Progress-focused

Self-determination theory ( SDT) posits that in addition to the need for autonomy and relatedness , people also have a fundamental need for competence . In attempting to use this need for competence in educational software, researchers have found its definition to be confusing and incomplete. Two recent papers address this by clarifying and formalizing the definition.

Climate change, economic inequality, mass animal suffering, and the decline of biodiversity are some of the most pressing issues of our time. Yet, many people don’t feel a strong day-to-day urgency to tackle them, despite their massive scale and the abundance of information about their consequences. How can it be that these problems are so vast and well-known, yet individuals often feel hesitant to take action? New research by Eskreis-Winkler et al. (2024) provides an explanation through their concept of the Big Problem Paradox.

I a recent Youtube video, Robert Reich gave an explanation for Trump’s victory. He pointed to systematic problems in American society, such as economic inequality, and said that Trump “gave voice to the anger” of the American people. I agree with many things that Reich said, as I generally do. But to say that Trump gave voice to the anger of the people while the Democrats failed to do that, may not be accurate, or at least not complete. Let me explain.

  Self-explanation is an effective learning strategy that promotes deep understanding. The process forces learners to actively organize information, make implicit assumptions explicit, and identify gaps in knowledge. In their recent study, Atir and Risen (2024) examine how subjective knowledge—confidence in one's understanding—affects the willingness to use explanation as a strategy. This research sheds light on the barriers learners face when applying effective strategies and how to overcome them.

Many people aim to change aspects of their personality, such as becoming less anxious, more open to new experiences, or more assertive. International research shows that 60% of the world's population actively tries to influence personality traits like neuroticism or extraversion. But how do you change something as seemingly fundamental as your personality? A publication by Clifton and Crum (2024) offers a fresh perspective. They argue that our most fundamental beliefs about the world play a crucial role in shaping how we think, feel, and act. These so-called primal world beliefs may be a significant factor in sustainable personality change.

Recently I came across a case in which three assessment criteria played a crucial role in resolving a long-standing leadership conflict. At TechSolutions BV, a medium-sized technology company, tensions arose within the Software Development department over a long period of time. Several employees had filed complaints about their manager, Mark Jansen, over a long period of time. The core of these complaints concerned three main points: intimidating behavior, belittling employees during team meetings and creating an unsafe working atmosphere. Several of the employees had requested a transfer to another department out of dissatisfaction. Because the problems had been going on for a long time, Mark had had several conversations with an internal coach last year. However, two complaints recently emerged again. Management decided to start a process in which three assessment criteria played a central role.