondeclarative measures of flow 30, 40–2
nonergodic process 83–7, 86, 98
industrial and organizational psychology nonhierarchical, distributed teams
(I/O) research: alternative performance 130–1
criteria 151–2; conclusion 152–3; nonlinear dynamical systems (NDS)
expectancy theory 146–9; goal theory: implications for 94–9, 95,
framing 146; goal setting 143–5; goal 96; organizational practices 99–101;
striving 145–6; introduction 140–1; overview 87–93, 91, 92; work-related
job characteristics 150–1; self-efficacy flow and 83
149–50; work motivation 141–3 nonlinear dynamic models 18, 123–5, 124
Industrial Revolution 177
instrumentality in expectancy theory obsessive-compulsive tendencies 17
147–8 organizational practices 99–101
interindividual variation 83 organizational spontaneity 112–13
interval-contingent protocols 61
interview studies 31–2 parasympathetic activation 42
intrinsic motivation: challenge-skill Patagonia 100
balance 121; employee experiences 54; person-specific dynamic models 99
introduction 1–4; job characteristics positive emotional experiences 72,
model 68, 71; WOLF inventory 36 111, 150
involvement measures 37 positive organizational behavior (POB) 13
positron emission tomography (PET) 41
job characteristics model (JCM) 8, 68–71, practitioner implications for flow 93–101,
75, 150–1 95, 96
job crafting 12 preconditions of flow 74–5
job-demands-resources (JD-R) model 9, prevention goals 146
69–71, 75 progress principle 129
job resources 69–71 promotion goals 146
job-specific feedback 9 psychological selection in flow 157–9
psychophysiological measures 42
linear multilevel regression models 122
long-range goals 182 qualitative data measures 31–2
low-autonomy work situations 184–5 questionnaires in measuring flow 32–40, 33,
Lyapunov exponent 97 36, 38, 39, 40
 Index 193

recurrence plots 97 TISEAN software 98

reflective self-consciousness 29, 35 two-wave data 131
regression analysis 132
results-only work environments (ROWE) 179 unambiguous feedback 143

self-determination theory 3, 7, 132, 178 valence-instrumentality-expectancy (VIE)

self-efficacy and flow 149–50 theory 147–8
self-leadership 183
self-perception theory 3, 6 weakness ratings 31–2, 35, 40, 42
skills-challenges balance 56 wearable technology 186–7
skill variety 8, 68 well-being and flow 109–11, 170, 180
smartphones 186–7 within-person changes at work: alternative
smart watches 186 methods of flow 61–2; conclusion 62;
social comparison theory 15 dynamic nature of 51–3; experience
social validation theory 15 sampling 59–61; homology across levels
sociocultural adjustment predictors 168 55–8; introduction 50–1; methods of
start-up companies 132 capturing 58–62; theoretical importance
stationarity 85–7, 86, 86 53–5
stimulus-action coding 41 WOLF inventory 13
strength ratings 31, 34, 37, 40, 42 work cultures 160–1; see also cultures/
subjective experience of flow 5 culture of work
supervisor dyads 130 work enjoyment: balancing challenge
surrogate data analysis 98 184–5; building flow into 181–2;
Swedish Flow Proneness Questionnaire conclusion 187; feedback for 183–4;
(SFPQ) 37–8, 38 goals and progress toward 182–3;
introduction 176–8; measurement of
task identity/significance: clear and 185–7; reconstruction of 178–81
proximal goals 30, 74; introduction 8; job work-goal accomplishment 147
characteristics model 68, 150 WOrk-reLated Flow inventory (WOLF):
teacher-student dyads 130 flow experience with 108, 109, 130;
temporal experience distortion 29 frequency vs. intensity 114; intrinsic
three-dimensional structure of flow at work 107 motivation 68; questionnaires 35–6, 36
time-based protocols 59 World Health Organization (WHO) 19