Critical appraisal of strengths and weaknesses of Boyatzis’s intentional change theory

Increasing someone’s knowledge is different from getting them to make lasting changes in their on the job behaviors and it requires a different model of learning which is what Boyatzis’s theory offers [1]

Boyatzis’s model contends that we are more likely to achieve sustainable change when we actively seek to make five discoveries:

1. Our ideal self: the person and leader we truly want to be
2. Our real self: our current nature and how this compares to our ideal self
3. Our personal learning agenda: the things we need to change and do to close the gap
4. Opportunities for experimenting with and practicing new behaviors
5. Those who can
Secondly, the model adopts a simplistic way when it comes to changing behavior; it provides little discussion around how we as individuals experiment with new behaviors, thoughts, emotions and feelings when we are exposed to pressures in a team for us to adopt certain norms and act in a special or certain way.
In order to “fit” we start changing the way we behave to match a given value system but based on my own experience when this occurs it only creates internal conflict and we begin to ask ourselves if it is worth compromising the values that are important to us to match the organization’s. There is a missing link between values and behaviors.

Thirdly, Boyatzis’s theory doesn’t contemplate what we have been exposed to, according to Neck and Manz past performance experience is the strongest contributor to perceived self-efficacy also the level of perceived self-efficacy has been found to affect the amount of effort expended and the degree of persistence (that is necessary to achieve our idel-self through practice and experience).

In conclusion Beyotzis’s model is a useful but not an entirely self-sufficient theory and it can be supported and enhanced by Neck and Manz work