70-20-10 and the OSF Ratio
Training Industry, Inc.
The most trusted source of information on the business of learning.
A few years ago, Training Industry, Inc. released a research report on the?70-20-10 framework. This report seeks to update the concept to the present day from its inception 30 years ago. An important aspect of this research is that we did not seek to refute what 70-20-10 represents with its numbers. But let’s back up a step: What are these numbers supposed to mean?
Based on research conducted in 1987 by Morgan McCall and colleagues at the Center for Creative Leadership, 70-20-10 describes the optimal sources of learning by successful managers. This framework suggests that individuals obtain knowledge, skills and abilities in their jobs through the following mixture of sources:
·??????70% from on-the-job experiences.
·??????20% from social sources, such as interactions with others.
·??????10% from formal educational events.
So, are we saying that these numbers are wrong? Not at all. On the flip side, are we saying that these numbers are right? Not exactly.
Our research showed that there are companies where 70-20-10 is the right mix – but such companies are not the average. Instead, there are a range of mixtures for learning sources.
What does that mean? For some companies, the numbers may be 48-23-29 or 56-27-17 or some other combination. All are valid. But which one is “right?” The answer is that it can change from company to company – and that’s the point. There is no single ratio of learning sources that is best for everyone. That’s why in our research report, we introduced the concept of an OSF ratio.
An OSF ratio represents the relative amount of learning from on-the-job (O), social (S) and formal (F) sources. In this sense, 70-20-10 is simply the OSF ratio that has become popular among L&D professionals.
For some L&D professionals, it may seem like what we’re suggesting is blasphemy. Bear with me, and I’ll walk through a couple examples of why we feel the OSF ratio is a better way to conceptualize sources of learning than adhering to 70-20-10.
Take the example of medical professionals: Do you want your surgeon to be learning most of what he or she knows with a scalpel in hand while patients lie on the table? Or would you prefer the surgeon to have undergone extensive formal training in surgical techniques before ever going into the operating room? Do you want the anesthesiologist putting you under to still be learning what it takes to successfully bring you back to consciousness? In such scenarios, surely there are cases that the surgeon or anesthesiologist will learn from, but these aren’t jobs where formal training on foundational skills can be minimized at the risk of patients.
As another example, take airline pilots: Do you want to get on a plane where the pilot is learning how to take off and land the aircraft while you sit white-knuckled in the cabin?
What about a corporate accountant? Do you want someone learning how to balance the company’s finances and make decisions that are aligned with regulatory and compliance requirements while he or she is on the job? Would it be acceptable to chalk up a financial blunder that could have negative impacts on employees’ continued job security to, “Whoops, I’m still learning how to do this?”
These may seem like convenient examples (and they admittedly are), but they underscore an important point about OSF ratios: An unfortunate side effect of how the 70-20-10 framework is commonly interpreted is that the “O” number is seen as the most critical since it’s the largest number. As shown in the examples above, the “F” number is of the utmost importance – there are jobs where the bulk of learning?must?take place before an employee ever does anything “in-role” because of the risks of errors. Without the bedrock of formal training, there is no keystone on which to build knowledge and skills through on-the-job learning. While this is true to varying degrees in the above examples, it’s also true to varying degrees for all jobs in any given company.
领英推荐
Read the full article here at TrainingIndustry.com.
Related Articles
Training Industry makes connections among learning and development (L&D) professionals, offering expert perspectives on managing the business of learning. We deliver curated resources about L&D backed by ongoing, industry-leading?research?and our vast network of thought leaders and subject matter experts. Make?TrainingIndustry.com?your go-to for learning solutions.?Sign up today?to get the insights you need to stay on top of industry trends delivered to your inbox every week.