As I work with different people, or engage others in meaningful conversation at networking events and the like, I often hear folk questioning the validity of the 70:20:10 concept of workplace learning. Most of the people I talk to about this concept are caught up in the validity, or otherwise, of the proclaimed numbers at the heart of the model. There is also significant consternation over what many suggest to me is limited research.
The initial research was conducted in the 1980s by Robert Eichinger and Michael Lombardo along with the research staff of the Center for Creative Leadership focused on 191 successful senior executives. A small-ish sample to be sure. Interestingly, the data gathered showed variations across the sample that approximated the 70:20:10 meme the researchers created to indicate the approximate proportions of sources of learning.
Since the original research work undertaken , there has been considerable application of the principles at the heart of the model. The work undertaken has demonstrated that the key is understanding that there are three principal sources of learning at work and that attention must be paid to all before learning in organisations can be optimised.
In essence, the numbers are a reminder that people learn most from working and interacting with others in the workplace. The specific ratio in any given situation will depend on the work environment and the organisatonal results required.
What interests me is the core assertions that lie at the heart of this 70:20:10 phenomenon. Namely; that classroom training on its own is insufficient to bring about learning and action. Further that coaching and mentoring, on their own, do not ensure long term change through learning. Likewise, that on the job training is not the be all and end all of learning and development initiatives.
To me, the real message is that, for learning to occur and for knowledge to be applied, for action and change to come about from any learning initiative, elements of all three need to be present. In my opinion, the relevance for learning and development professionals is the need for a systemic approach to the workplace learning process. A system, that I believe, extends beyond learning interventions and reaches into the core rationale of how any business undertakes employee development.
Rather than get hung up on semantics, or research validity or any other spurious matter folk may create to avoid looking at underlying principles of the concept, I suggest we consider purpose and context rather than getting lost in considerations of content. Perhaps it may be worthwhile to look at the underlying principles of a concept and then ask ourselves, amongst other things:
Furthermore, the true joy of effective people development comes when you realise that each person might need a slight (or even several slight or even massive) variation of the magical formula for ‘It’ to have optimum effect in the development of your people and your business. Heaven forfend that we treat each person as an individual and provide a learning solution tailored to their specific needs!
A more technical role may require more formal type learning, with less coaching and a reasonable amount of on the job application and practice. On the other hand, a more hands on role is likely to require less formal training and more on the job development, practice and skill building.
In the end, my overriding concern is the proclivity of well-intentioned individuals to either: .
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between these two polar opposites. I suggest that the way forward for businesses who want to optimise learning outcomes is to:
In doing this I believe there is true potential to simultaneously deliver learning value for individuals and the business.
It is my assertion that, in the world of work, there is no silver bullet, no panacea to solve all ills. Rather, the most effective solutions lie in:
I invite you to undertake your own research into the 70:20:10 model, and other learning models and form your own opinion. You may like to comment below.
What has been your experience with applying the latest tools and techniques?
What tools, models or frameworks have you applied and how did they work for you?