Founders' flow: A qualitative study on the role of flow experience in early start-up stages

The study examines how individual and team flow operate in early-stage start-ups, where founders face high autonomy alongside uncertainty, risk, and fluctuating demands. Flow—defined as deep absorption and optimal challenge—has known benefits for work satisfaction, performance, creativity, and teamwork, but has been underexplored in entrepreneurial contexts. The paper frames the start-up process via an input-process-outcome model investigating (1) antecedents enhancing or inhibiting individual and team flow, (2) typical situations and perceptions of flow and team flow during start-up work, and (3) consequences of these states for founders and start-up outcomes. The purpose is to identify context-specific factors and impacts of flow to inform practices that support founders' well-being and performance during the early venture stages.

Prior work highlights the unique challenges of start-ups (lack of routines/support, crises, uncertainty, stressors) and mixed evidence on entrepreneurs’ well-being. Flow at work is linked to higher job satisfaction, performance, creativity, innovative behavior, and can occur in tasks like planning, problem-solving, and evaluation—common in start-ups. Autonomy, a key job characteristic and salient in entrepreneurship, is associated with positive outcomes and relates to flow. Flow’s psychophysiology suggests positive dealing with manageable challenges may foster well-being. Team flow emerges in interdependent tasks, with distinctions between co-active and interactive flow. Despite these insights, flow’s specific antecedents and consequences in start-ups remain underexplored; qualitative research can uncover nuanced, context-dependent factors, justifying this study.

Design: Semi-structured qualitative interview study. Ethical approval: University of Lübeck Ethics Committee (21–465, 05/01/2022). Participants: 21 founders or prospective founders from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, working on their ventures (pre- or within 3 years post-establishment). Mean age 31; 9 female, 12 male. Recruitment: Convenience sampling via social media; no compensation. Procedure: One pilot interview (excluded). Main interviews conducted in German via Webex video calls (Jan–Apr 2022), audio recorded, transcribed verbatim; average duration ~25 minutes. Interview guide covered demographics, start-up idea/process, individual flow (definition, situations, antecedents, consequences), and, if applicable, team flow (definition, situations, antecedents, consequences), aligned with established flow characteristics and a three-sphere framework (individual, task/job, organizational/social). Analysis: Content-structuring qualitative content analysis per Kuckartz; computer-assisted coding with MAXQDA. Both deductive (based on Csikszentmihalyi and Peifer & Wolters) and inductive codes (from participants’ statements) were applied. Two researchers coded; disagreements discussed. Codebook provided in S1 Table.

Sample/context: 21 founders (mean age 31; 9 female, 12 male). Flow experience characteristics: Strong attentional focus, enjoyment, demand–skill balance (neither too hard nor boring), autonomy/control, clear goals, motivation, fulfillment, time distortion, sense of progress/productivity, and reduced awareness of bodily states (e.g., hunger/cold). Flow situations: Strategic tasks (e.g., business planning), creative work (designing), product development, systematic tasks (accounting), technical/practical tasks; often more frequent in early stages. Some reported less flow in start-up work due to turbulence/unpredictability, experiencing flow more in other life domains. Factors enhancing individual flow: - Individual: Personal well-being. - Task/job: Task variety; optimal challenge–skill balance; positive feedback (from others or task); autonomy/control; perceived meaningfulness; clear goals; moderate stress/“light pressure”; learning opportunities; interest and alignment with strengths. - Organizational/social: Flow-conducive environment and equipment; quiet settings without interruptions; appropriate balance of solo work and interaction; person–environment fit. Factors inhibiting individual flow: - Individual: Physical limitations/pain; stress/pressure (time constraints, high performance demands, self-imposed expectations). - Task/job: Overload/being stuck; prior failures; lack of interest; multitasking; heavy workload (e.g., parallel job); dependence on others limiting autonomy; online communication/meetings; conflicts; distractions. Consequences of individual flow: - Positive—Individual: Greater fun, motivation, energy/vigor, satisfaction; increased resilience and self-efficacy. - Positive—Task/job: Better progress; improved results; higher productivity/efficiency; learning and new ideas; mastering unpleasant tasks; more work/engagement. - Positive—Organizational/social: Better engagement with others; improved collaboration/teamwork. - Negative: Perfectionism (individual); neglect of other tasks (job); lack of team communication and hasty decisions (organizational/social). - Nondirectional: Narrowed attentional focus can help or hinder depending on task. Team flow experience: Defined as shared flow involving interaction; clear goals and focus are important; individual flow can spark team flow via idea contagion. Team flow situations: Creative, strategic, and product development tasks; collaboration-heavy interactions; new tasks; alignment with team members’ interests. Factors enhancing team flow: - Individual: Team members’ well-being; readiness/skills alignment; mutual commitment/identification with goals; trust, support, positive team spirit; shared knowledge base/common basis. - Task/job: Clear goals; moderate “positive stress”; autonomy; positive feedback; meaningfulness; interest/task enjoyment. - Organizational/social: Personal contact/face-to-face interaction over virtual; conducive environment and working without interruptions; creative spaces (e.g., co-working rooms designed to stimulate creativity). Factors inhibiting team flow: - Individual: Physical pain; stress within or outside the start-up; differing enthusiasm undermining a common mission. - Task/job: Overload; routine/lack of challenge; prior failures; lack of feedback/visibility of results; multitasking; time constraints from parallel jobs. - Organizational/social: Dependence on external factors; interruptions; online communication; conflicts within team or private life. Consequences of team flow: - Positive—Individual: Increased motivation and satisfaction. - Positive—Task/job: Better progress, improved results; strong focus (nondirectional). - Positive—Organizational/social: Enhanced team spirit, trust, cohesion; increased collective efficacy. - Negative—Individual: Greater vulnerability to setbacks after high-flow periods.

Findings address all three research questions. RQ1: Founders identified multi-level antecedents enhancing or inhibiting flow and team flow across individual (well-being, readiness, stress), task/job (challenge–skill balance, clear goals, autonomy, feedback, meaningfulness, variety, learning, interest vs. overload, multitasking, routine, failures), and organizational/social spheres (environment, interruptions/distractions, dependence, communication modality, team spirit/commitment/trust). RQ2: Flow and team flow were commonly experienced in strategic, creative, and product development tasks; team flow emphasized collaborative interaction and face-to-face work. RQ3: Consequences were predominantly positive for individuals (motivation, satisfaction, energy, resilience/self-efficacy), tasks (progress, results, productivity, learning, creativity, mastering unpleasant tasks), and teams (collaboration, team spirit, collective efficacy). Some adverse effects (perfectionism, neglect of other tasks, reduced communication, hasty decisions, vulnerability to setbacks) appear linked to intense focus and autonomy typical in start-ups. The results align with established flow models (Csikszentmihalyi; three-sphere framework) and extend them to entrepreneurial contexts, highlighting environment/person–task fit and team-level preconditions (shared basis, trust, commitment) especially salient in start-ups. Practically, fostering flow/team flow can support well-being and performance; strategies include designing flow-conducive environments, aligning tasks with interests/strengths, setting clear goals, minimizing multitasking and interruptions, and encouraging regular team interaction and reflection.

The study demonstrates that flow and team flow are prevalent and beneficial in early-stage start-ups, with multi-level antecedents and consequences primarily supporting founders’ motivation, well-being, performance, and team processes. Contributions include contextualizing known flow factors to entrepreneurial work, identifying start-up-specific enablers (environment/equipment fit, team spirit, face-to-face interaction) and inhibitors (multitasking, routine/lack of challenge, online communication, dependence), and documenting mostly positive but some negative outcomes (perfectionism, neglect of other tasks, vulnerability to setbacks). Practical recommendations: design flexible, flow-promoting work environments; allocate tasks according to interests/strengths; set clear, meaningful goals; manage workload to avoid multitasking/overload; promote face-to-face collaboration where possible; and offer workshops to help teams reflect on and cultivate flow. Future research should use larger, diverse samples, incorporate triangulation and quantitative designs, and link flow/team flow to objective innovation and venture outcomes.

Qualitative, convenience-sampled study of 21 founders in German-speaking countries limits generalizability. No triangulation with additional data sources was employed. Interviews were relatively brief and conducted digitally. Self-report and retrospective accounts may introduce bias. The context-specific nature of start-ups (early stages, parallel jobs) may affect transferability. Despite efforts to ensure coding rigor (dual coders, discussion of disagreements), the study’s exploratory design emphasizes hypothesis generation over causal inference.