Going for the Flow

Let's begin by looking at the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi,^[3] who posits that humans have a flow channel, which roughly translates to the intense focus and sense of satisfaction we feel when our skill level is well matched to the challenges of our job.

^[3] Pronounced "chick-sent-me-high." See Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. (New York: HarperCollins, 1991).

If the task is too easy, boredom sets in, and people are unhappy (see Figure 16.1). If the task isrelatively speakingvery challenging compared to competence, then people become tense and anxious. When there is a reasonable matchnot too easy, not too hardthen we are in the flow channel, which actually spans a broad range of competency and task difficulty. In this state of grace, achievement is high, and we experience a feeling of incredible well-being; athletes describe it as "being in the zone."^[4]

^[4] On the software development front, the person who epitomizes this state of being would have to be the legendary Howard Larsen, an early pioneer at Rational Software. Anyone who has worked with Howard will be nodding his head at this juncture; Howard is probably as far "up and to the right" as you can get in the programming flow channel. I'm sure that you either have a Howard in your organization or wish you did. And the real question is: Why are "Howards" so rare? Are "Howards" born or made, and, if made, how do we make more of them?

Figure 16.1. The flow model.

Note that, starting from position 1 in Figure 16.1, a person can move into an anxiety zone if the job difficulty increases without a corresponding increase in skills (position 2). To get back into the flow channel, any combination of skills improvement and decrease in difficulty will suffice, but the best move is a horizontal one, toward position 3. In a like manner, one can improve skills while job difficulty holds constant and moveposition 1 to position 2', where boredom sets in. Achieving flow then requires a move toward position 3by seeking a more challenging job. Of course, then position 3 becomes the new position 1, and the cycle starts all over again. At position 3, however, there is a greater contribution to the organization than at position 1, even though they are both flow states. Clearly, moving up and to the right is a good result for both the team member and the organization. I believe the flow channel "opens up" as skill level and job difficulty increase, so individuals theoretically have more opportunities for job satisfaction.^[5]

^[5] I don't think this is part of Csikszentmihalyi's theory, but it seems like a reasonable extension to me. It is this "opening up" of the channel that leads to the three-dimensional cone I will introduce later in this chapter.

We should also state that being in the flow channel leads to optimal performance. One can be outside the flow channel and still perform at a level good enough to earn a "satisfactory" rating in many organizations. However, the farther from the flow channel one gets, the more performance degrades. And we should ask ourselves: Why not set the goal of achieving optimal performance from everyone in the organization? Would this not lead to the best possible "win-win" for both the organization and the individual?

There is obviously much, much more to Csikszentmihalyi's work, and this brief description does not do him justice. However, it does provide a basic understanding of the conceptual model I will use to frame our discussion of compensation.