What is the difference between behavioral science and traditional change management?

Traditional change management typically follows a top-down sequence: define the vision, communicate the case for change, align stakeholders, train people, and manage resistance. Frameworks like ADKAR, Kotter, and Prosci structure this sequence well. The assumption underneath is that if people understand the change and feel supported, they will adopt new behaviors.

Behavioral science starts from a different assumption: understanding and support are necessary but not sufficient. People can understand a change completely, support it publicly, and still not do it. The gap between intention and action is not a failure of communication. It is a predictable feature of how human behavior works.

The core difference is diagnostic precision.

Traditional change management asks "are people aware, willing, and able?" Behavioral science asks "what specific barrier is preventing this specific behavior in this specific context?" and then classifies that barrier using a validated taxonomy.

The COM-B model provides that taxonomy: Capability (knowledge, skills, memory, attention), Opportunity (physical environment, social norms, time, tools), and Motivation (beliefs, emotions, habits, impulses). Each category maps to different intervention strategies. You would not prescribe the same treatment for a broken bone and a virus. Behavioral science applies the same logic to organizational change.

This does not make traditional change management wrong. It makes it incomplete. Most organizations already do the communication, sponsorship, and training layers well. What they lack is the diagnostic layer that tells them why specific behaviors are not changing and what intervention will actually address the root cause. Behavioral science fills that gap.