Carry out a quick search on 70:20:10 and the discussion will be laid out before you with supporters and detractors, as well as those sitting on the fence.  It’s a lively debate based on a theory with origins almost 50 years old when Dr Allen Tough opined 70 per cent of all learning projects are self-directed and 80 per cent, possibly more, of corporate learning is informal. 

Tough’s approach was supported by Michael Lombardo and Robert Eichinger who, in 1996, researched senior managers and concluded that “most successful executives had gained their most valuable learning in the following ways:” 

• 70% from tough jobs and assignments - informally
• 20% from other people – socially
• 10% from courses and reading – formally

When I think back to the first time I heard about 70:20:10, I was surprised that it seemed so unique.  Trades, apprenticeships and most workers in the services industry learn their craft on the job, and this is where I had spent most of my career.  The relationship between master and apprentice was key to the success of the person learning new skills and on the odd occasion there was a course or reading to do. 

The key phrases that differentiate my early experiences of on-job vs relational, or formal, training are “corporate learning” and “senior managers”.  But learning is not only corporate and senior, and times have changed.  There are now new ways to source learning, people are more educated, and we have technologies that can deliver learning and development in a multitude of ways.

But first, let's look at some of the arguments for and against.

The case for 70:20:10

There are many reasons why this theoretical structure is favoured.

Its simplicity is attractive in a world that is constantly changing and 70:20:10 can be seen as more of a guide.  It also supports learning as being more closely tied to experience.  This is in itself is common sense; look around any workplace and you will see people will learn mostly through their experience working, as opposed to any other way.

As a guide, and not a set of rails, 70:20:10 proposes a mindset shift from compliance, completion, attendance and direction, to support enablement, guidance and modelling.  It’s about setting direction and not being prescriptive. It helps individuals and organisations to understand that learning is a process, not a series of events.

It connects work with development, allows reflection on the work being completed and the lessons learned through achieving goals.  Ninety per cent is about this connection between work and learning, meaning it presents a practical based approach to organisational development, where most of learning is on the job, and is not separated.

It also allows freedom for the employee to take responsibility for their own learning.  In an era where innovation and creativity is sought, giving people a freer rein is seen as a benefit to overall competitive advantage.

And despite “absolutely zero scientifically validated data to support this ‘model’” (Osborn, 2016) there are many professionals propagating it.

Here’s the case against 70:20:10

The 70:20:10 model is seen as too prescriptive and simplistic.  For senior managers, whether they are L&D professionals or not, to rely on a model and then present it to their employees as the path to follow, is abdicating responsibility for organisational development and the business value it brings.  In some cases it could be seen as the blind leading the blind. 

70:20:10 simply doesn’t encourage people to take organisational development seriously.  It dictates that 90 per cent of development is informal and the responsibility of the individual.  As a result, it is difficult to rely on it to achieve identified goals.

It is also criticised as an approach to increasing complexity in an era of constant change where being agile and flexible is paramount because it allows adaptation to changing circumstances and context.   

Following the 70:20:10 model can be seen as passive box-ticking that reduces the responsibility of organisations to actively manage organisational development, because only 10 per cent falls under formal learning.  It also doesn’t make sense for the organisational development profession to support a model that makes themselves only relevant for 10 per cent of the time, when they should be involved all the time.

It also places too much attention on a person’s drive and autonomy, a growing weakness when jobs are becoming more transient as the Gig economy grows.  Leaving organisational development up to a transient employee is a poor investment.

At our fingertips we have vast quantities of scientifically validated data on how people learn so as to inform methods and tools.  This didn’t exist when 70:20:10 was theorised, but it does now, so shouldn’t the platform change?

What are the future possibilities for organisational development?

There is growing support for the Continuous Learning Model (Bersin, 2017).  Here learning methods are classified as education, exposure, environment and experience.  Learning needs are classified as immediate, intermediate or transitional.

In this world, the traditional learning management system is becoming less of a focus, content abounds leading to micro and macro learning that is able to adapt to a changing work environment.  Neurological research shows binge education, in the form of courses, is not effective, and this has led to the emergence of new ways of learning, products and providers.

Most people will learn while they work – this has certainly been my experience. 

However, is the 70:20:10 been adopted as a rote model when it was originally put forward as a theory. 

What are we going to discuss?

At our Think Tank (7.30-9.30am, 15th September in the Clarian Room, 20 Beaumont Street, Auckland) we are going to discuss one main question:

Is 70:20:10 yesterday’s answer, and if so, what is today’s and tomorrow’s solution?

We are going to discuss this using a Knowledge Café format that brings a group of people together to have an open, creative conversation on a topic of mutual interest.  This is designed to reveal collective knowledge, share ideas and gain deeper understanding of the issues involved.

There is a lot to think about so here are a few pointers:

• Is 70-20-10 the right formula for all career stages; from novice to expert?
• How applicable is it in a data and internet driven environment?
• What is the value of following a 70:20:10 model – is it just simple and easy, or too prescriptive?
• Does a general model provide good guidelines for an organisation, or does it ignore the context within which learning is taking place?
• Should we take advantage of the many more ways we have today to deliver learning and development, compared to 20-30 years ago?
• Are there new models of learning and development, how can we help learners recognise informal development, and extract and apply learning?
• Whether for or against 70:20:10, how can we develop learning to be organisationally pervasive as a collaborative, continually connected and community based mindset?

Come prepared for a rigorous debate on where 70:20:10 fits in, and what else could we be doing to meet the expectations of the businesses in which we work.

--//--

References:

Bersin, J. (2017) The disruption of digital learning: ten things we have learned.  Accessed http://joshbersin.com/2017/03/the-disruption-of-digital-learning-ten-things-we-have-learned/ - September 2017.

Britz, M. (2015) What’s the problem with 70:20:10?  Accessed http://markbritz.com/whats-the-problem-with-702010/ - September 2017.

Osborn, C. (2016) Employee learning and development: the 70:20:10 model: relevant or refuse bin? Accessed https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/employee-learning-development-702010-model-relevant-chris-osborn - September 2017.