Team Flow Monitor

Hout, Jef J. J. van den; Gevers, Jmp Josette; Davis, Orin C.; Weggeman, M.C.D.P.

doi:10.1037/t75484-000

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As of yet, shared interactive flow has only been explicitly investigated in a handful of empirical studies, usually using a different terminology (Heyne et al, 2011;Salanova et al, 2014;van den Hout & Davis, 2019;Walker, 2010). Our own quantitative research (Raettig & Weger, 2018) in educational settings indicates that shared interactive flow has a communicative component that is absent from both solitary and co-active flow-for people in interactive flow, their verbal exchanges with others are smooth, stimulating and a source of new ideas.…”

Section: Shared Interactive Flowmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In addition, we assume there is some sort of perfect harmony between the members and all their actions (or synchronized actions; Armstrong, 2008;van den Hout and Davis, 2019). Such harmonious and positive atmosphere could be further amplified through the effect of emotional contagion (Hatfield et al, 1993).…”

Section: Shared Interactive Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, this harmonious interaction between group members could foster both a calm bodily state and effortless attention. Accordingly, no attentional conflict arises due to other members because all members feel an increased sense of unity and mutual trust (see van den Hout & Davis, 2019). This should facilitate action-awareness merging and reduce self-reflective thoughts (possibly to the level of "becoming one" with the group which would then be group flow).…”

Section: Shared Interactive Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Towards a re‐conceptualization of flow in social contexts

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The antecedents and outcomes of individual-level flow are well documented in a large body of literature. However, flow does not only occur in isolation -quite to the contrary, recent evidence suggests that social interaction can facilitate the experience of flow. Therefore, we propose a taxonomy, which distinguishes five different flow states according to two global factors: interactional synchrony and self-other overlap. Solitary flow bears all characteristics developed by Csikszentmihalyi. Co-active flow is facilitated or hampered by the presence of other people.Private interactive flow emerges on the grounds of a minimal unidirectional interaction with more passive others; only the active subject is in flow. In shared interactive flow, a fully synchronized activity between group members takes place and all group members are in flow. In group flow, all members reach a level of complete self-other overlap with the group, which leads to a collective experience of flow on the group-level. In addition to differences and commonalities of the different types of flow, suggestions for how to induce and study social flow are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Shared Interactive Flowmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Shared Interactive Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Shared Interactive Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards a re‐conceptualization of flow in social contexts

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Team psychological safety can positively influence team learning behaviour among team members and will facilitate them to think critically and take risks, while having a safe feeling [5]. Mutual trust, an emergent process in teams, also results from having a psychologically safe climate of communication in teams [6]. These parameters are critical for complex R&D projects as the teams strive to meet the challenging project objectives.…”

Section: Team Psychological Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dialogue-Based Intervention Model for Nurturing Team Psychological Safety in Strategic R&D Project Teams

Govind¹,

Sidharth²

2023

Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategic R&D projects are complex in nature, include several uncertainties and necessitates risky decisions involving knowledge, skills, attitudes or perceptions of team members. A strategic R&D project aimed at development of innovative technology and new products requires a team environment which facilitates team members to contribute intellectually, listen intently to each other and communicate their viewpoints, opinions or feedbacks in a free and honest manner. Psychological Safety, defined as a shared confidence that team members are in a safe climate for taking interpersonal risks, can be considered as an essential team quality for these project teams. In a psychologically safe climate, team members will be forthcoming to share their knowledge and engage pro-actively in project activities, without being afraid of any negative consequences or criticisms. Unfortunately, R&D team members are generally core technical specialists with limited inter-personal communication skills and may not be naturally comfortable in working collectively as part of a team. These professionals should enjoy good working relationships with other teammates and should inherently feel that it is comfortable to propose fresh ideas, innovative suggestions and work together to achieve the project objectives. Such a collaborative environment can be created only through methodically planned team interventions that nurture psychological safety and enhance mutual trust between team members. Several research studies have conclusively found Organizational Dialogue, which is a discipline of shared thinking, inquiry and communication, as an effective tool in this regard. In this paper, a team intervention model designed based on Bohm's dialogic method is proposed. A case study of a strategic R&D project in which the proposed intervention model was applied is also discussed along with preliminary results based on direct observations of the first author, in his role as the leader of the project team.

show abstract

“…Studies found positive correlations between experiencing flow and outcomes such as job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and vigor (Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre, 1989;Demerouti et al, 2012). There has been an increasing interest in flow in work teams, as teams (through their complex tasks, common goals, and interdependencies) engage in team activities that fulfill the preconditions for flow experiences (Walker, 2010;van den Hout et al, 2018van den Hout et al, , 2019. We argue that TLBs are potential team activities that could lead to flow experiences in teams or within team members as TLBs are goal-directed, occur in cognitive demanding tasks and are based on mutual commitment, open communication and trust (Decuyper et al, 2010).…”

Section: Team Learning Behaviorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team behaviors as antecedents for team members’ work engagement in interdisciplinary health care teams

Gerbeth

Mulder

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionDue to the increasing complexity and diversity of work tasks in teams, teams need team members who are dedicated and energetic, both characteristics attributed to team members’ work engagement. Especially in the domain of health care, high demands at work impact professionals’ work engagement. Despite teams being the main work unit in this domain, team research on antecedents of work engagement has been neglected. The present study examines the role of team behaviors such as reflection activities in the relationships between demands at work and team members’ work engagement. In doing so, the study aims to extend findings on team behaviors by considering cognitive and work-task related team behaviors as well as team behaviors that focus on emotional aspects.MethodsData of 298 team members of 52 interdisciplinary teams of health and social care organizations which provide care and assistance were collected in this cross-sectional survey study. Relationships between team demands at work, team learning behaviors, dealing with emotions in the team and team members’ work engagement were estimated in a mediation model using structural equation modeling (SEM).ResultsThe results indicate that team members’ work engagement is positively related to team learning behaviors and dealing with emotions in the team. Cognitive team demands at work such as the complexity of work tasks, were found to relate positively to team members’ work engagement, while emotional team demands such as the amount of emotional labor at work had a negative relationship. Team learning behaviors and dealing with emotions in the team were found to mediate the relationship between team demands at work and team members’ work engagement.DiscussionOur results provide insights into the actual behavior of teams in the domain of health care, both on cognitive and emotional aspects, and the capability of team learning behaviors and dealing with emotions in the team to mediate the relationship between team demands at work and team members’ work engagement. The findings encourage future researchers and practitioners to address cognitive, emotional and motivational components in team research to provide a better understanding of team conditions, team behavior and team outcomes.

show abstract

Team Flow Monitor

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Towards a re‐conceptualization of flow in social contexts

Towards a re‐conceptualization of flow in social contexts

A Dialogue-Based Intervention Model for Nurturing Team Psychological Safety in Strategic R&D Project Teams

Team behaviors as antecedents for team members’ work engagement in interdisciplinary health care teams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About