HERE’S MY QUESTION UP FRONT: How does MCODE’s concept of FLOW compare to what Daniel Pink cites and develops in his book DRIVE?

I’ve been re-reading Daniel Pink’s book DRIVE: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. He challenges the traditional view of business using the reward and punishment or carrot and stick approach to motivation, suggesting instead our 3rd drive, which is intrinsic motivation. He maintains that we all seek three things: 1) autonomy (the need to direct our own lives), 2) mastery (to learn and create new things), and 3) purpose (to do better by ourselves and our world). He cites the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and his concept of “flow,” which sounds similar to what we have been learning about in MCODE, but based on something different. For him, “the highest, cost satisfying experiences in people’s lives were when they were in flow…in flow, the relationship between what a person had to do and what he could do was perfect. The challenge wasn’t too easy, and wasn’t too hard…In flow, people lived so deeply in the moment, and felt so utterly in control, that their sense of time, place and even self melted away.” Pg 114-115. Pink goes on to cite the “Goldilocks tasks,” – challenges that are neither overly difficult or overly simple. One source of frustration in the workplace is the frequent mismatch between what people must do and what people can do. When what they must do exceeds their capabilities, the result is anxiety. What what they must do falls short of their capabilities, the result is boredom….But when the match is just right, the results can be glorious. This is the essence of flow.” (pg. 118-119, emphasis mine).

My understanding of flow in MCODE terminology is that it is more related to our core motivations, and we are in flow when they are  in sync, or when I am working out of my top motivations. Can anyone suggest how these two concepts flow are similar, or different. Richard Bergstrom