COM-B Model: What It Is and Why It Matters at Work

You’ve probably watched a well-funded change initiative die quietly. Leadership announced the new process, ran the training, sent the follow-up emails — and six weeks later, everyone was back to the old way. The COM-B model explains why: changing behavior requires three conditions to be present simultaneously, and most organizations only address one.

Definition and Origin

Developed by Susan Michie and colleagues at University College London in 2011, the COM-B model states that behavior (B) occurs only when a person has sufficient Capability (C), Opportunity (O), and Motivation (M). Remove any one of the three and the behavior won’t happen — regardless of how much you invest in the other two.

• Capability — does the person have the knowledge and skills (psychological capability) and the physical ability to perform the behavior?
• Opportunity — does the environment permit and facilitate it? This includes both physical opportunity (time, tools, resources) and social opportunity (norms, peer behavior, cultural permission).
• Motivation — is there sufficient drive? This covers reflective motivation (conscious goals, identity, beliefs) and automatic motivation (emotions, impulses, habits).

The model sits at the center of the Behavior Change Wheel, a broader framework that maps intervention types and policy categories to each COM-B component. It’s one of the most cited frameworks in behavioral science, with applications spanning public health, education, and — increasingly — organizational design.

Workplace Applications

Scenario: Managers aren’t using the new performance platform. HR assumes it’s a motivation problem and sends inspirational emails from the CEO. But a COM-B diagnosis might reveal the real barrier is capability (managers don’t know how to write effective check-in questions) or opportunity (there’s no protected time in their calendar to do it). Fix the wrong component and you’ve wasted everyone’s time.

Scenario: Cross-functional collaboration is stalling. Teams say they value collaboration, so motivation seems fine. But social opportunity is missing — there’s no shared Slack channel, no overlapping meeting cadence, no visible norm of reaching across silos. The motivation is real. The infrastructure isn’t.

Scenario: Sales reps don’t update the CRM. They know how (capability). They have access (physical opportunity). They don’t see anyone else doing it consistently, and their manager never references CRM data in reviews (social opportunity and reflective motivation). Two of three components are undermined. The behavior doesn’t happen.

Common Misconceptions

“It’s just another motivation framework.” This is precisely what it isn’t. COM-B’s contribution is distinguishing motivation from capability and opportunity. Most workplace interventions over-index on motivation (“inspire people to change”) and ignore structural barriers entirely.

“If people are motivated enough, the other factors don’t matter.” Michie’s research directly contradicts this. A highly motivated person without capability or opportunity still can’t perform the behavior. Willpower doesn’t conjure skills or remove environmental obstacles.

“COM-B is too academic for practical use.” It’s actually designed as a diagnostic tool. The framework’s power is in asking three simple questions before designing any intervention: Can they do it? Does the environment support it? Do they want to? Skip any of those and you’re guessing.

Using COM-B to Design Better Interventions

The sharpest application is as a pre-mortem. Before rolling out any behavior change initiative — a new feedback cadence, a collaboration ritual, an adoption push for new software — run each target behavior through the three components. Where’s the weakest link? That’s where your intervention budget should go, not where your assumptions point. GWork’s approach to embedding behavior change into daily workflows, for instance, reflects a deliberate focus on the opportunity component — making the desired behavior structurally easy rather than aspirationally appealing.

Related Terms

• Feedback Loop — how reinforcing signals sustain (or extinguish) behavior
• Behavioral Nudge — an opportunity-layer intervention that reshapes choice architecture
• Keystone Habits — high-leverage behaviors that shift capability and motivation together

FAQ

How do I diagnose which COM-B component is the bottleneck? Interview the people whose behavior you’re trying to change. Ask: “Do you know how to do this?” (capability), “Is there anything preventing you even if you wanted to?” (opportunity), and “Do you see value in doing it?” (motivation). The bottleneck usually becomes obvious within five conversations.

Can COM-B explain why a behavior stopped after initially working? Absolutely. A new behavior might start strong because motivation is high (novelty effect), but fade when opportunity erodes — the protected calendar time gets reclaimed, the manager stops reinforcing it, the tool becomes harder to access. Sustainability requires all three components to persist, not just launch.