Motivation and Emotion

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 120–130 | Cite as

Flow experience and team performance: The role of team goal commitment and information exchange

  • Caroline Aubé
  • Eric Brunelle
  • Vincent Rousseau
Original Paper


While a number of studies show that the flow experience is related to different outcomes at the individual level, the role of flow in work teams remains unclear. This study contributes to the advancement of knowledge on flow by testing the relationships between this psychological state, team goal commitment and team performance. Data were gathered from 85 teams comprised of graduate and undergraduate students who participated in a project management simulation. The results show that the flow experience is positively related to team performance. This relationship is mediated by team goal commitment and moderated by the level of information exchange between team members. In practical terms, the results of this study show that managers should implement interventions fostering the flow experience in their teams, while at the same time encouraging information exchange between members.


Flow experience Team performance Team goal commitment Information exchange 


  1. Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & Dam, G. T. (2011). The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1185–1194. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 189–204. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V. (2011). Interpersonal aggression and team effectiveness: The mediating role of team goal commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 565–580. doi: 10.1348/096317910X492568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker, A. B., Oerlemans, W., Demerouti, E., Slot, B. B., & Ali, D. K. (2011). Flow and performance: A study among talented dutch soccer players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 442–450. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675. doi: 10.2307/3094912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  8. Carli, M., Delle Fave, A., & Massimini, F. (1988). The quality of experience in the flow channels: Comparison of Italian and U.S. students. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience (pp. 288–306). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 13–36). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. NY: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  13. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001). It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 187–204. doi: 10.1080/13594320143000627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Delarue, A., Van Hootegem, G., Procter, S., & Burridge, M. (2008). Teamworking and organizational performance: A review of survey-based research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 127–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00227.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.11.3.266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player: Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 249–271. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. doi: 10.1002/job.337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engeser, S. (2012). Advances in flow research. New York, NY: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 1–21). New York, NY: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fullagar, C., & Kelloway, K. E. (2009). “Flow” at work: An experience sampling approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 595–615. doi: 10.1348/096317908X357903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Group in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517. doi: 10.2307/2392936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hackman, R. J. (2009). The perils of positivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 309–319. doi: 10.1002/job.587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Heyne, K., Pavlas, D., & Salas, E. (2011). An investigation on the effects of flow state on team process and outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  29. Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37, 82–106. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0181.Google Scholar
  30. Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553–585. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00703.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jackson, S. A. (1995). Factors influencing the occurrence of flow states in elite athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 135–163. doi: 10.1080/10413209508406962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson, S. A. (2012). Flow. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 127–140). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jackson, S. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports: The keys to optimal experiences and performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  34. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50, 877–904. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01486.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  38. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Psychology Monographs, 131, 285–358. doi: 10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358.Google Scholar
  39. Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 32–55. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2931.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2010.38.4.531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Landhäußer, A., & Keller, J. (2012). Flow and its affective, cognitive, and performance-related consequences. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 65–85). New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Larson, J. R. (2010). In search of synergy: In small group performance. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  43. LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewis, J. A. (1996). Flow. The Family Journal, 4, 337–338. doi: 10.1177/1066480796044007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lin, C.-P., & Joe, S.-W. (2012). To share or not to share: Assessing knowledge sharing, interemployee helping, and their antecedents among online knowledge workers. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 439–449. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1100-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. doi: 10.2307/259182.Google Scholar
  47. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11031-008-9094-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & De Church, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535–546. doi: 10.1037/a0013773.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 62–87. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2753.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nakamura, J. (1988). Optimal experience and the uses of talent. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience (pp. 319–326). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 195–206). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. 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. doi: 10.1037/a0018893.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peifer, C. (2012). Psychophysiological correlates of flow-experience. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 140–164). New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  55. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Richter, A. W., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2011). The effectiveness of teams in organizations: A meta-analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 2749–2769. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2011.573971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rousseau, V., Aube, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37, 540–570. doi: 10.1177/1046496406293125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ryu, H., & Parsons, D. (2012). Risky business or sharing the load? Social flow in collaborative mobile learning. Computers & Education, 58, 707–720. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  61. Schiepe-Tiska, A., & Engeser, S. (2012). Flow in nonachievement situations. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 87–107). New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schüler, J. (2012). The Dark Side of the Moon. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 123–137). New York, NY: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tanghe, J., Wisse, B., & van der Flier, H. (2010). The formation of group affect and team effectiveness: The moderating role of identification. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 340–358. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00656.x.Google Scholar
  65. Thatcher, A., Wretschko, G., & Fridjhon, P. (2008). Online flow experiences, problematic internet use and internet procrastination. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2236–2254. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26, 633–655. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00050-7.Google Scholar
  67. Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180. doi: 10.2307/2393703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wageman, R. (2001). The meaning of interdependence. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 197–217). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  69. Walker, C. (2010). Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 3–11. doi: 10.1080/17439760903271116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 307–334. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb01003.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Whitney, K. (1994). Improving group task performance: The role of group goals and group efficacy. Human Performance, 7, 55–78. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup0701_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V., & Premack, S. (1992). Meta-analysis of the antecedents of personal goal level and of the antecedents and consequences of goal commitment. Journal of Management, 18(3), 595–615. doi: 10.1177/014920639201800309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437–442. doi: 10.1002/job.197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Aubé
    • 1
  • Eric Brunelle
    • 1
  • Vincent Rousseau
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ManagementHEC MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.School of Industrial RelationsUniversity of MontrealMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations