Move Over 70-20-10 Rule, 3-to-1 Is The New Model for Learning
Getty Images

Move Over 70-20-10 Rule, 3-to-1 Is The New Model for Learning

The 70-20-10 learning model is widely accepted as one of the best frameworks for corporate learning and development. The 40-year-old model suggests that people should acquire 70% of new knowledge from on-the-job experiences; 20% from interacting with peers; and 10% from formal education—like classroom and Zoom lectures. The ratios make sense on paper, seeing that “learning by doing” is the most effective way to apply and habituate new skills.

70-20-10 Is Good In Theory, But Nobody Does It

There’s just one problem. The 70-20-10 model is aspirational, but it’s not being implemented. The Association for Talent Development concedes that on-the-job learning is difficult to track and measure. In its 2020 State of the Industry survey, ATD asked participants to rate the extent to which their organization emphasized on-the-job learning. Almost half of the organizations surveyed do not emphasize on-the-job learning to a high extent.

Ask any director of learning and development to show the allocation of their budget and focus, and they’ll show you that the vast majority is focused on formal education (the category that is supposed to be 10%). They sweat the details of the curriculum, the delivery format, how to move classroom instruction into Zoom, how to do role-plays during the program.

But very little thought and support are given to what happens back on the job; not a lot of effort or tracking is put into the “pull-through” elements, the application elements, of skill development. It’s no wonder the dreaded?“knowing-doing” gap?continues to plague our industry.

A Better Model for Learning: 3-to-1

My humble suggestion is that we replace the 70-20-10 model with something I call the 3-to-1 learning model. It’s a simple, actionable model: for every one formal learning event, you should design and facilitate three on-the-job application exercises.

For example, let’s say you want your managers to do a better job of giving effective feedback. Your “curriculum” would become an action learning journey like:

  • Week 1: Live workshop to learn and practice an effective feedback framework. For example, a facilitator could teach the B.I.G. model of feedback (Behavior, Impact, Get Agreement).
  • Week 2: Participants would ask their team members to give them feedback (supporting materials could include model emails, discussion guides, a job aid on how to receive feedback)
  • Week 3: Participants would give their team members feedback – but only positive feedback.
  • Week 4: Participants would give constructive feedback as appropriate. If they see something, they’ll say something.

Ideally during weeks two through four, rather than suggesting these application activities as suggested reinforcement activities, the L&D team would treat this time as more important than week one. They might:

  • ask for feedback activities to be scheduled
  • ask to be cc’d on email communications related to the activities
  • require participants to fill out reflection worksheets (what went well, what didn’t, what questions do they have about what happened)
  • hold follow-up coaching conversations

A Shift In Focus

While the 3-to-1 model seems simple, it’s a large shift in mindset. Learning and development professionals should re-imagine their roles. Shift your focus:

  • from knowledge transfer to behavior change
  • from instructional design to habit design
  • from learning to application
  • from activity metrics to behavior change metrics

In brief, it’s time to put the 40-year-old 70-20-10 model behind us. A simpler 3-to-1 model is actionable and effective.

* Special thanks to Kevin Kruse for this guest post.

If you enjoyed this article, click the subscribe button below and you'll receive a new one just like it each week.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dr. Travis Bradberry is the award-winning author of the #1 bestselling book, Emotional Intelligence Habits . His bestselling books have sold more than 3 million copies. Dr. Bradberry has written for, or been covered by, Newsweek, TIME, BusinessWeek, Fortune, Forbes, Fast Company, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The Harvard Business Review

Now 47% off on Amazon! (w/ Kindle credit) Click the book image to get your copy.

If you'd like to learn how to increase your emotional intelligence (EQ), consider taking the online Emotional Intelligence Appraisal test that's included with the Emotional Intelligence Habits book. Your test results will pinpoint which of the book's 700+ emotional intelligence habits will increase your EQ the most.

Nallan Anbanandam , EIT

Flying probe Test Technician @ Mircom Technologies Ltd | Flying probe testing

4 个月

The 70-20-10 learning framework fails because workers who follow instructions or mimic behaviors without understanding the reasoning behind actions don’t develop critical thinking skills, leading to superficial learning and potential errors when conditions change.

回复
Robert Guidi

Future of Work | GenAI + L&D | Upskilling Engineer | writer | contraptionist | ??

4 个月

I like it. I mean 70-20-10 is arbitrary and just gives people an excuse to put "training" in the 10% box. I think 3-to-1 shows people they need to *link* the formal training to the on the job practice to create the skill

Eric Morgen .

Leadership Advisor, Practitioner, Student, Philosopher

4 个月

Thank you for writing this article. I have meditated on it for a few days and have some thoughts (due to character limits I have to sound abrupt, I mean no disrespect) "70-20-10 Is Good In Theory, But Nobody Does It". This statement should generate the real question. "Why aren't training programs fully implemented?" It is difficult to assume "70-20-10" is useless if no one is using it (correctly). Whether you call it "3-1", "50-50" "91.2, 3.6, 5.2", or "Unlocking Synergy: Maximizing Your Potential with Our Cutting-Edge, Immersive, and AI-Driven Corporate Training Program" (from Grok) the program will not work unless taken seriously by trainers and leaders. This is similar the myriad quarterly and annual review processes that don't produce results. No one genuinely does the review, or worse, they make people write their own assessment and bring it to the review. "Why aren't 1:1 reviews done correctly?" My favorite question is "Is it a training issue or a compliance issue?" In this case, it is clearly a compliance issue (from the trainers/leaders). To answer my two questions, leadership (not management) should be evaluating implementation and effectiveness of whichever training model is used, and adjust as necessary.

Eddie De Haro

Transformational UX Strategist | Change Management Expert | Innovative Product Leader

4 个月

This suggestion offers an interesting opportunity to enhance the learning model. One notable concern of mine is that typically information is provided too early in the learning journey, which results in the acquired knowledge from months prior becoming less applicable when faced with real-world situations.

回复
Stephanie Weinzierl

Leadership Coach ACC, Facilitatrice

4 个月

I think that this is really important and I specially like the practical example of the feedback training. Thank you for inspiring me

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了