Flow: Optimal Experience, Teams, and Challenge-Based Learning PDF

F Flow Jef J. J. van den Hout1,2 and Orin C. Davis3,4 1 The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Research Group Sustainable Talent Development, The Hague, Netherlands 2 Flow Concepts, Tilburg, Netherlands 3 Quality of Life Laboratory, New York, NY, USA 4 New York University, New York, NY, USA Keywords Flow · Optimal experience · Teams · Team ﬂow · Creativity · Optimal collaboration · Challenge based learning Introduction Imagine a group of 26 strangers who came together for a student competition centered around solving a sustainability issue. It is a long competition, which means that the team will need to divide tasks strategically, stay engaged, focus long enough to actually learn something, and create something meaningful that will help them when they graduate. That is a rather tall order, but the Solar Team Eindhoven (STE) of the Eindhoven University of Technology (Eindhoven University of Technology-TU/e) actually pulled it off in the World Solar Challenge in Australia and made a solar-powered car while they were at it. What does it take to empower a team to perform at that high of a level with high engagement, good division of labor, and long term commitment? With so many business challenges and day-today tasks depending upon knowledge work and teamwork, the answer is priceless, and we propose that it is ﬂow. Flow The concept of ﬂow (colloquially called “being in the zone”) was ﬁrst published widely in 1975 by psychologist Mihaly Csíkszentmihályi, who initially deﬁned the construct as “a holistic sensation that people feel when they act in total involvement” (Csíkszentmihályi 1975, p. 36). Over the intervening decades, he and his colleagues published many works about how ﬂow experiences are considered by individuals to be some of the most enjoyable, rewarding, meaningful, and engaging they have experienced, and typiﬁes ﬂow as involving automatic and effortless action coupled with intense focus. The ﬂow experience can therefore be viewed as an optimal experience of intense involvement, focus, and satisfaction in the present moment, and one that according to research (e.g., Csíkszentmihályi 1997) is involved with higher levels of performance, as well. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 V. P. Glăveanu (ed.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_153-1 2 The Nine Elements of the Individual Flow Experience Csíkszentmihályi and colleagues (e.g., Csíkszentmihályi 1997) conceptualized ﬂow using nine elements that are all present when a person experiences ﬂow (see below). Three of these nine elements tend to be solely emergent/ experiential and are hard to create or promote intentionally and attempting to evoke them often backﬁres. The other six elements are more amenable to being generated by the individual either internally or by using aspects of the environment, which are often considered the prerequisites for individual ﬂow (cf. Nakamura and Csíkszentmihályi 2009; Van den Hout et al. 2018). The presence of these prerequisites increases the likelihood that ﬂow occurs or augments the intensity of the ﬂow experience. The distinction between elements of ﬂow that are readily developed (a.k.a., prerequisites, antecedents, or preconditions) and elements that are purely emergent (a.k.a. experiential characteristics, facets, components, or indicators) is illustrated in Fig. 1. The Prerequisites for Flow There are six elements of the ﬂow experience that are readily modiﬁed by the individual to increase the chances of a ﬂow experience occurring during the execution of a task (there is never a guarantee; cf. Csíkszentmihályi 1997; Hektner et al. 2007). One of the main elements is autotelicity, which is about engaging in a given activity because it is intrinsically rewarding and worth doing for its own sake. This is one of the original core aspects of ﬂow (Csíkszentmihályi 1975) and demonstrates the value of being judicious in selecting activities that are appropriate to the situation and that are a ﬁt with the individual’s interests and current state (Csíkszentmihályi 1997; Davis 2010; Van den Hout and Davis 2019). In addition to careful selection of activity, one can increase the probability of a ﬂow experience by setting clear, proximal goals about which one can receive clear, timely feedback, both of which help the individual direct their efforts in putting a high level of skill towards meeting a commensurately high challenge Flow (Abuhamdeh and Csíkszentmihályi 2009). This, too, represents a controllable element of the experience insofar as the individual can direct the level of effort they choose to put in, and can establish a challenging goal that is likewise motivating and can emphasize the intrinsically motivating aspects of the task (van den Hout and Davis 2019). This is not inconsistent with longstanding linear models of the ﬂow experience (e.g., Fig. 2), but ﬁts even better with more recent research indicating that ﬂow is more of a continuum (Davis 2010) and a discontinuous, complex process (Ceja and Navarro 2009, 2011; Hektner et al. 2007; Hetland et al. 2018). Still, Fig. 2 can be used as a clue for selecting a challenge and skill level based upon the desired experience and determining a growth trajectory for the individual so that they can stay in the sweet spot where ﬂow is most likely. As noted above, the task experience can vary signiﬁcantly, which means that one is likely to cycle erratically between relaxation, control, arousal, and ﬂow, with a goal of staying within the ﬂow continuum as much as possible. The ﬁfth element of ﬂow is a form of complete concentration that excludes all distractions. The full measure of one’s thoughts, efforts, and attention is applied only to the current activity. One can train in this aspect of ﬂow through a number of different exercises (e.g., meditation, breathing, visualization) so that one can readily switch to deep task focus. One can also remove possible distractions in the environment (e.g., telephone) or internally (e.g., releasing work pressure, stress, uncertainty, fear of failure) that could act as disruptors. It is critical to note, however, that deep focus is only one characteristic of ﬂow, and is in no way sufﬁcient to do anything more than increase the likelihood of ﬂow occurring if the context, goals, feedback, etc., are likewise at optimal levels during an autotelic activity (cf. Csíkszentmihályi 1996). The sixth element of ﬂow is a sense of control over the task at hand, such that one does not fear failure (Jackson et al. 2008). It is not that failure is impossible in such a case, for the presence of a high level of challenge often implies the very real possibility of failure, but rather that one is focused on achieving the goal and conﬁdent that one has Flow, Fig. 1 A conceptual equation of the individual ﬂow experience Elements of flow that are hard to create or promote, but indicative Distortion of time Experiential characteristics of individual flow Merging of action and awareness Prerequisites for individual flow + Loss of reflective selfconciousness Elements of flow that can be more readily influenced and need to be created, or at least present Challenge skill balance Complete concentration Constructive feedback Clear proximal goals The sense of control Autotelicity = Individual flow experience Flow 3 4 Flow High Arousal Flow Challenge level Anxiety Worry Control loses sight of one’s own role as an actor or agent in the situation, and likewise the distorted sense of time (either contracted or dilated), both of which tend to be byproducts of the deep absorption that occurs during ﬂow (cf. Kihlstrom 2008; Tellegen and Atkinson 1974). Along with the seven prerequites for ﬂow, the emergence of these three experiential characteristics clearly signal that an individual ﬂow experience has occurred. Relaxation Apathy Boredom Low The Benefits of Flow Experiences Low Skill level High Flow, Fig. 2 Challenge skill balance required for ﬂow (adapted from Massimini et al. 1987; Csíkszentmihályi 1997) the wherewithal to succeed (Sawyer 2007). The opportunity to prepare (e.g., training, practice, analysis, positive self-talk) for the activity, and consequently reducing the fear of failure and increasing conﬁdence, makes this element also a prerequisite of ﬂow. This goes hand-in-glove not just with deep concentration and goals set, but also with autotelicity. When one is engaged in the action for the sake of the activity, one is less inclined to worry about failure precisely because the focus is on the activity. The Experiential Characteristics of Flow As these six prerequisites increase the chance of experiencing ﬂow, it behooves one seeking an optimal experience to aim for these conditions in advance. One must be mindful, however, of the role of context (Davis 2010) and that not every element can be controlled. Rather, one puts in the maximum effort to increase the likelihood of ﬂow and then allows the activity to proceed and permit ﬂow to emerge. One of the main emergent elements is the merging of action and awareness, in which one’s actions feel spontaneous and automatic even as one actually has control over the activity (Quinn 2005). Consistent with this is the loss of reﬂective self-consciousness, in which one Flow experiences are considered profound and tend to improve the individual’s overall satisfaction with life (Nakamura and Csíkszentmihályi 2009). Flow also promotes persistence in the activities in which it occurs (cf. Shernoff et al. 2014; Amabile and Kramer 2007, 2011), and likewise a higher degree of creativity and increased self-efﬁcacy (the belief in one’s own ability) and development (Csíkszentmihályi and LeFevre 1989; Csíkszentmihályi 1997; Ilies et al. 2016; Asakawa 2010). As such, ﬂow can play an integral role in maximizing people’s potential. But human beings are social creatures, and the demands of the business world today are so complex that no single individual can solve the extant challenges. Thus, it is important to look at ﬂow at dyadic (e.g., Snow 2010) and team levels (van den Hout and Davis 2019). Team Flow Before diving deeply into the complex workings of ﬂow and interpersonal dynamics, it is important to provide a working deﬁnition of the terms “team” and “team dynamic.” A team is “a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable” (Katzenbach and Smith 1993, p. 112), and a team dynamic is the sum of all of the actions, processes, and Flow changes that happen within a team, either holistically or among its members (Forsyth 2009). This collection of forces affects the team’s behavior and performance and is created by any number of factors. Extrapolating ﬂow to the team level, team ﬂow is the shared experience in which all team members are completely involved in a collaboration towards a gratifying and challenging common task. During this moment of optimal collaboration, they perceive adequate abilities to cope with the challenging situation and they have the feeling that their collaboration runs smoothly and effortlessly and consistently makes progress (van den Hout et al. 2011; Van den Hout and Davis 2019). This description shares aspects of Pels et al.’s (2018) deﬁnition of group ﬂow, which they deﬁned as: [A] shared state of balance within a group as represented by (a) ﬂuent, positive interactions within the group, (b) a high collective competence of the group, and (c) a collective state of mind of the group by means of positive relationships between group members, often resulting in optimal collective performance and creativity, and making group ﬂow a positive collective experience. (p. 18) The description of team ﬂow above is also similar to Sawyer’s (2007) deﬁnition of group ﬂow, which is deﬁned as “a peak experience, a group performing at its top level of ability” (p. 43), where he enumerated ten ﬂow-enabling conditions. Building upon Csíkszentmihályi’s work on ﬂow, the literature on team dynamics (e.g., Salas et al. 2008), and the pioneering work of several researchers on plural forms of ﬂow (e.g., Snow 2010; Sawyer 2006), Van den Hout et al. (2019) deﬁned team ﬂow as a shared experience of ﬂow during the execution of interdependent personal tasks in the interest of the team, originating from an optimized team dynamic. As shown in Fig. 3, this optimized team dynamic is deﬁned by eleven elements that enable and indicate the experience of team ﬂow, seven of which are mainly prerequisites (enablers) and four of which are primarily emergent/experiential characteristics (indicators). 5 The Eleven Elements of Team Flow The Prerequisites of Team Flow Team ﬂow experiences often initialize through a collective ambition, which reﬂects a shared intrinsic motivation (analogous to autotelicity in individual ﬂow) to form a team and take on a common task that is meaningful and consistent with the values of the team members. This could be something enjoyable, like a game of soccer, or something important like providing good care to a patient. In all cases, the collective ambition also includes a recognition of the uniqueness of the each of the team’s members and how that will contribute to fulﬁlling the goal, which is a crucial foundation for mutual trust and coordination of efforts. If there is a collective ambition in a team, the team members often jointly derive one or more challenging common goals to achieve concrete/ recognizable results. From this, the team members are able to create aligned personal goals that they ﬁnd personally meaningful (and often match selfdesigned developmental goals) and that draw upon their unique skills and values. In so doing, team members are able to integrate high skills. To be able to experience ﬂow during the execution of tasks, it is important that people have a stimulating challenge that requires them to apply high levels of personal qualities, skills, or competencies. The high challenge needs to preclude a guarantee of success without inducing anxiety, which reﬂects a healthy tension that demands focus and energy. For each team member involved, in order to achieve this optimal integration of team members’ forces, it must also be clear at any given time who is engaged in which tasks and how those efforts relate both to the other team members’ activities and to the team’s overarching goal(s). This requires feedback on one’s own task, the subteam’s task (as relevant), the group’s [coordinated] efforts, and the collaboration process. In order for this feedback to meet the requirements of being clear, constructive, and timely, the team needs open communication and safety. Each team member must feel physically, psychologically, and socially safe to perform their individual tasks and to respond to what the others are doing. Sense of making joint progress Flow, Fig. 3 A conceptual equation of the team ﬂow experience Experiential characteristics of team flow Mutual trust Sense of unity Non-influenceable elements that only emerge when all involved team members are experiencing individual flow together due to the team’s dynamic that is formed by the seven prerequisites of team flow High skill integration + Holistic focus Prerequisites for team flow Open communication Aligned personal goals Audacious common goal (Partly) influenceable elements that emerge the prerequisites for the individual flow experience for every individual team member Safety Mutual commitment Collective ambition = Team flow experience 6 Flow Flow 7 To achieve this, unnecessary and unacceptable risks need to be eliminated while giving team members the ability to take smart risks that are commensurate with their skills. If everyone’s abilities are respected and viewed as integral to the team’s success, cogent critiques that proceed on that basis will necessarily be positive and constructive even as they maintain the requisite level of candor to be clear and timely. This allows for clear lines of accountability and for task-oriented coaching, which in turn promotes a sense of both individual responsibility and of mutual commitment. The latter promotes compliance with agreed-upon rules of conduct, safety measures, and maintenance of personal and team integrity. These seven prerequisites allow each individual team member to experience ﬂow while performing their personal task(s), which sets the stage for the team’s experiencing a group-level of ﬂow. The Experiential Characteristics of Team Flow Team ﬂow is when all team members experience ﬂow during the execution of their interdependent tasks, which gives the collaboration its own unique character. Just like ﬂow, team ﬂow is an optimal work experience, but it adds a social dimension. Collaboration is optimal when the following four characteristics are present: a sense of unity as if the team were one acting organism; a sense of joint progress as if building effortlessly upon each other, so that team members feel the synergy and are performing at a Gestalt level above the sum of their abilities; a sense of implicit mutual trust with the belief that the team’s task will be accomplished successfully; and a holistic focus on the shared task. All team members perform their personal tasks with deep concentration and in harmony with the (higher) goal of the team. The Team Flow Model An integrated model of team ﬂow is contained in Fig. 4, in which the connections between the seven prerequisites and four experiential characteristics are highlighted. Collective ambition, the red octagon, is a starting point and anchor point. DIRECTION Audacious Common Goal Aligned Personal Goals Sense of Unity Holistic Focus Collective Ambition Sense of Joint Progress Mutual Trust Safe Climate Open Communication High Skill Integration POSITIVE & SUPPORTIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT Flow, Fig. 4 The Team Flow Model (adapted from van den Hout et al. 2011; van den Hout 2016) CLEAR AND CHALLENGING TASK DIVISION Mutual Commitment 8 The other six prerequisites of team ﬂow reﬂect the direction in which the team members want to move together, the attributes of a positive and supportive work environment, and a clear and challenging task division. These conditions, when activated by the collective ambition, interact with each other to activate the four experiential characteristics to promote the emergence of team ﬂow. The Benefits of Team Flow Experiences The description of the 11 elements of team ﬂow already contains a number of possible beneﬁts. Most people like it when there is a challenge, clarity, structure, things run smoothly, and they are deployed on tasks at which they are skilled and for which they are intrinsically motivated. Receiving feedback from team members may be difﬁcult at times, but if this is done positively and constructively, it also offers growth opportunities. Seen in this way, there are already quite a few beneﬁts to be gained from the team ﬂow experience itself (cf. Csíkszentmihályi and LeFevre 1989). In addition, studies have suggested that team ﬂow leads to better team performance, more individual happiness, a more positive atmosphere (Van den Hout et al. 2019), and more creativity (Verhoeven 2018). Moreover, the shared experience of engaging in a meaningful and intrinsically motivating activity while serving a collective ambition strengthens the team experience and the afﬁnity (in all forms) for the activity, which also increases the desire for the team to reconvene (Sawyer 2007; cf. Asakawa 2010; Csíkszentmihályi 1990; van den Hout et al. 2017). It remains important to remember, however, that ﬂow is not a lasting experience and comes and goes over the course of the team’s endeavors. As such, a team should endeavor to promote ﬂow, but not to obsessive levels, as these can lead to burnout, tunnel vision, and excessive risk (cf. Schüler 2012; van den Hout and Davis 2019). Flow The Continuum from Individual Flow to Team Flow While team ﬂow arises from individual ﬂow experiences, and the chance is greater if the prerequisites for individual task ﬂow are created via the team ﬂow prerequisites, there are many inbetween levels of ﬂow that occur during team activities that warrant analysis (van den Hout and Davis 2019): • Individual task ﬂow: Flow experienced during the execution of personal tasks for the team’s purpose varying from microﬂow to deep ﬂow (cf. Davis 2010). • Interactive ﬂow: Flow experienced during interactions with other team members while completing a task together. These interactions emerge from the team dynamic, and during these interactions team members get “in sync” with each other. This is sometimes referred to as interactional synchrony or ﬂow synchronization (cf. Snow 2010; Keith et al. 2014; Magyaródi and Oláh 2015; Walker 2010). For interactive ﬂow to take place, each person involved in the interaction should experience individual task ﬂow and the interaction should not directly involve all team members simultaneously. • Contagious ﬂow: Experiencing ﬂow through contagion by other team members’ individual task ﬂow experiences while completing a task together. This means team members are affected by the ﬂow experiences of their fellows, increasing the intensity of their own ﬂow experiences as they perform their individual tasks. Contagion is the reason team ﬂow often starts with one team member’s individual ﬂow experience igniting a fellow teammate’s, who in turn ignites another and so on until a tipping point is reached where the remaining team members “sync up” or “plug in” to the ﬂowing team dynamic (cf. Bakker 2005; Walker 2010). • Unit ﬂow: The experience of ﬂow at the unit level (one hierarchical layer higher than the individual level). This means that the unit’s performance as an entity is functioning “in ﬂow,” as when the collective awareness of all Flow members in that performing unit are smoothly merging with their joint actions. At this moment, the unit is functioning at the peak of its abilities (cf. Sawyer’s group ﬂow deﬁnition, 2003; Salanova et al.’s collective ﬂow deﬁnition, 2014; Zumeta et al. 2016). Notably, all of the experiences above occur during team ﬂow and highlight how individuals can feel that they are given the space to perform their tasks autonomously while still maintaining a sense of connection with the team. Sometimes the performance of a personal task readily rises to the collective level because of the tight link required between individuals’ tasks. Consider, for example, a rowing team or a healthcare team that performs a surgical operation. Though individuals are performing separate tasks, the effect of every person’s task has a clear and direct impact upon every other person’s task and upon the collective performance. In other teams, the mutual link is less strong, such as in a home care team where the nurse goes out alone and the interaction with teammates is often not direct (and can even be turn-based) when providing care. Despite the cumulative nature of each person’s work, the lack of real-time integration of the effects makes team ﬂow more elusive. Disruptors that Block Team Flow Experiences In addition to looking at the factors that promote team ﬂow, it is worthwhile also to review team ﬂow inhibitors, such as negativity, politics, ambiguity, fear of failure, and insecurity (van den Hout et al. 2017). Corollary to the items above, there are four main categories of obstacles. Motivation is a major underpinning of ﬂow, but is readily killed by laxity and bureaucracy, both which inhibit accountability, trust, and the freedom to take the requisite smart risks. As open communication and trust are essential to team ﬂow, miscommunication, destructive criticism, personal conﬂict, and gratuitous negativity are inimical to the ﬂow experience. Just as clear goals and timely feedback 9 promote ﬂow, a lack of clarity, external pressures, limited challenge, and limited feedback inhibit team ﬂow. And, notably, anything that causes distraction is going to remove any possibility of ﬂow emerging. The good news about these pitfalls, however, is that they are relatively easy to avoid and remedy with proper precautions, planning, and coaching. Team Flow Catalyzes Unprecedented Possibilities in Challenge-Based Learning Environments In today’s practice, be it in schools, business, or daily life, intricate challenges are increasingly appearing. To answer the call of these complexities, the education system (writ large, and including adult and professional education) has started developing challenge-based learning environments (CBLEs), which are crucibles for developing the intellectual and social skills to go after the toughest problems as a team (Nichols et al. 2016). Needless to say, CBLE’s would beneﬁt significantly from ensuring that participants learn how to foster team ﬂow. To achieve this, it is ﬁrst of all important that all participants feel connected to each other and willing to commit to a collective ambition. This serves as the proverbial “stake in the ground” amidst the chaos and complexity and anchors the team to a point on the horizon. From there, it is helpful to turn ﬁrst to the experience of individual ﬂow, looking at how each member of the collaboration can maintain their professional autonomy (freedom to act based on expertise) in a way that visibly and uniquely contributes to the team. Participants need to know how things are going and how they can contribute individually to take the next step together. It is therefore important that everyone has the freedom to be themselves, act upon their personal values and views, and from there contribute to the cooperative effort. In this way, team ﬂow can develop without the potential negative aspects that can arise in the emergence of a collective mind. Consider, for example, irrational decisionmaking by groupthink (Janis 1971) or 10 • Is there clarity about the expected team result? • Is it possible for individual team members to join forces to form a dynamic/ﬂexible performance unit? • Is it possible for individual team members to experience individual ﬂow during the performance of their personal task for the team? If working groups are formed in the CBLE, not only must a joint assignment based on the collective ambition be formulated, but, as above, the instructor should work with the team to guide them towards developing the additional conditions that signiﬁcantly increase the chance of team ﬂow emerging and likewise keep disruptors Flow, Fig. 5 The balance between alignment and professional autonomy (van den Hout and Davis 2019) out. As these conditions develop, the coach can focus on smoothing interactions and highlighting bottlenecks and disruptors as they emerge. A skilled facilitator can have the team working to counter these inhibitors, which can in turn strengthen the relationships among the team members. By focusing on team ﬂow, the team takes steps forward more quickly and participation in the CBLE is likely to be experienced as useful, enjoyable, educational, and effective. If the desired solutions have not yet been achieved, the seed may have been planted to continue this in the future within future work environments or during subsequent participation in other CBLEs. The success of the team ﬂow model and ideas around it lies in its simplicity, its focus on the core ambitions, and its roots in positivity. The model has now been proven effective within healthcare organizations, IT companies, research and development institutions, construction companies, and educational institutions (van den Hout 2016; van den Hout and Davis 2019). In order for teams to experience team ﬂow, it is the responsibility of organization leaders to ensure that the elements from the team ﬂow model can be present for each team. They should therefore not bother the teams too much with unnecessary procedures, meetings, and policies, but rather provide the resources and freedom for them to be self-determining. Likewise, an important role for leaders is supporting teams’ collective ambitions and challenging team goals (results) that ﬁt the overarching values of the organization, particularly with the provision of High Forcibly involved Team Flow Alignment exaggerating sentiments, showing impulsive behavior, or failing to reason, as described by Le Bon (1896) in Psychologie des Foules. Rather, professional autonomy must be balanced with alignment (see Fig. 5), in which the team uses the collective ambition as a foundation for establishing individuals’ and units’ challenging subgoals/milestones (Van den Hout 2016). What remains is to ﬁnd a safe, efﬁcient, and inspiring way of tuning into and receiving feedback on one another’s work, and the literature on team workﬂows is rife with information about this (e. g., Hackman and Wageman 2005). Once the group is aligned, it becomes necessary to create systems of accountability and methodologies for constructive feedback. This can be done, for example, on the basis of the following questions: Flow Disorderly mess Apathy & Isolation Low Low Professional autonomy High Flow personnel and resources. Hard as it may seem to some, it is actually incumbent upon leaders to provide these resources and then step back and leave the teams to their ﬂow and the excellence it promotes. The Eindhoven Solar Team has already become the world champion four times, and members of the original team are now bringing the ﬁrst solar car, called the Lightyear One, to the market. They serve as a prime example for how a challenging collective ambition can be turned into a reality through team ﬂow, and thence to solving problems of global proportions. Cross-References ▶ Collaborative Creativity ▶ Complexity ▶ Creative Learning ▶ Creative Mindsets ▶ Creativity ▶ Development ▶ Mindfulness ▶ Positive Psychology ▶ Purpose ▶ Self-actualization ▶ Talent Development ▶ Uncertainty ▶ Zone of Proximal Development References Abuhamdeh, S., & Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the competitive context: An examination of person–situation interactions. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1615–1635. Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2007). Inner work life. Harvard Business Review, 85(5), 72–83. 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. Asakawa, K. (2010). Flow experience, culture, and wellbeing: How do autoletic 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(1), 26–44. 11 Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2009). Dynamics of ﬂow: A nonlinear perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(6), 665. Ceja, L., & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic patterns of ﬂow in the workplace: Characterizing within-individual variability using a complexity science approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 627–651. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1997). Finding ﬂow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books. Csíkszentmihályi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815–822. Davis, O. C. (2010). Deﬁning microﬂow through the context of a waiting paradigm (Dissertation, Claremont Graduate University). EFRN. (2014). What is ﬂow? – Current deﬁnition. Retrieved from: http://efrn.webs.com/about-us. 19 Aug 2020. Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. The Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269–287. Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Hetland, A., Vittersø, J., Oscar Bø Wie, S., Kjelstrup, E., Mittner, M., & Dahl, T. I. (2018). Skiing and thinking about it: Moment-to-moment and retrospective analysis of emotions in an extreme sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 971. Ilies, R., Wagner, D., Wilson, K., Ceja, L., Johnson, M., DeRue, S., & Llgen, D. (2016). Flow at work and basic psychological needs: Effects on well-being. Applied Psychology, 66, 3–24. Jackson, S. A., Martin, A. J., & 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. Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5(6), 43–46. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Keith, M., Anderson, G., Dean, D. L., & Gaskin, J. (2014). The effects of team ﬂow on performance: A video game experiment. In Proceedings of SIGHCI 2014. Paper 13. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/sighci2014/13 Kihlstrom, J. F. (2008). The automaticity juggernaut. In J. Baer, J. C. Kaufman, & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Are we 12 free? Psychology and free will (pp. 155–180). New York: Oxford University Press. Le Bon, G. (1896). Psychologie des foules. Paris: F. Alcan. Magyaródi, T., & Oláh, A. (2015). Flow Szinkronizáció Kérdőív: az optimális élmény mechanizmusának mérése társas interakciós helyzetekben. Mentálhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika, 16(3), 271–296. Massimini, F., Csíkszentmihályi, M., & Carli, M. (1987). The monitoring of optimal experience: A tool for psychiatric rehabilitation. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 545–549. https://doi.org/10.1097/ 00005053-198709000-00006. Nakamura, J., & Csíkszentmihályi, 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). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pels, F., Kleinert, J., & Mennigen, F. (2018). Group ﬂow: A scoping review of deﬁnitions, theoretical approaches, measures, and ﬁndings. PLoS One, 13(12), e0210117. Quinn, R. W. (2005). Flow in knowledge work: High performance experience in the design of national security technology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (4), 610–641. Salanova, M., Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & Cifre, E. (2014). Flowing together: A longitudinal study of collective efﬁcacy and collective ﬂow among workgroups. The Journal of Psychology, 148 (4), 435–455. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50(3), 540–547. Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 148–165. Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books. Schüler, J. (2012). The dark side of the moon. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in ﬂow research (pp. 123–137). New York: Springer. Shernoff, D. J., Csíkszentmihályi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2014). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of ﬂow theory. In Applications of ﬂow in human development and Flow education (pp. 475–494). Dordrecht: Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9094-9_24. Snow, K. Y. (2010). Work relationships that ﬂow: Examining the interpersonal ﬂow experience, knowledge sharing, and organizational commitment (Doctoral Dissertation, Claremont Graduate University). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/34/36/ 3436590.html Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83(3), 268–277. Van den Hout, J. J. J. (2016). Team ﬂow: From concept to application (Doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven). van den Hout, J. J. J., & Davis, O. C. (2019). Team ﬂow: The psychology of optimal collaboration. Cham: Springer International Publishing. van den Hout, J. J., Davis, O. C., & Walrave, B. (2011). The application of team ﬂow theory. In L. Harmat, F. Ø. Andersen, F. Ullén, J. Wright, & G. Sadlo (Eds.), Flow experience (pp. 233–247). Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing. van den Hout, J. J. J., Gevers, J. M. P., Davis, O. C., & Weggeman, M. C. D. P. (2017). Overcoming impediments to team ﬂow. In Challenging organisations and society. Vienna: Verlagshaus Hernals. van den Hout, J. J. J., Davis, O. C., & Weggeman, M. D. C. P. (2018). The conceptualization of team ﬂow. The Journal of Psychology, 152(6), 388–423. van den Hout, J. J. J., Gevers, J. M. P., & Weggeman, M. C. D. P. (2019). Developing and testing the Team Flow Monitor. Cogent Psychology 6:1. https://doi.org/10. 1080/23311908.2019.1643962. Verhoeven, B. A. G. W. (2018). Let's ﬂow! Transformational leadership and team effectiveness: The mediating role of team ﬂow in organizations (Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology). Walker, C. J. (2010). Experiencing ﬂow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone? The Journal of Positive Psychology 5(1):3–11. Zumeta, L., Basabe, N., Wlodarzyk, A., Bobowik, M., & Paez, D. (2016). Shared ﬂow and positive collective gatherings. Anales de Psicologia, 32(3), 717–727. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.261651.

Flow: Optimal Experience, Teams, and Challenge-Based Learning PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue