The Application of Team Flow Theory

  • Jef J. J. van den Hout
  • Orin C. Davis
  • Bob Walrave


Despite the noted potential for ‘team flow’ to enhance a team’s effectiveness, productivity, performance, and capabilities, studies on the construct are scarce. Most research on flow has been conducted either at the individual level, which generally constitutes the experience of complete absorption while working on a task, or at the artistic ensemble level, which reflects a gestalt group experience. But, team flow in the work environment, where teams differ from performance groups, has not yet been studied or reported. One of the reasons for this is the difficulty applying theories of flow to the team level, because the research on flow, group flow, and team dynamics does not readily gel. In this chapter, however, we will briefly discuss the precursors and components of team flow and its consequences. We will also describe how these precursors and components work by giving some examples of team flow experiences in different environments. Our analysis provides both theoretical insights into the causes of the emergence of team flow and practical suggestions for work teams to foster team flow experiences.


Team Member Common Goal Open Communication Flow Experience Personal Goal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the competitive context: An examination of person–situation interactions. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1615–1635. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00594.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Asakawa, K. (2004). Flow experience and autotelic personality in japanese college students: How do they experience challenges in daily life? Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(2), 123–154. doi: 10.1023/B:JOHS.0000035915.97836.89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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(3), 189–204. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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(1), 120–130. doi: 10.1007/s11031-013-9365-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, C. A., Braun, C. C., & Morgan, B. B., Jr. (1997). Team workload: Its meaning and measurement. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 85–108). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium (Reprint.). Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (4 TRA.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning (Reprint.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  11. 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 Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, H. E., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, W. (2001). Good work. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Matthew, J. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Guzzo, R. A., & Salas, E. (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton, E., & Hurford, A. (2007). Combining collaborative workspaces with tablet computing: Research in learner engagement and conditions of flow. In Frontiers in education conference – global engineering: Knowledge without borders, opportunities without passports, 2007. FIE’07. 37th Annual (pp. T3C–3 –T3C–8). Presented at the Frontiers In Education Conference – Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports, 2007. FIE’07. 37th Annual. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2007.4418151
  16. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1992). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  17. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 111–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. doi: 10.2307/259182.Google Scholar
  22. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335.Google Scholar
  23. Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 249–265. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.1893935.Google Scholar
  24. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In S. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 195–206). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. O’leary-kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of the influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1285–1301. doi: 10.2307/256673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Posner, B. Z., Kouzes, J. M., & Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24(3), 293–309. doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930240305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ready, D. A., & Truelove, E. (2011). The power of collective ambition. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 94–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2013.806290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 540–547. doi: 10.1518/001872008X288457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 148–165. doi: 10.1177/0305735606061850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Snow, K. Y. (2010). Work relationships that flow: Examining the interpersonal flow experience, knowledge sharing, and organizational commitment. Ann Arbor: The claremont graduate university.Google Scholar
  35. Walker, C. J. (2010). Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 3–11. doi: 10.1080/17439760903271116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weggeman, M. (2007). Leidinggeven aan Professionals? Niet Doen!: Over Kenniswerkers, Vakmanschap en Innovatie. Schiedam: Scriptum.Google Scholar
  37. Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1986). Measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. London: Sports Dynamics.Google Scholar
  38. Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 93–135. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25003-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jef J. J. van den Hout
    • 1
  • Orin C. Davis
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bob Walrave
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Industrial EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.City University of New York, Baruch CollegeNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.University of Massachusetts BostonBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations