Flow at Work as a Moderator of the Self-Determination Model of Work Engagement

  • Daniela De Fraga
  • Giovanni B. Moneta


This study extends the self-determination model of work engagement. Based on flow theory and self-determination theory, it was hypothesised that the extent to which workers experience flow at work would moderate the positive association between perceived managerial autonomy support and work engagement, in such a way that for employees with more flow the association would be weaker (H1), and the positive associations between autonomy support and satisfaction of intrinsic psychological needs, in such a way that for employees with more flow these associations would be weaker (H2). A sample of 177 workers completed the Work Climate Questionnaire, Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale, Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, and Flow Short Scale. Moderated mediation modelling supported hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 limitedly to the needs for competence and relatedness. The findings indicate that workers with more flow at work are more likely to engage in the job regardless of autonomy support.


Autonomy support Intrinsic psychological needs Flow Self-determination theory Work engagement 


  1. Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumann, N. (2012). Autotelic personality. In S. Engeser (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 165–186). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butkovic, A., Ullén, F., & Mosing, M. A. (2015). Personality and related traits as predictors of music practice: Underlying environmental and genetic influences. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975/2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1992/2002). Flow: The psychology of happiness (2nd ed.). Kent: Mackays of Chatham.Google Scholar
  8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia, 1(27), 23–40.Google Scholar
  10. 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 eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill balance. Motivation and Emotion, 32(3), 158–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hayes, A. F. (n.d.). SPSS PROCESS macro syntax reference. Accessed 3 July 2011.Google Scholar
  17. Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employee-supervisor discrepancies in a psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37(3), 175–187.Google Scholar
  18. Kline, P. (2013). Handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Leiter, M. P., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work engagement: Introduction. In M. P. Leiter & A. B. Bakker (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 1–9). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leone, D. R. (1995). The relation of work climate, higher order need satisfaction, need salience, and causality orientations to work engagement, psychological adjustment, and job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Rochester, Rochester.Google Scholar
  21. Loubris, S., Crous, F., & Schepers, J. (1995). Management by objectives in relation to optimal experience in the workplace. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2(21), 12–17.Google Scholar
  22. Moneta, G. B. (2012). Opportunity for creativity in the job as a moderator of the relation between trait intrinsic motivation and flow in work. Motivation and Emotion, 36(4), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moneta, G. B. (2014). Positive psychology: A critical introduction. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Moneta, G. B. (in press). Applications of flow to work. In C. Fullagar, & A. Delle Fave (Eds.), The positive psychology of flow at work. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Mosing, M. A., Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. E., Pedersen, N. L., Nakamura, J., Madison, G., & Ullén, F. (2012). Genetic and environmental influences on the relationship between flow proneness, locus of control and behavioral inhibition. PLoS ONE, 7, e47958.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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), 68–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sadler-Smith, E., El-Kot, G., & Leat, M. (2003). Differentiating work autonomy facets in a non-Western context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 709–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES–Utrecht work engagement scale: Test manual. Unpublished Manuscript. Utrecht: Department of Psychology, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  31. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The concept of state work engagement. In M. P. Leiter & A. B. Bakker (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 25–38). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ullén, F., de Manzano, Ö., Almeida, R., Magnusson, P. K., Pedersen, N. L., Nakamura, J., et al. (2012). Proneness for psychological flow in everyday life: Associations with personality and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychological values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 115–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson, E. E., & Moneta, G. B. (2012). Flow as a way of coping: A qualitative study of the metacognitions of flow. In B. Molinelli & V. Grimaldo (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of coping: New research (pp. 133–150). Hauppauge: Nova.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyLondon Metropolitan UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations