Why does training not lead to behavior change in our organization?
Training solves for knowledge and, sometimes, for skill. But knowledge and skill are only one-third of the behavioral equation. The COM-B model shows that behavior requires Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation working together. Training addresses Capability. If the barriers are Opportunity or Motivation, training will not move the needle no matter how well-designed it is.
Consider a common scenario: an organization trains managers on giving constructive feedback. Post-training assessments show high knowledge scores. But six weeks later, feedback behavior has not changed. Why? Because the actual barriers were never about knowledge.
The managers may know how to give feedback but do not have protected time for one-on-ones (Opportunity, physical). Their peers are not doing it, so it feels socially risky to be the first (Opportunity, social). They worry about team morale if they give critical feedback during a stressful quarter (Motivation, reflective). And when the moment comes, the familiar impulse to avoid an awkward conversation is stronger than the newly learned skill (Motivation, automatic).
The fix requires intervention design beyond the training room. Implementation intentions (specific if-then plans for when and how to give feedback) help bridge the intention-action gap. Environmental redesign (building feedback prompts into existing meeting cadences) creates opportunity. Social proof (visible stories of managers who gave feedback and saw results) addresses motivation. Gradually increasing difficulty (starting with positive feedback before moving to constructive) builds confidence.
Training is a valid intervention component, but only when the diagnosis confirms that capability is the primary barrier. When organizations default to training for every behavior change challenge, they are treating symptoms rather than diagnosing root causes.
