The Myth of the 70:20:10 Learning Model
Alexander Salas, CPTD, CTT
Instructional Systems Designer | LinkedIn Top Voice | Speaker | eLearning Developer
In its long trajectory to try to improve itself from a school-based methodology, training departments have been attractive by various ideas the promote informal learning over anything else. The 70:20:10 framework/model is one of these ideas which stems from 1980s research by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). I wrote before about this topic during a time where LinkedIn was buzzing with discussions about its effectiveness. The true purpose of this model was a representation based on a qualitative study of successful senior executives and their take on the major influences on their success. This research focused specifically on leadership development. Then, there have been quite popular mentions of this approach by well known practitioners in the private field but no substantial research evidence to supported as it has been claimed on the Internet.
1988 Lessons of Experience Book
The central message of 70:20:10 is a loose interpretation from the CCL seminal research to support succession planning for executive leaders. The results from that research are captured in the 1988 book Lessons from Experience: How Successful Executives Develop on the Job by McCall, Lombardo and Morrison. The book mentions how the research expanded over several years since its original research question in 1981, and it encompasses the results of four studies. Based on the executives' reflections, their most relevant and impactful learning experiences came from challenging assignments and projects, and the relationships developed through those experiences. Some, although, little credit was given to formal training experiences.
When did 70:20:10 go wrong?
Well, this is a teasing question as it can be debated whether thinking of 70:20:10 as a universal approach to all workplace learning is right or not. We can think of it in many ways. By actually reading the LOE book, you will find that there's no mention of the 70 percent rule. This is also corroborated by Clardy (2018) noting that page one of the book addresses that managers are mostly made on the job and not in a classroom. So, where did this framework go wrong? It's hard to say, but there's plenty of evidence of online articles going back 13 years or more calling it a learning "theory" or "model". So, there's very little research and quite a bit of hype promoted by private practitioners around the world as seen on this ATD article by Andrew Jefferson and Roy Pollock .
Sign up for a free trial by April 1st, 2023 and get 15 percent off for the first 6 months.
领英推荐
Wrap Up
It's certainly fascinating to find how much of Human Resources and L&D "best practices" are based on well marketed ideas that are loosely misinterpreted research assumptions. Listen to the latest episode to learn more
Empowering individuals to reach their full potential
1 年I must admit that the 70-20-10 rule has never really say right for me. I think the biggest thing is that it seems to shift the responsibility away from L&D and onto the individual / manager to do the majority of the 'learning' but I feel it is more of an indication of where we need to be putting our energy to, to create great learning experiences.
Experienced Learning and Development professional helping people learn, think, do, and act.
1 年That's really interesting. I recall mention of the 70:20:10 rule and when I tried to understand it better, I really couldn't find helpful information. That was prior to the 2018 Clardy article you reference. If only... Thanks for the information and the perspective.