Why Motivation Isn’t Enough for Lasting Behavior Change
Why Motivation Isn’t Enough for Lasting Behavior Change
by James Porter
Hold on to your hats—because if you haven’t yet been introduced to the work of BJ Fogg, this information may completely change the way you think about behavior change.
BJ Fogg, a Stanford professor whose research is reshaping how organizations approach habit formation, engagement, and sustainable behavior change. If his name is new to you, pay attention now—this work has significant implications for how we design programs meant to help employees actually follow through.
For decades, most workplace behavior-change models have focused on motivation. We educate, inspire, coach, and encourage—assuming that if employees truly understand why change matters, they’ll do the work to make it happen.
But what if motivation isn’t the missing piece?
BJ Fogg’s research suggests something counterintuitive yet powerful:
Lasting behavior change is less about motivation and more about ability.
Traditional approaches—including Prochaska’s Stages of Change and Motivational Interviewing—emphasize increasing motivation. In EAP and training settings, this often sounds like:
- Helping employees clarify their “why”
- Educating them on benefits and consequences
- Encouraging them to “commit” to change
These strategies matter—but Fogg’s work shows they often fail when the behavior itself feels too difficult to sustain.
Instead, Fogg proposes starting with behaviors that are so small and easy that failure is nearly impossible.
This concept is captured in the Fogg Behavior Model:
B = MAT — Behavior occurs when Motivation, Ability, and a Trigger come together.
In workplace programs, triggers are easy to create: reminders, emails, calendars, trainings, portals. But triggers alone don’t lead to success. If the requested behavior feels too demanding—too time-consuming, too complex, too disruptive—employees fall below the curved blue "action line,” regardless of how motivated they are.
This is where many wellness, resilience, stress management, and training initiatives fall short.
For example:
- Asking employees to meditate 30 minutes a day
- Encouraging daily exercise routines
- Recommending extensive self-monitoring or journaling
- Expecting immediate, consistent behavior change after a training
Even highly motivated employees may fail—not because they don’t care, but because the behavior feels unrealistic within a busy workday.
Fogg’s solution is to increase ability first by making the behavior easier:
- Meditate for two minutes after waking up
- Take a short walk during lunch break
- Practice one brief breathing exercise
- Complete a single micro-action tied to an existing routine
As employees experience success with these "tiny changes," their self-efficacy increases. And self-efficacy—not motivation—is what allows habits to grow and sustain over time.
For EAPs, HR teams, and trainers, this insight is critical. It suggests that effective programs should be designed not around what employees should do, but around what they can successfully do immediately, even on their busiest days.
In upcoming installments, we’ll explore how this model can be applied directly to employee assistance programs, wellness initiatives, and training design—helping employees succeed instead of silently disengaging.
Stay tuned.
Erica Tuminski
Author