Hey guys, I hope you are all doing well. Here is something that I build exactly for people like us: interested in making interactions more effective by making them more engaging for the job-to-be-done at hand. Therefore I created this System Analyzer that helps us to analyse a current situation and figures out its actual motivational design logic and also its required motivational design logic. The system can give you the audit of the gap between these two (if there is one) and a first apporach on how to improve it. you will get a web report and also a more advanced donwloadable PDF report. It would mean the world to me if you try it and give feedback. If possible, do it here in the community for a fruitful exchange. https://assess.engaginglab.com Have a great day, cheers, Roman

I built something over the last few weeks, and I want to share it with you before I show it to anyone else. It's called the Behavioral Systems Analyzer. You put in a specific behavior you want someone to perform, answer 20 questions about how the motivation around that behavior actually works right now, and the tool tells you where the misfit is between what the system requires and what people actually feel. The output is a full PDF report. It maps your Actual vs. Required motivation type, calculates the gap, and gives you concrete interventions based on Self-Determination Theory. I built it because I kept having the same conversation with clients: "We have a reward structure, people still don't do the thing." The diagnosis was always missing. This is the diagnosis. It's free. For you. No catch. I just want real humans to run it on a real problem and tell me what's confusing, what's missing, or what surprised them. Here's the link: assess.engaginglab.com One question after you try it: did the result match what you already suspected, or did it show you something you hadn't seen?

A research team at Boston University published something in early 2026 in the journal Frontiers in Behavioral Economics that, in this context, deserves substantially more attention than it is getting. The study examines acoustic cues in consumer environments. Its core finding: micro-auditory signals operate below the threshold of conscious perception. People do not notice them. They cannot guard against them. And they activate, in the brain, exactly those evaluation processes that determine whether someone feels safe or vigilant. What this has to do with the office? An echoing open-plan office. Inconsistent soundscapes. Desks where conversations carry into the farthest corner. Sounds from multiple directions that fail to send a coherent message. The brains of the people working in that space are continuously processing a question they never explicitly ask: is this a safe situation? The answer it derives from the acoustic environment is not a clean yes. The mechanism behind this is what behavioral economists call processing fluency: the ease with which the brain processes an environment is translated directly into affective evaluation. An acoustically coherent environment is processed with little effort. An incoherent one costs resources. Those resources are then missing somewhere else. Not dramatically. Not measurably in any given moment. But constantly, across hours, weeks, quarters. read more here: https://engaginglab.com/en/blog/psychological-safety-physics/

I've never been a career path person. I do follow paths, but for a variety of roles I'm interested in. Or roles I have to hold as an entrepreneur. I've discovered over the last few years that I'm not alone in this and I'm now exploring this space more. Curious if anyone else recognizes this and has any suggestions for knowledge and best practices to look at. The portfolio approach is what lead me to transition from learning journeys with a previous venture Patica, to the roles approach I'm following with Tribre. Here is a first go at capturing my thoughts about career portfolios versus career paths, or even worst career ladders: tribre.com/career-portfolio