Quick heads up for everyone here in the community. Over the last weeks, we have been quietly building something that many of our customers have been asking for in different forms. A simple way to look at a learning setup, an HR process, or an internal initiative and answer one uncomfortable question: Is the system actually motivating the kind of behavior it expects? Most instructional designs say they want curiosity, transfer, problem-solving, ownership, and most HR systems still reward completion, speed, attendance, or clean spreadsheets. That gap is not a motivation problem. It is a design mismatch. We just released a short Motivational Fit Diagnostic that helps make this visible. It is not a learner-type quiz or an engagement score. It is a behavioral design diagnostic that looks at the structure around people and the type of motivation it quietly produces. Why am I sharing this here? First, this assessment is very new. Which means it is not finished. And that is intentional. If you are working in instructional design, L&D, or HR, you are exactly the people who can stress test it with real contexts. Learning programs, onboarding journeys, mandatory trainings, leadership tracks, or change initiatives. In about five minutes, you get a first map of: What kind of motivation does your setup currently trigger? Whether that motivation fits the behavior you actually need? Where engagement leaks are structural, not personal? Think of it as a diagnostic before redesign. Before adding nudges. Before adding rewards. Before adding more content. If you try it and something feels off, that feedback matters. If it clicks immediately, that matters too. This is one of those tools that will only get sharper by being used on real cases, not hypothetical ones. If you are curious how behavioral design applies to your learning or HR context, jump in. Early users are part of shaping where this goes next. As always, the goal is not to motivate people harder. It is to design systems that make the right behavior easier to sustain.

Data is not the magic. The framing is. Gamified L&D environments can take boring data and turns it into an emotionally charged storyline, character arc, a bragging right, or a personal memory. So the value is not the number. It is the interpretation. Which is exactly the opposite of what organisations most oftne do with their KPIs/dashboards. Most dashboards present information as statistics. What if we present information as a protagonist’s journey? Huge difference.

I just had a (friendly) discussion with a colleague from gamification. It struck me that it is becoming increasingly common for a behavior-oriented approach to be labeled as gamification simply because it addresses a human need (which every behavior-oriented approach does). First, this is complete nonsense from a scientific point of view. Just because something plays on a person's loss aversion, for example, does not mean it is gamification. And secondly, because gamification wants to be everything (if you go by what many providers in this field say), outsiders don't really see it as a discipline with a ‘profile’. This in turn leads to ‘zero’ USP and makes it very difficult to argue and demonstrate its real benefits.

Is there something special you are working on today?

The modern working world requires employees to switch seamlessly between five fundamentally different learning domains: the algorithmic memorization of facts, the procedural execution of standards, the heuristic solution of complex problems, the technological mastery of digital tools, and the application of interpersonal skills. Traditional learning and development strategies, which are predominantly based on a monolithic motivation model ("carrot and stick"), are not only inefficient for this diversity but have also been proven to be harmful in highly complex domains. This briefing synthesises insights from self-determination theory (SDT) to create a precise roadmap for aligning learning initiatives with the required quality of motivation. The central thesis is that each learning domain requires a specific type of motivation to achieve optimal results. Misalignment leads to predictable performance deficits: The use of external rewards for creative tasks causes the "undermining effect," which blocks innovation. Pressure to comply with "soft skills" leads to "surface acting" and burnout. Strict monitoring in safety-critical areas creates a "safety paradox" in which mistakes are covered up out of fear. The solution lies in consciously designing learning environments that satisfy the basic psychological needs for autonomy (freedom of choice), competence (sense of efficacy) and connectedness (belonging). By adapting their motivation strategy to the respective learning task, companies can go beyond mere compliance and promote a culture of mastery, commitment and sustainable performance. The five learning domains and the spectrum of motivation In order to design effective learning strategies, it is crucial to understand both the nature of the learning task and the underlying psychological dynamics. The "architecture of engagement" framework is based on two pillars: the five learning domains and the self-determination continuum. The five learning domains of modern work: