Why 70:20:10 doesn’t add up

Everywhere you look in organisation development and training branches, the learning model known as 70:20:10 pops up. It has become the answer to every training question and the excuse for under and over-investment.

But does it live up to the hype?

A snapshot of the model

The 70:20:10 framework suggests most of our learning in organisations (70 per cent) comes from on-the-job activities like problem-solving, challenging assignments, experimentation and reflection.

Another 20 per cent comes from collaboration, coaching and other activities done while working with others. The final 10 per cent emerges from formal, planned learning settings.

After being developed by three researchers (Morgan McCall, Michael Lombardo and Ann Morrison) in the 1980s, it took another 20 years to become popular in Australia.

Whilst learning and development professionals knew the value of this broader range of interventions that contributed to the development of executives, the 70:20:10 model became a convenient shorthand.

The model enabled learning and development managers to decline requests from employees who were constantly requesting access to formal face-to-face learning, by reminding them how small a component of their learning journey could be satisfied by this type of education.

More alarmingly the model is sometimes used as a masthead to explain the entire strategy for the learning and development professionals in an organisation.

Overuse begins to raise concerns

Despite the intuitive reaction from practitioners that the fixed ratios make sense, other researchers began to question its validity.

The first of those concerns centred on the absence of empirical evidence. The original research involved just 200 executives recalling key events in their careers and their learnings from those experiences.

A second question arose from the exactness of the percentages. It is rare for research to land on even percentages rather than a range or band within which each type of learning could fall.

Yet another concern is the lack of evidence that the model works. Some argue that formal learning does not get the weighting it deserves, especially given the loose, informal nature of the other types of learning.

The context matters

One way out of this debate is to recognise the importance of the context. Having the model be all things in all situations relating to learning is almost certainly wrong. Similarly, dismissing it as trivial or unhelpful misses an opportunity.

A more helpful lens is to recognise that at a global level, the 70:20:10 framework is likely correct, but at a micro-level within one organisation, one cohort of learners or even a single executive, the framework is probably wrong.

As an example, an executive who is new to the organisation may well need 80 per cent of their learning to come from formal settings through the organisation’s onboarding program.

This percentage will drop quickly as they begin immersing themselves in daily tasks within their role, but initially, they need intensive learning through the induction process. During this period, the model could be 10:10:80.

At other times a group of experienced workers operating in a stable environment may not need formal training. For this group, the model might be described better as 60:40:0.

The situational nature of workplace learning can even extend to the task level. An individual worker may have one combination of percentages in the learning model for one task and a completely different set for a different task.

For the learner, this is a much more meaningful analysis as it caters for their unique needs, adapts the style of learning to suit those needs and morphs over time as the requirements for the role change.

Inspiration vs recipe

One way to view the model is as a way to inspire conversations about the range of learning options available, and not to see it as a recipe for instant success.

Overusing the framework reduces its impact and brings into question the credibility of the learning and development team.

However, inspiring conversations about learning, in whatever form, will bring the learners and their line managers along for the journey.