Check Out Niels Van Quaquebeke's LinkedIn Stats (Last 30 Days)

Want people to stick with tough tasks? Turns out, a little psychology beats a bigger paycheck. The study goes back to a TED talk I heard in Vancouver by the CEO of Duolingo He said the single most important nudge to keep people on the task of working a language was: streaks. Now the science: In a series of six studies (with 4,493 participants), researchers tested a surprising idea: people work more when they’re paid less per task—if the incentive rewards consecutive effort. Instead of offering a flat rate, participants were given “streak incentives”—small bonuses that grow as long as tasks are done back-to-back, and reset if there's a break. The result? 💡 People stayed more focused, completed more tasks, and were more committed to their goals—even when the total payoff was lower than with traditional pay schemes. Why? Because streak incentives link past effort to future rewards. They build momentum. They make commitment visible. And here's the kicker: it’s not about the increasing numbers—it’s the consecutiveness that matters. You all know the drill from apps like Duolingo or snapchat. The streaks keep you going. If you’re designing incentive systems—whether in sales, learning, or gig work—this is a game-changer: 👉 Don’t just reward performance. Reward streaks. 👉 Make continuity visible—and valuable. 👉 Help people feel their effort builds. Because sometimes, 1 + 2 + 3 beats 3 + 3 + 3—when it keeps people going. https://lnkd.in/dJdYNuFC

It’s hard to trust a manager who doesn’t care. Even harder when that “manager” runs on code. New research shows that employees perceive AI managers as less benevolent than human ones—and that this perceivedlack of care deeply undermines trust. Across four studies—from real-world delivery riders to controlled lab experiments—the evidence is consistent: 🤖 AI managers are trusted less not because they lack skill or fairness, but because they lack the ability to feel. 💔 In emotionally charged situations—like asking for time off after a bereavement—this matters even more. 👀 The result? People often prefer human managers, even if both follow the same rules. Why? Because trust isn’t just about competence. It’s about connection. And connection, in human psychology, still runs through empathy. As AI tools take on more leadership functions, here’s the call for all of us building the future of work: 👉 Don’t confuse efficiency with humanity. 👉 Use AI where empathy isn’t required—but be cautious where care is core. 👉 And remember: when people feel unseen, they disengage—even if the algorithm is technically right. Leadership is more than logic. It’s a moral and emotional contract. AI may assist, but it cannot yet feel. https://lnkd.in/dVNe6gPJ (Note though, this is a snapshot in time. As long as humans do not know that the other side is an AI, they more often than not evaluate its responses as more empathetic than humans. Who is to say how long we will devalue machines. One day, we may want to rather rely on their "benevolence" than that of our fellow humans).

How to get what you want without a tantrum. This child demonstrates how to do it: First try: “Dad, can I have some ice cream?” → No. Second try: “Dad, I missed you today. Can we share a bowl and talk about our day?” → Yes. Why the shift? Because the ask was reframed around what Dad values: quality time. The takeaway? 🎯 Great negotiators don’t push harder—they tailor the ask to the values, needs, and unspoken goals of the other side. So next time you're negotiating, whether with a client, a colleague, or yes, your kid, pause to ask: 👉 What matters to them?

Too often when I face microaggressions, dismissive remarks, subtle disrespect, I freeze or react poorly. But as Jim Detert and Aba Blankson show, having just one well-chosen phrase can shift the tone. In their article, they highlight three powerful types: 💥 Assertive: e.g., ““If you wouldn’t want that said about your family or friend, don’t say it here.” 🤔 Educational: e.g., “I noticed that comment, and I want to share why it can be harmful.” 🔎 Inquisitive: e.g. , “Could you tell me why you think that’s true?” Notably, these aren’t speeches. They’re prepared tools, helping you to unparalyze yourself, designed to interrupt hurt without escalating tension. But, keep in mind, using them effectively takes rehearsal! So don't ruminate afterwards what you could've said but prepare what you will say. Find out more here: https://lnkd.in/dYnWD7Nx

Some concepts are really hard to teach. For instance, abusive supervision. Is it really abuse, or is it deserved tough love? Based on our article "When Victims Help Their Abusive Supervisors" https://lnkd.in/dbTvuAbJ , Christian and I therefore decided to develop a teaching case where we highlight how sometimes abuse may be misinterpreted as "tough love". As students can experience, it takes a village to get the perspective right. Find the teaching case here: https://lnkd.in/d8gsEQch We would love to hear your experience teaching it. Drop us a note.

What if I told you your job isn’t just shaping your career—but your life expectancy? A new study looked at millions of U.S. death records and found something quietly powerful: the job you choose has a real, measurable impact on how long you live. Even when income and education are held constant, some jobs come with years more life than others. 💼 Desk-bound, isolated roles? Shorter lifespans. 🌳 Physically active, socially engaging jobs? Longer ones. The gap is about as large as the difference in life expectancy between men and women. Let that sink in. This doesn’t mean we all need to become farmers or forest rangers. But it does mean we should be asking better questions—about our workplace, our stress, our movement, and our sense of connection on the job. Because work isn’t just what we do with our time. It’s what we do with our lives. https://lnkd.in/dyNsQ6xX