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.

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.

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: