Introduction

I keep asking myself why simple, well thought-out and cost-effective ideas for improving corporate culture, safety or productivity fall on deaf ears. Not only in corporations with cumbersome bureaucracy, but also in small companies with flat hierarchies and seemingly short decision-making processes. Am I naive because I believe that people would write a LinkedIn article for a cup of coffee? Or because I believe in a positive reinforcement culture instead of disciplining employees with compulsory training or silent frustration?

I don’t think so. And I also don’t believe that this lack of understanding can be explained simply by pragmatism or cost-consciousness. Rather, I am convinced that you have to have a certain interdisciplinary understanding in order to really penetrate these dynamics. Anyone who wants to initiate systemic change should not only be familiar with economic principles, but also psychological, behavioural and communicative principles – or at least be prepared to take them seriously.

After all, behaviour does not emerge in a vacuum. Those who only combat symptoms – for example with more training or even more control – will not achieve a lasting effect. However, those who try to understand why people do what they do – and what stops them from doing more – have the chance to make a real change.

This blog post is an invitation to reflect: on incentive systems, on frustration, on wasted potential and on what leadership really looks like

The illusion of equal treatment – ‘He is being paid for his time’

In vielen Unternehmen gilt ein unausgesprochenes Prinzip: Wer Gehalt bekommt, hat keinen weiteren In many companies, there is an unspoken principle: if you receive a salary, you are not entitled to any further rewards. Whether I’m holding a customer workshop, writing an internal security white paper or cleaning the coffee machine – it’s all ‘working time’ and therefore compensated. Full stop.

At first glance, this attitude seems logical. If you exchange time for money, you owe time – regardless of how it is spent. But in practice, this way of thinking ignores the central question:

Why would someone voluntarily do more if they get the same for the minimum?

The answer is simple: most people don’t. And why should they? While central tasks such as customer projects or management reports have a certain social and functional visibility, many things that are ‘not explicitly required’ are simply left undone. Articles for the company website? Internal process improvement? Technical documentation? All tasks with real value – but no immediate reward.

The result: avoidance behaviour. Service by the book. Standstill. Not out of malice, but out of systemically understandable behaviour. It is a psychological self-protection against tasks that require effort but promise no recognition.

Behavioural economics describes this phenomenon as moral hazard: if effort and result are not directly linked, the willingness to put in additional effort decreases.

And even worse: those who show initiative anyway are often ridiculed or – even more perfidious – degraded to the standard. Suddenly, the extraordinary is seen as the norm and this leads to a devaluation of commitment.

Warum Incentives keine Gefälligkeiten sind, sondern Steuerungsinstrumente

Before we go into further detail, it is worth taking a brief look at a fundamental misconception shared by many organisations: that work is motivating per se or at least experienced as sufficiently meaningful. In fact, the theologian and author Martin Hägglund describes in his book ‘This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom’ that for most people, work is not an end in itself, but a means to an end – necessary to be able to afford life outside of work. Self-realisation does not take place in gainful employment, but in the freedom it is supposed to provide.

This realisation has far-reaching implications: Motivation is functionally limited in many contexts. It only goes as far as necessary – no further. If organisations expect employees to go beyond what is expected, then it is not enough to simply hope for an ‘inner attitude’. Then structures are needed that make initiative visible, reward it, protect it and support it culturally.

An example: Let’s say you suggest buying lunch for every LinkedIn article written. The cost? A maximum of 5 euros, negotiable. The benefit? Visibility, employer branding, SEO, potential leads. The reaction? Often dismissive. Reason: ‘It’s working time.’

What is being confused here: Salary rewards time, not motivation. And motivation is not binary. Nobody works ‘with full vigour’ on tasks that they find tedious, pointless or unpleasant. A small incentive is not a ‘bribe’, but a signal: “We know that this means effort. And we appreciate it.”

Motivational psychology clearly proves that extrinsic motivation, even small ones, can play a significant role in controlling behaviour – especially in the case of less intrinsically motivating tasks. Symbolic or social incentives in particular, such as praise, appreciation or small material rewards, can encourage commitment without risking the ‘crowding-out effect’.

In addition, such small incentives often act as a catalyst: they create momentum, lower the psychological barrier to entry and generate positive examples. Often, an initial success with visible recognition is enough to set a cultural change in motion.

Why good ideas fail – and what this has to do with power

The most frustrating experience is when you outline a functioning model with clear KPIs, low costs and a comprehensible benefit – and it still fails. Not because of feasibility. Not because of resources. But because of a mixture of:

• Cultural conservatism,
• implicit mistrust,
• lack of courage,
• or simply: lack of interest.

Psychological theories on organisational inertia show that established structures are often maintained not because of a lack of will, but because of a deep aversion to uncertainty and loss of control. Good ideas therefore often fail not because of their quality, but because they deviate from the expected.

It is often the case that ideas are formulated, calculated and presented. They are taken note of, never directly rejected, but never implemented. That’s the worst form of failure: the invisible, silent fizzling out of things that could work.

Der wahre Grund für Leistungsvermeidung: Psychologische Kosten

The real reason for performance avoidance: psychological costs

Many managers believe that employees avoid tasks because they are lazy or don’t have time. In reality, they avoid tasks when

• the effort is high,
• the purpose is unclear,
• the recognition is low,
• and the return is not visible.

These four factors generate psychological costs – and they are often higher than the actual amount of work involved. Writing an article is no big deal. But:

• Who reads it?
• Will it be criticised?
• What good will it do me?
• Will I be judged by it?
• Could I lose something if I stand out?

There is a central psychological motive behind many of these questions: risk avoidance. Visibility always means vulnerability. Anyone who shows initiative is making an advance payment – emotionally, in terms of time and reputation. And those who are ignored, criticised or even exposed quickly learn that initiative is dangerous.

The principle of learned helplessness shows how people internalise through repeated non-recognition or a lack of consequences that their efforts have no effect – and then give up initiative. If an employee is even actively ‘shot down’ after contributing an idea, this effect is drastically amplified. The threshold for initiative not only becomes higher, it becomes insurmountable at some point.

A practical example – phishing awareness as a case study

Let’s take the implementation of a phishing campaign to raise security awareness as a concrete example. The standard approach of many companies is based on a negative reinforcement model: a fake phishing email is sent out, anyone who clicks on it has to complete a mandatory mini training course or is sanctioned in some other way – sometimes silently, sometimes explicitly. The learning effect? Short-term at best, often accompanied by shame, frustration or resignation. Motivation is rarely the result.

There are now attempts to ‘gamify’ these campaigns, for example through departmental rankings or internal leaderboards. However, such measures often fizzle out because they do not provide any tangible incentives. Who really benefits from their own department performing better? Where is the individual benefit? Such measures are usually cosmetic – with no tangible effect.

Yet with minimal effort, a completely different direction could be taken. What if reporting a real or simulated phishing attempt was rewarded – for example with a coffee voucher, a cinema ticket or other small, immediately redeemable incentives? From a behavioural psychology perspective, this would actually be the more effective way: according to findings from learning psychology, positive reinforcements are most effective when they are given immediately after the behaviour has been demonstrated. The reward doesn’t have to be big – but it does have to be immediate and tangible.

The economic benefits are obvious: instead of carrying out expensive mandatory training for all employees – with the corresponding loss of productivity – targeted, motivating incentives could improve reporting behaviour, increase security awareness and at the same time make the culture more positive. A coffee for a reported (validly classified) phishing attempt costs perhaps 2 euros – an hour’s work for an average-paid employee can easily cost three to five times as much. The economies of scale are obvious.

Of course, mechanisms are needed for verification, for example by involving the SOC or a responsible security team. But it is precisely this type of direct cooperation that can additionally strengthen the visibility and acceptance of security issues – without coming across as lecturing or paternalistic.

What I have learnt – and what I am taking away with me

This examination of motivation, psychological costs and structural hurdles has given me some key insights:

• Good ideas need structural anchoring. Without a mandate, resources or protection, they often have no impact. Even the best idea will fizzle out if nobody supports its implementation.
• Incentives are tools, not favours. Motivation is not a permanent state, but the result of systemic framework conditions. If you want to encourage productive behaviour, you have to reinforce it in a targeted manner.
• Equal treatment must not mean levelling down. Different levels of commitment deserve different levels of response – not just morally, but functionally. Organisations thrive on their drivers.
• Realism is not cynicism. Not everything can be changed immediately – and not every idea belongs in every system. Those who recognise this can act in a more targeted way instead of losing themselves.
• Good ideas are timeless. What cannot be realised today may be the key to change tomorrow. It is worth archiving ideas – not as failed attempts, but as mature options.
• Systems do not change through confrontation alone. Patience, positioning and timing are part of strategic effectiveness. Not every suggestion needs to be implemented immediately – sometimes it is enough if it is understood.

These principles have sharpened my awareness of psychological dynamics, of the relationship between effort and effect – and of the long-term importance of constructive perseverance. They are no guarantee of success. But they do provide orientation. And perhaps that is exactly what leadership can do at its core: Creating clarity where there is uncertainty. And show attitude where impact is still lacking.

Closing words: From the idea to leadership

Leadership does not begin with a title. It begins with the ambition to do things better. With an eye for connections. With a reflection on what moves people or slows them down.

What may not be applied today can become the foundation for change tomorrow. It is not about implementing everything immediately, but about being prepared – with well thought-out concepts, psychological intuition and a systemic view.

Good leadership means not forgetting the questions – even if the answers are a long time coming:

• How can we combine safety with joy?
• How can we motivate people to do things that don’t bring immediate benefits?
• How do you recognise when to stop pushing – and when to start leading?
• How do you create spaces in which suggestions are not only heard, but supported?