Behavioral Science for L&D Teams
The Problem You Are Facing
Your training programs score well on reaction and knowledge assessments. Participants rate them highly and demonstrate learning gains in post-training evaluations. Six weeks later, the behaviors taught in the program have not transferred to the workplace. The knowing-doing gap persists, and the organization questions the return on L&D investment.
This is not a quality problem with your training design. Training, by definition, builds Capability: knowledge and skill. But the COM-B model shows that Capability is only one-third of the behavioral equation. If the barriers to performing the trained behavior are Opportunity (the work environment does not support it) or Motivation (the old behavior is easier and safer at the moment of action), training will not produce behavior change regardless of how well it is designed.
The Transfer Problem Is a Design Problem
Training transfer research consistently shows that the work environment has more influence on post-training behavior than the training content itself. If the learner returns to an environment where the old behavior is still the default, where peers are not performing the new behavior, where there is no prompt or trigger for the trained skill, and where the trained behavior takes more effort than the familiar alternative, the training will not transfer.
This is not a failure of training. It is a failure of the system around the training. The SHIFT framework extends L&D design beyond the training room by adding three design layers: pre-training diagnosis (are the actual barriers capability-based, or will training miss the mark?), post-training environmental design (what changes in the work context need to support the new behavior?), and behavioral measurement (is the trained behavior actually being performed, not just understood?).
What L&D Teams Can Do Differently
First, use COM-B diagnosis before designing training. If the actual barrier is opportunity (the system does not support the new behavior) or motivation (the old behavior feels safer), training is the wrong intervention. This saves resources and prevents the credibility damage that comes when well-designed training fails to produce behavior change.
Second, when training is the right intervention (capability is the confirmed barrier), extend the design to include implementation intentions ('when I encounter situation X, I will apply technique Y'), graduated difficulty (start with the simplest application and build up), and peer teaching (train a cohort who then trains their peers, creating social proof alongside capability).
Third, measure behavioral transfer, not just learning outcomes. Track whether trained behaviors are being performed in the workplace at one, four, and twelve weeks post-training. If behaviors are not transferring, diagnose why using COM-B. The answer tells you whether the training needs adjustment or whether the environment needs redesign.
The SHIFT training program itself models this approach. It runs over six weeks using a theory-practice-case study cycle. Each module builds capability through practice, not just knowledge transfer. And it is designed so participants apply the framework to real organizational challenges during the program, creating the environmental conditions for transfer as part of the learning experience.
The critical L&D question is not 'how do we build better training?' It is 'is the barrier actually capability?' If yes, design training with transfer support. If no, design the right intervention for the actual barrier. Either way, the diagnosis comes first.
