The initial connections between and individual accessing Csikszentmihalyi's flow state and group alignment are thought provoking. As I was refreshing my memory on the concept of flow, I realized I'd forgotten that flow is originally posed as a way to be happy---as an individual, you're happiest when you’re in a flow state. The fact that you’re also the super productive is nice, but wasn’t the goal. Though it's a bit odd to talk about the happiness of a work group (separate from, say, its productivity, or the happiness of its individual members), the observation that both the individual and the group "has to connect some deep part of itself to the core of the work" as a way of accessing flow and alignment hints at some deeper parallels between the two.
Maybe too philosophical, but I'd love to read a deeper dive into those parallels. For example, why does your pottery example feel like a more authentic flow experience? What does the characterization of authentic flow experience (that the pottery example suggests) tell us about the relationship between individual flow and group alignment?
Great write up! I enjoyed reading this. Now, you emphasize emotional investment and asymmetric clarity as signs of true alignment—what are early indicators that a team is stuck in anti-misalignment despite appearing harmonious at the surface?
Thanks appreciate that and love the question! I don't really have a perfect answer, but a couple patterns you can apply:
1. Decisions feel fragile and precious. People don't feel they can make them, they don't stick, and everyone is always waiting on someone else to stamp the decision before feeling confident about them
2. Multiple alignment / decision meetings
3. The group is not clear what the actual priority stack is. Eg: everyone loves "Quality", but how does "Quality" stack against being able to launch to a wider scale? Does the group clearly want to test a small, high quality build or a "minimum lovable" build to a wider audience?
Some positive signs:
1. People can make decisions and share async in some forum
2. It feels ok to talk about tradeoffs and it's ok to discuss some priorities being higher than others
3. Individuals feel empowered to take on risk: "I believe X to be the right decision, we will measure it by Y and it shows problems, then the roll back strategy is Z, which I will own"
Excellent essay!
The initial connections between and individual accessing Csikszentmihalyi's flow state and group alignment are thought provoking. As I was refreshing my memory on the concept of flow, I realized I'd forgotten that flow is originally posed as a way to be happy---as an individual, you're happiest when you’re in a flow state. The fact that you’re also the super productive is nice, but wasn’t the goal. Though it's a bit odd to talk about the happiness of a work group (separate from, say, its productivity, or the happiness of its individual members), the observation that both the individual and the group "has to connect some deep part of itself to the core of the work" as a way of accessing flow and alignment hints at some deeper parallels between the two.
Maybe too philosophical, but I'd love to read a deeper dive into those parallels. For example, why does your pottery example feel like a more authentic flow experience? What does the characterization of authentic flow experience (that the pottery example suggests) tell us about the relationship between individual flow and group alignment?
Looking forward to more of your essays!
Great write up! I enjoyed reading this. Now, you emphasize emotional investment and asymmetric clarity as signs of true alignment—what are early indicators that a team is stuck in anti-misalignment despite appearing harmonious at the surface?
Thanks appreciate that and love the question! I don't really have a perfect answer, but a couple patterns you can apply:
1. Decisions feel fragile and precious. People don't feel they can make them, they don't stick, and everyone is always waiting on someone else to stamp the decision before feeling confident about them
2. Multiple alignment / decision meetings
3. The group is not clear what the actual priority stack is. Eg: everyone loves "Quality", but how does "Quality" stack against being able to launch to a wider scale? Does the group clearly want to test a small, high quality build or a "minimum lovable" build to a wider audience?
Some positive signs:
1. People can make decisions and share async in some forum
2. It feels ok to talk about tradeoffs and it's ok to discuss some priorities being higher than others
3. Individuals feel empowered to take on risk: "I believe X to be the right decision, we will measure it by Y and it shows problems, then the roll back strategy is Z, which I will own"