Contents:
The "70:20:10" model is widely used by internal training specialists both abroad and in Russia. It has many supporters who see it as an effective guide to action, and just as many critics who claim that the model has no scientific basis and its application can negatively affect training. Let's consider the arguments put forward by both sides and try to find out whose side is true.
Who invented the "70:20:10" training model?
The "70:20:10" model has several interpretations, as mentioned by Kelly Kajewski and Valerie Madsen of DeakinPrime, now known as DeakinCo. This is a department of Deakin University in Australia that focuses on corporate training. The model describes how people acquire knowledge and skills, with 70% of learning occurring through practical experience, 20% through interactions with others, and 10% through formal training. Understanding this model can significantly improve approaches to learning in organizations, contributing to more effective employee development.
- The first, most common version, states that the "70:20:10" model emerged from a study conducted in 1988 by Morgan McCall, Robert Eichinger, and Michael Lombardo of the Center for Creative Leadership. Nearly 200 successful executives from six large corporations participated in the study. After analyzing the experiences that influenced their development, the researchers concluded that they acquired 70% of the necessary knowledge directly on the job, 20% from others (such as colleagues and mentors), and only 10% from formal training. True, the managers surveyed assessed themselves; the researchers did not verify their statements or confirm them with any third-party data. Moreover, the discussion focused specifically on leadership qualities, not any professional knowledge whatsoever.
- According to the second version, the model emerged from a 1998 report by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Kazewski and Madsen note that the report's authors cited studies from 1993 and 1994 and suggested that people acquire approximately 70% of the information and skills they need for work in an unstructured manner.
- A third version was proposed by Kelly Kazewski and Valerie Madsen, the researchers themselves: they believe the idea could have originated from Professor Allen Tough's 1979 work, The Adult's Learning Projects. The professor argued in this project that approximately 70% of adult learning occurs outside of formal education, 20% through interactions with people, which, again, is not related to formal education (for example, when they adopt the experience of colleagues and friends). And only the last 10% comes from professionals, such as teachers or business coaches.
Charles Jennings, one of the founders of the 70:20:10 Institute, describes the history of the model as follows: initially, the ratio was based on a survey of a limited number of male top managers. However, when the study was repeated with female leaders, the results changed, and the ratio was 55:40:5. This model, also known as the Jennings model, emphasizes the importance of diversity in educational and managerial approaches. Applying the 70:20:10 model to training and development helps organizations leverage hands-on experience, peer interaction, and formal learning.
Jennings states that the ratio will likely vary with each new study. At the time the model was introduced, there was no significant research with results published in peer-reviewed journals, and even today, there is only a limited number of studies devoted to this model.
What is the 70:20:10 Model?
Before delving into the essence of the 70:20:10 model, it is important to clarify the terminology. This concept is known by various names: a model, a framework, a principle, a rule, and a theory. Most practitioners and experts agree that 70:20:10 is not strictly a model, but rather refers to the idea that a person gains more knowledge and skills through personal experience and interaction with others than through formal training. For ease of presentation, we will use the term "model."
The "70:20:10" methodology has become very popular, despite difficulties in attributing its authorship and defining precise terms. Currently, it is interpreted as follows: 70% of learning occurs through practical experience, 20% through interaction with colleagues and mentors, and 10% through formal training. This approach helps organizations optimize employee learning and development by emphasizing real-world experience and social interaction.
- 70% of learning comes from work experience – experiments, challenges, and reflection.
- 20% – from working with other people.
- 10% – from “formal interventions,” simply put, developed by corporate training professionals.
The figures mentioned earlier are conditional, as emphasized by the experts of the 70:20:10 Institute. The key principle is that the bulk of knowledge is formed through practical activities and interaction with colleagues. It is important for corporate training specialists to focus on this principle in order to effectively develop employees' skills and improve their productivity.
The attitude towards this model and institute has attracted a lot of criticism. Toby Harris, CCO of Filtered, shares his opinion on the situation.
Why is it important to use data in describing your model? What is the purpose of this concept? Why is it worth naming your institute after it? If the model is not based on facts and is completely abstract, how can it be applied in practice? This raises questions about its usefulness. The primary reason for the lack of evidence for this relationship is the impossibility of measuring most factors. While it's possible to determine how much people invest in learning-related activities (e.g., 10% formal learning), it's impossible to determine the level of informal learning that occurs during the work process in your organization. It's an integral part of the work process. Skills training is tied to the achievement of specific outcomes, and its impact is difficult to quantify.
This is a personal opinion, but it highlights one of the key criticisms many learning experts have of this model. If the model's name has no clear meaning, and the content can vary depending on the specific situation, the question arises: how do theoretical concepts apply in practice? This raises doubts about the effectiveness of the model and its ability to provide practical value to professionals.
How the "70:20:10" Model is Used in Practice
At conferences on corporate training, speakers often mention certain models, but specific instructions for their application are rare. Instead of a clear algorithm, only general recommendations are offered, which can be found in the Good Practice report for 2018. This report contains useful insights and strategies to help implement effective training methods in organizations.
The authors of the study conducted a survey among L&D specialists from 25 companies located in the US, UK, Europe, and Australia. Respondents were generally divided into two camps. The majority expressed a positive opinion of the model as a tool for promoting a learning culture within the company. However, only eight of the surveyed companies had fully implemented the model, while the rest had either discussed its capabilities or used it only as part of their strategic program.
Based on the survey, GoodPractice developed a number of recommendations. These steps will help improve work efficiency and optimize processes. By following these recommendations, you can improve the quality of task execution and achieve better results in your activities.
- Understand what the "70:20:10" model means specifically for your training department. Do you view it simply as a principle or as a strict framework? The main thing is to understand why you are implementing it and what results you expect.
- Agree on the implementation of this model. It is noteworthy that even respondents who had implemented the "70:20:10" model did not always provide specific figures to management. In the report, for example, instead of the "classic" name with the figures "70:20:10", they cite the following wording: "Experience, openness, and education." The authors also emphasize the importance of stakeholders and employees understanding the model's essence. Obtain support from colleagues in other departments. Again, mentioning the model's name is not necessary—it's enough to convey the essence (principle). Begin iterative implementation. At the same time, specialists interviewed by GoodPractice and experts from the 70:20:10 Institute agree: it's important to focus on the number 70, not the number 10. Simply put, L&D (as well as business) needs to create conditions in which employees can learn as they work. However, a fairly standard set of examples is cited: microlearning, content libraries, and UGC. Of course, all of this is tied to technology, which opens up room for experimentation and improvement.
Also study:
Creating an environment in a company that promotes learning is an important task for improving the efficiency and development of employees. Let's look at three successful cases and some recommendations for implementing such practices.
One company implemented a project to create an internal educational platform where employees could share knowledge and participate in online courses. This not only contributed to professional development but also strengthened team spirit.
Another case concerns the implementation of mentoring programs. Experienced employees became mentors for newcomers, which helped speed up the onboarding process and improve knowledge sharing within the team. This created a more cohesive atmosphere and increased motivation.
A third case involves organizing regular trainings and seminars, inviting experts from various fields. This gave employees the opportunity to expand their horizons and learn about new industry trends.
To create an inspiring learning environment within a company, several aspects should be considered. It is important to ensure access to educational resources, create opportunities for the practical application of knowledge, and encourage employee initiative. Openness to new ideas and support for self-improvement will help create a culture of continuous learning, which in turn will lead to growth for the company and its employees.
The "70:20:10" model is considered an effective approach to training and curriculum development. According to this approach, theoretical learning should account for the smallest portion of the program, approximately 10%. Interaction with other training participants, which accounts for approximately 20%, helps develop a practical understanding of the topic. The primary focus should be on the practical application of new knowledge and skills, which accounts for 70% of the learning process. This method is reminiscent of the "Dale Pyramid" concept, the effectiveness of which has also raised many questions. The 70:20:10 model optimizes learning by focusing on real-world experiences and interactions, making the process more productive and effective.
Is There Real Evidence of the 70:20:10 Model's Effectiveness?
While the 70:20:10 model has been around for decades, research to test and validate its effectiveness has been limited. One notable effort has been an initiative by Toward Maturity, which collaborated with Charles Jennings, founder of the 70:20:10 Institute, to examine the model's practical application and impact on learning and development.
The company analyzed data obtained from a survey of learning and development (L&D) professionals. While the questions weren't directly related to the 70:20:10 model, respondents were asked about new approaches that enable employees to learn on the job, including references to frameworks like 70:20:10. The company also analyzed data from organizations that were deemed the most successful according to their benchmarking. Despite the impressive results, it should be noted that this study cannot be considered completely independent of or directly related to the 70:20:10 model.
One of the most interesting studies was conducted in Australia. This study surveyed senior and middle managers from government departments who had implemented or were attempting to implement the 70:20:10 model. The researchers came to interesting, albeit predictable, conclusions. These results highlight the importance of practical experience, interaction, and formal training in professional development. The "70:20:10" model emphasizes that 70% of knowledge and skills are acquired through practice, 20% through interaction with colleagues and mentoring, and only 10% through formal training. These findings can serve as a basis for optimizing employee training and development processes in government agencies. Unstructured "learning" on the job was not particularly effective: senior management believed that lower-ranking managers would learn everything, for example, by substituting for management on certain days. While these individuals did draw some conclusions, they also "learned," for example, unacceptable behavior (according to some study participants). Incidentally, this is often a problem when implementing the model in practice: it is impossible to guarantee that a person will not absorb other people's mistakes (without knowing that they are mistakes) along with useful knowledge. The "social" part of the model actually works well: study participants emphasized the importance of mentoring. However, finding a good mentor was considered more a matter of luck than a well-established practice.
The results require careful analysis, as this is only one example of the application of the "70:20:10" model. The researchers emphasize the importance of combining formal, social, and informal learning. This is a truly effective approach, but even proponents of the model, such as the 70:20:10 Institute, do not adequately address how these elements interrelate. Understanding the interactions between different types of learning can significantly improve educational practices and increase their effectiveness.
Read also:
Reverse Mentoring: The Role of Junior Professionals in Training Senior Colleagues
Reverse mentoring is an innovative approach in which junior employees become mentors for more experienced colleagues. This process not only allows for the transfer of current knowledge and skills but also promotes a more flexible and adaptive work environment. Junior professionals, with fresh ideas and up-to-date knowledge of new technologies, can help senior colleagues better navigate a rapidly changing world.
This mentoring format helps senior employees update their skills, adapt to new market demands, and develop critical thinking. Junior professionals, in turn, have the opportunity to develop their leadership skills and self-confidence, while also creating deeper connections within the team.
Reverse mentoring not only improves knowledge sharing but also promotes the harmonization of work relationships, which ultimately leads to increased productivity and innovation within the company. Implementing this practice can be an important step for organizations striving for continuous development and improvement of corporate culture.
Why the "70:20:10" Model May Harm Learning and Development
The drawback of the "70:20:10" model is not only the lack of convincing evidence of its effectiveness. Experts express concern about the principle, which significantly reduces the importance of formal training. This can lead to insufficient preparation of specialists, since the emphasis on informal learning and experience may not provide the necessary level of knowledge and skills. It is important to consider that formal education plays a key role in the development of professional competencies and should occupy a more significant position in educational approaches.
Toby Harris emphasizes the importance of the role of learning and development departments in companies, especially in an environment where employees acquire most of their knowledge independently. If this is taken as a given, the question arises about the significance of organized training. Harris cites the example of her annual conference, where 70% of the value comes from unstructured networking. However, focusing on informal interactions can lead to neglecting the quality of the learning experience for participants. It's important to find a balance between informal communication and structured learning to maximize the impact of such events and support employee development.
The 70:20:10 model emphasizes the importance of understanding one's responsibilities in the learning process. As Nick Shackleton-Jones noted, learning should be as natural as breathing. Communities truly need support and development. However, it's worth remembering that informal learning doesn't require additional incentives such as external factors. Toby Harris emphasizes that ignoring key issues only complicates the learning process and hinders growth.
Richard Harding, a specialist at the Open University Business School (UK), expresses a similar view, comparing the "70:20:10" model to a siren song. After analyzing the scientific literature, he identifies several shortcomings of this model. First, the methodology fails to take into account the individual characteristics of learners, which can lead to ineffectiveness. Second, the emphasis on informal learning can diminish the importance of formal education, creating the risk of losing a structured approach. Third, insufficient support from organizations can hinder the practical application of this model. Thus, its applicability in the context of modern learning and professional development must be carefully assessed.
- the model does not take into account individual development opportunities;
- it assumes that learning occurs independently, although in reality a holistic (that is, integral) approach is more appropriate;
- the model supports unorganized, unstructured learning, but its effectiveness and benefits are difficult to assess, and it is not very clear how to evaluate the results of such learning.
Informal learning is certainly present in our lives, but the question arises as to what knowledge and skills are actually learned. There is a risk that such training does not meet corporate standards and does not bring the expected benefits. In some cases, it may even contradict the company's goals. Harding emphasizes the importance of understanding this aspect to avoid potential negative consequences.
An important aspect of corporate training is the opinion of expert Nick Shackleton-Jones, who emphasizes that many elements of instructional design in this area can only be “fads and rituals” without a sufficient evidence base. This statement questions the effectiveness of traditional teaching methods and emphasizes the need for evidence-based approaches. In a rapidly changing business environment, it is important to implement practices based on research and real results to ensure the maximum impact of educational programs.
We recommend that you familiarize yourself with additional materials for a deeper understanding of the topic.
- Expert opinion: instructional design is useless, and what really works is a challenge
- The unpleasant truth: business does not see the value in the L&D function
- 11 typical mistakes in creating employee training systems