Diving Deeper into the 70:20:10 Model
Tracy Shroyer, PhD
From Corporate to Classroom | Professor of Business & Career Development Coach
Let’s talk about the notorious 70:20:10 learning model. It’s one we hear about in the world of learning and development and across human resources circles, but often, we take it for truth, and don’t dig into the origination its proven effectiveness. In this article, I provide a peak into my learnings from previewing some of the publications and (minimal) research conducted on this topic. I welcome your insight and ask that you share any additional research or publications you’ve evaluated too.
The traditional 70:20:10 model we hear about most often originated from a study by Professor Allen Tough in 1968. His model states that 70% of learning should occur on-the-job; 20% should happen socially, by building relationships and growing your network; and 10% should occur through formal training, such as self-study courses or workshops (Ferguson & Scott, 2014). ?
There is also mention of Cross and Herschel’s individual findings related to an 80:20 learning model, where 80% of learning occurs informally in an organization, and 20% occurs through formal training (Ferguson & Scott, 2014).
In 2013, Dan Pontefract presented an alternative learning framework, which is his 3:33 model. In this, he notes that learning is: 33% formal (e.g., virtual, or in-class sessions, conferences); 33% is informal; (e.g., coaching, job shadowing, case studies), and 33% is social (videos, discussions, instant messaging) (Ferguson & Scott, 2014).
As you can see, there are a variety of thought on the appropriate mix of learning recommended. Let’s focus in on the 70:20:10 specifically and talk about some of the challenges of this model.
Challenges of the 70:20:10 Model
The Ferguson & Scott (2014) article also talks about the importance of learning and development’s (L&D’s) understanding of the business, and not just focusing on the training deliverables at hand. Learning and development teams typically put most of their focus on the 10% formal training from this model, but there is 90% of the equation not accounted for in doing this. The social and experiential learning is still happening, whether to the degree the model recommends or not, and L&D teams may be missing out on an opportunity if they are not involved in providing insights for these aspects of the model within the organization.
This quote hits this home best: “If you (meaning L&D), don’t understand the business, if you’re not connected to the organization and what’s happening to people, then you’re not doing your job in supporting learning. It’s understanding the 70:20 of 70:20:10. That’s 90% of workplace learning. If you’re not involved in that, then you’re pretty well irrelevant†(Ferguson & Scott, 2014), p. 6).
Aside from the focus, the biggest challenge identified is when people try to take the equation too seriously and prescriptive (DDI, 2014; Ferguson & Scott, 2014). If the equation is not exactly 70%, 20%, and 10% split out across the learning, it’s okay. This is a framework to leverage and use as it makes the most sense in the organization, for the team, and the learners.
There are several studies that have warned about taking the 70:20:10 framework as useful in ALL cases, and not applying the appropriate situational context. DDI, a global leadership consulting firm, conducted a study in 2014/2015 and found the following insights from 13,000 leaders:
- 70:20:10 is the often-discussed learning model
- 55:25:20 is the actual time spent across the learning areas by leaders
- 52:27:21 is the highest-quality leader development mix identified by leaders
Lumesse, a talent software firm, found that “50/26/24 is the average learning mix in most companies right now†(Hills, 2019), which aligns closely with the actual time spent, according to DDI’s research from 13,000 leaders (2015). The challenge here is still that the information is dependent on context, and not typical across all learning.
领英推è
Real-life Use Case
One place where I recently evaluated using the 70:20:10 learning framework was in developing the curriculum for Technology Apprentice roles in an IT Operations team that were coming open in our new Chatham, Illinois office. My team, Digital Learning, was asked to support this initiative with curriculum development. I learned that the Technology Apprentices within these teams were expected to come into the role with minimal, if any, technical knowledge, or experience, and likely be newer to a corporate work experience also.
With those insights in mind, I did a little digging on the 70:20:10 model, which eventually led me to even write this article. What I found was that the model is not proven, and that few companies even reach this. “According to a survey in 2014 by Lumesse, a talent software firm, less than 5% of companies achieve a 70/20/10 learning mix†(Hills, 2019, para. 13). With minimal research, and the likelihood that organizations are not measuring this, it makes sense why less than 5% believe they are not achieving this mix.
As a result of my research on the effectiveness of the 70:20:10 model, and the variables involved in our technology apprenticeship program, my recommendation was to leverage a 50:25:25 mix. Additionally, the mix would not be applied each week in the apprenticeship program. Rather, the 50:25:25 learning framework would be spread across the overall program. As a result, we expect to see more time spent in formal training (50%) earlier in the program; the experiential, or on-the-job, learning (25%) would start slow and increase throughout the program; and social learning (25%) would exist more in the beginning, then level out over the course of the program.
Summary
There is a significant lack of evidence and peer-reviewed research on the 70:20:10 learning model. We need to remember that it is a framework and not a proven model. While it can be leveraged as an initial guideline to start from, it should not be the end all, be all, for how learning, and learning programs, are designed. Keep in mind that there are numerous variables that could impact the effectiveness of the framework, and those need to be carefully considered to determine the best approach, and mix, for effective learning.
Resources:
DDI. (2015). Ready-Now Leaders: 25 Findings to Meet Tomorrow’s Business Challenges. Global
Ferguson, O. & Scott, S. (2014). New perspectives on 70:20:10: A GoodPractice research paper. (2nd?edition). MindTools for Business. https://mindtoolsbusiness.com/research-and-reports/new-perspectives-on-70-20-10-2nd-edition
Hills, J. (2019, May 13). The 70/20/10 strategy – what does neuroscience say? Training Zone. https://www.trainingzone.co.uk/lead/strategy/the-702010-strategy-what-does-neuroscience-say
Leadership Forecast 2014/2015. https://www.ddiworld.com/research/global-leadership-forecast-2015
Former Director of Learning at Tesla & Apple. Now a professor, keynote speaker and consultant.
2 å¹´Back in the 90s, a report came out titled something like How Executives Learn, published by CCL or Lominger, I think. This was my first introduction to 70/20/10 BUT it told a different story than how the "model" is typically used. For this report, they talked to senior executives with years of experience, had them to reflect on their careers, and asked how they learned what they needed to get where they were. With this backward reflection, they came up with 70/20/10. Would the story have been the same if they talked to early career individuals or mid-level? Probably not. In my opinion, how 70/20/10 has been used is a travesty.
Love this Tracy! Great article. Like lots of things in L&D in business, someone with just enough knowledge puts up an idea, everyone jumps on it and no one really understands what’s going on. Like ‘learning styles’ it continues to be perpetuated until we start asking the right questions.