The COM-B model: understanding why workplace behaviour changes

What is the COM-B model?

COM-B is a model for understanding what enables or prevents a particular behaviour. It proposes that behaviour depends on three interacting conditions:

• Capability: can the person do it?
• Opportunity: do their surroundings and circumstances make it possible?
• Motivation: what directs them towards or away from doing it?

The “B” stands for behaviour, meaning an action someone performs, rather than their knowledge, attitude or intentions.

For workplace learning and development teams, the central lesson is straightforward: not every performance problem is a training problem. Someone might know how to complete a task but lack the time, equipment, support or incentive to do it.

COM-B helps you investigate those possibilities before choosing a solution. It is a structured way to ask better questions, not a test that produces a definitive diagnosis.

Why COM-B matters for workplace learning

When a required action is not happening, a familiar response is to commission a course, send a reminder or tell managers to reinforce expectations.

Sometimes that works. Sometimes it leaves the real barrier untouched.

Consider an assessor who does not update learner records promptly. Possible explanations include:

• They do not understand what a suitable entry should contain.
• The recording system is difficult to access when visiting employers.
• Their timetable leaves no realistic administration time.
• They see the records as duplication.
• They intend to update them but repeatedly forget between appointments.

These explanations call for different responses. A workshop could address understanding, but it cannot create administration time or repair unreliable access.

COM-B gives L&D, operational managers and staff a shared language for separating these issues. It also discourages a common mistake: interpreting every gap between expected and actual behaviour as a lack of commitment.

That does not remove accountability. It makes expectations and support more realistic.

Where the model comes from

COM-B was introduced by Susan Michie, Maartje M. van Stralen and Robert West in their 2011 paper on the Behaviour Change Wheel.

The model sits at the centre of the Behaviour Change Wheel, a broader framework that connects an analysis of behaviour with possible intervention approaches and policy options.

Two distinctions matter:

• COM-B helps explain what may need to change.
• The Behaviour Change Wheel helps organise possible ways of bringing about that change.

The original paper drew on a review of existing behaviour change frameworks. However, the existence of a research-based framework does not mean that every intervention designed with it will be effective. Results still depend on the quality of the diagnosis, the chosen response and its implementation.

Understanding capability, opportunity and motivation

Each COM-B component has two parts.

Capability: can the person perform the behaviour?

Capability concerns the person’s physical and psychological capacity to act.

Physical capability includes relevant physical skills, strength, dexterity and stamina. For example, an employee may need supervised practice to operate equipment safely.

Psychological capability includes knowledge, understanding, memory, attention and decision-making skills. A tutor may understand the purpose of accessible learning materials but not know how to structure an accessible document.

Useful questions include:

• Does the person know what to do and when?
• Can they demonstrate the skill, rather than simply describe it?
• Does the task demand more attention or memory than is realistic?
• Would practice, a worked example or a clear job aid help?

Do not infer capability from course attendance. Completing training shows participation, not necessarily competence in the working environment.

Equally, do not automatically locate a difficulty within the individual. A system that is inaccessible or unnecessarily complex may create an opportunity barrier, even when someone has the underlying skill.

Opportunity: do the conditions allow and support the behaviour?

Opportunity covers factors outside the person that make behaviour possible or prompt it.

Physical opportunity includes time, resources, equipment, access, location and features of the working environment.

Social opportunity includes relationships, shared expectations, cultural norms and the way other people respond.

For example:

• A trainer cannot use a digital resource if the teaching room has unreliable connectivity.
• An apprentice may know how to raise a safety concern but hesitate when experienced colleagues dismiss questions.
• A manager may be expected to hold development conversations without any protected time to do so.

Useful questions include:

• Is there enough time, and is the task practical within the workflow?
• Are systems, resources and permissions available?
• What do colleagues and managers model?
• Is the behaviour genuinely supported, or merely requested?

Opportunity is often where L&D needs to work with operations, IT, HR or senior leaders rather than offer another course.

Motivation: what makes the behaviour more or less likely?

COM-B uses motivation more broadly than enthusiasm or willingness.

Reflective motivation involves conscious evaluations and plans: beliefs about consequences, professional identity, intentions and goals.

Automatic motivation includes habits, emotional responses, impulses and learned associations.

An employee may believe that taking breaks is important and plan to do so. Yet the habit of working through lunch, combined with anxiety about appearing unproductive, may pull them in another direction.

Useful questions include:

• Does the person believe the action is worthwhile and likely to help?
• Does it fit their understanding of their role?
• Are competing goals taking priority?
• What habits, feelings or cues influence what happens in the moment?

Low motivation is not a character judgement. What looks like reluctance may reflect previous disappointment, fear of criticism or reasonable doubts about the proposed task.

The components interact

COM-B is not a linear sequence in which capability comes first, then opportunity, then motivation.

Protected practice time can increase opportunity, build capability and strengthen confidence. An overloaded schedule can restrict opportunity while also creating fatigue that affects attention and motivation.

Behaviour can feed back into the system too. Repeated successful practice may strengthen skills and make an action more habitual.

You therefore do not need to force every problem into one category. A useful analysis often identifies several interacting barriers.

Two realistic examples

The following examples are illustrative, not reports of evaluated interventions.

Example 1: FE tutors are not consistently using accessible documents

A college wants tutors to use heading styles and meaningful link text in digital handouts. Its initial proposal is a mandatory awareness presentation.

A COM-B investigation suggests a more targeted response.

Capability: Some tutors understand accessibility in principle but cannot demonstrate how to apply heading styles or check a document.

Opportunity: Shared templates use visual formatting without proper heading structure. Tutors also inherit large banks of older materials.

Motivation: Some believe accessibility is relevant only when a learner has disclosed a disability. Others agree with the goal but automatically reuse familiar documents.

A combined response could include:

• Brief demonstrations followed by practice on tutors’ own materials.
• Accessible default templates.
• Scheduled time to revise frequently used resources.
• An explanation of the benefits for different learners.
• A short accessibility check at the point of publishing.

Evaluation should examine whether documents actually change and whether learners encounter fewer access barriers. Training completion alone would not establish success.

The lesson is not that awareness sessions are useless. It is that awareness addresses only part of this particular problem.

Example 2: employees delay reporting near misses

A workplace wants staff to report near misses before the end of their shift. Managers assume that people need another safety briefing.

Discussion with staff reveals a different picture.

Capability: Most staff can explain what a near miss is, although some are uncertain about borderline cases.

Opportunity: Reporting requires access to a shared computer. Colleagues sometimes describe reporting as creating unnecessary paperwork.

Motivation: Staff worry that reporting will lead to blame. Previous reports received no visible response, reducing confidence that the effort matters.

Possible actions include:

• Clarifying uncertain cases with short, relevant examples.
• Making reporting accessible where work happens.
• Establishing and following a fair, non-blaming response.
• Showing what action follows reports.
• Allowing time for reporting within the shift.

An initial increase in reports might reflect greater confidence in the system rather than worsening safety. Evaluation should therefore consider reporting quality, follow-up and wider safety information, not just the number of submissions.

How to apply COM-B in practice

1. Define an observable behaviour

Avoid starting with “improve engagement” or “build a learning culture”. These are ambitions, not specific actions.

Use this prompt:

Who needs to do what, when, where and with whom?

For example:

At the end of each review meeting, the assessor and apprentice agree one next action and record it in the usual review system.

Keep the behaviour proportionate and worthwhile. COM-B can help increase an action without establishing whether that action deserves to happen.

2. Understand what happens now

Ask the people doing the work. Where appropriate, combine conversations with observation, work samples and existing operational information.

Helpful prompts include:

• “Talk me through the last time you tried to do this.”
• “At what point did it become difficult?”
• “What makes it easier on some occasions?”
• “What happens when someone does, or does not, do it?”

Compare circumstances rather than immediately comparing “motivated” and “unmotivated” people. Someone may perform the same task successfully in one setting but struggle in another.

3. Map the barriers and enablers

Create a simple working table.

Component	Evidence to look for	Possible response
Capability	Unclear understanding or difficulty demonstrating the skill	Explanation, practice, coaching or a job aid
Opportunity	Missing time, access, resources or social support	Workflow changes, accessible tools or changes to team norms
Motivation	Doubts about value, competing priorities, fear or established habits	Meaningful feedback, goal review, supportive cues or trust-building

Treat these as hypotheses, not automatic prescriptions.

A reminder will not resolve an impossible workload. Coaching will not fix missing system permissions. An incentive may even distort behaviour if it rewards quantity while undermining quality.

4. Choose a response that matches the evidence

Ask:

• Which barrier must change for progress to be possible?
• Who has authority to change it?
• Can we remove friction before adding another requirement?
• What support would be acceptable to those affected?
• Could the intervention disadvantage a particular group?

This is where ownership becomes important. L&D may lead skills development, while managers need to change scheduling and IT needs to improve access.

5. Test on a manageable scale

Where feasible, trial the response with a small group or within one workflow.

Specify:

• What will change.
• Who is responsible.
• What support is needed.
• How you will check that the change happened.
• When you will review it.

Involve staff in the design. They can often identify practical problems before a wider rollout.

6. Measure behaviour and outcomes

Separate three questions:

1. Implementation: did we deliver the planned support?
2. Behaviour: did people act differently?
3. Outcome: did the change improve something that matters?

Use proportionate measures and avoid unnecessary surveillance. Explain what information you are collecting and why.

If results disappoint, revisit the assumptions rather than immediately concluding that staff resisted change.

Limitations and common misunderstandings

COM-B organises thinking; it does not prove causation. Conversations and observations can suggest explanations, but a credible evaluation is needed to assess whether an intervention caused improvement.

Its categories are broad and sometimes overlap. That flexibility is useful, but different teams may classify the same issue differently. The aim is an actionable explanation, not perfect labelling.

It is not a validated employee scoring system. Rating someone’s capability, opportunity and motivation out of ten does not produce a scientifically established performance score.

It does not make organisational problems individual responsibilities. Unsafe workloads, discrimination, inaccessible systems and lack of resources require organisational action. The HSE Management Standards offer a complementary approach to examining working conditions associated with work-related stress.

It does not replace specialist advice. Behavioural analysis cannot substitute for technical safety expertise, occupational health support or appropriate assessment of learning needs.

It cannot guarantee lasting change. A short-term improvement may fade when reminders stop, staffing changes or competing demands return.

Related approaches that can help

The Behaviour Change Wheel extends COM-B by organising intervention options such as education, training, modelling and environmental restructuring.

The Theoretical Domains Framework provides a more detailed exploration of influences including knowledge, skills, beliefs, professional role and social influences. It can help when a broad COM-B analysis is not specific enough.

A conventional learning needs analysis remains valuable where a capability gap has been established. Process mapping can help investigate opportunity barriers such as duplication, delays and awkward handovers.

These approaches can complement one another. COM-B should not become a reason to discard methods that already help you understand the work.

Summary and your next step

COM-B explains behaviour through interacting capability, opportunity and motivation. Its value for workplace learning is the discipline of investigating barriers before choosing training or another intervention.

Your next step: choose one recurring workplace difficulty, describe the required behaviour in a single sentence and ask the people involved what makes it easy or difficult. Map their answers before proposing a solution.

Sources and further reading

• Michie, van Stralen and West: The behaviour change wheel, 2011. The original publication introducing COM-B within the Behaviour Change Wheel.
• Atkins and colleagues: A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework, 2017. Practical guidance for a more detailed investigation of behavioural influences.
• NICE: Behaviour change, individual approaches. Guidance on designing and evaluating behaviour change interventions, primarily in health contexts rather than workplace performance.
• HSE: Management Standards for work-related stress. UK guidance for examining organisational conditions, including demands, control, support and relationships.