The 70:20:10 Model: A Comprehensive Guide to Learning and Development

The 70:20:10 model is a widely recognized framework in the learning and development (L&D) field. It proposes an optimal distribution of learning sources for successful professionals. This article delves into the origins, components, criticisms, and applications of the 70:20:10 model, offering a comprehensive understanding of its role in modern L&D strategies.

Understanding the 70:20:10 Model

The 70:20:10 concept makes intuitive sense. The 70:20:10 model suggests that learning occurs through three primary sources:

70% On-the-Job Experiences: This involves learning by doing, completing tasks, resolving issues, learning from mistakes, and practicing. These parts of the model are also known as informal learning, because employees learn by doing.
20% Interactions with Others: This includes learning through social interactions, coaching, mentoring, collaborative learning, and knowledge sharing with colleagues.
10% Formal Training: This encompasses structured learning activities such as seminars, workshops, presentations, and e-learning.

The 70:20:10 framework explains how we learn new information and skills in the workplace. It suggests that 70% of what we learn comes from on-the-job experiences, 20% from colleagues and co-workers, and 10% from formal training. Understanding 70:20:10 allows you to leverage it and provide employees with an integrated learning experience that includes performance support, knowledge sharing, and formal training. However, you shouldn’t take the numbers of the components too literally.

Origins of the 70:20:10 Model

The 70:20:10 model was created in the 1980s by Morgan McCall, Michael M. Lombardo, and Robert A. Eichinger, three researchers at the Center for Creative Leadership. They were interested in understanding the elements of executive success. For their study, they asked about 200 executives how they learned during work. The 70:20:10 framework was a result of the research.

Researchers asked these executives where they learned the things that led to their success - The Lessons of Success. They asked 191 successful executives to respond to some version of the following question: “Please identify at least three key events in your career, things that made a difference in the way you manage now. 1) What happened? 2) What did you learn from it (for better or worse)?"

Lombardo and Eichinger later summarized their findings in the Career Architect Planner (1996 Lominger Press) as follows: “Lessons learned by successful and effective managers are roughly: 70 percent from tough jobs, 20 percent from people (mostly the boss), 10 percent from courses and reading."

The Three Components in Detail

70% - On-the-Job Experiences

Up to 70% of what employees learn in the workplace happens through on-the-job experiences. This component is all about completing tasks, resolving issues, learning from mistakes, and practicing. That is why it is called learning by doing. Or, in other words: informal learning. A byproduct of this part of the model is performance support, because the activities help employees perform better. Employees are typically in control over this part of the framework. For employees who don’t have much working experience yet, informal learning is entirely new. These employees have obtained most of what they know through formal learning in kindergarten, school, and college or university.

20% - Interactions with Others

A variety of activities entail the 20% of this framework. All these activities are about learning by sharing knowledge: social learning, coaching, mentoring, collaborative learning, and interacting with colleagues. To turn the 20% into a successful and effective practice, you need to have a robust social learning culture in your organization.

You don’t create a social learning culture overnight. In our experience, only a small number of employees are willing to participate in knowledge sharing. You will find that about 10% of employees are willing to share knowledge actively. About 20% of employees are willing to share knowledge if invited or encouraged to do so. The majority of employees, about 70%, is unwilling to share knowledge at all. Employees who don’t have a lot of working experience yet, haven’t spent much time sharing their knowledge. They have experienced structured classroom learning for the most significant part of their lives. You may notice these employees need a little nudge in the right direction. Give them time to adjust and help them when needed.

10% - Formal Training

With only 10%, formal learning makes up the smallest part of the 70:20:10 framework. However, that doesn’t make this component less essential than the others. Formal learning is the only way of learning that happens in a structured way. Roughly, there are two ways of formal learning. On the one hand, employees learn through training during seminars, workshops, and presentations. It is a way of learning we experience during our time at school. It makes sense that in corporate learning, this takes up only about 10% of our time. E-learning is a form of formal learning as well. Online learning has a few huge benefits: employees can learn whenever they want, wherever they are. You don’t have to get a classroom full of employees together, and you don’t have to get trainers from other locations.

Read also: Impact of the Prussian Model

The Rise in Popularity

Years later, in the early 2000s, learning expert Jay Cross published the book Informal Learning. In it, he advises on how to support, nurture, and leverage informal learning at the workplace. Thanks to Cross’ efforts, 70:20:10 got a larger audience and gained more attention. At the beginning of the 21st century, Cross created the Internet-Time Alliance: a think-tank focused on organizational learning and performance. Charles Jennings has continued Cross’s work by speaking about the 70:20:10 model at events and writing about it in his books. The rise of social media usage in the early 2000s has also influenced 70:20:10’s popularity.

Thanks to the combination of all these events, the 70:20:10 framework finally became known among a broader public. Its rise in popularity opened the eyes of L&D managers who mostly focused on formal learning, the most known way of learning at the time. L&D started to realize how valuable informal learning is. That is why informal learning now takes up the most prominent part of the 70:20:10 model.

Employee-Generated Learning

For all three components of the 70:20:10 rule, it is crucial to convert knowledge that lives inside your organization into learning resources. Employees with expertise or lots of experience and know-how can create those resources themselves. By doing so, you automatically cover all three parts of this model. We call this way of working Employee-generated Learning, and it is our home-grown L&D method.

Employee-generated Learning shifts the responsibility for creating learning content from instructional designers to employees. This methodology is all about leveraging each other’s expertise while working on daily tasks on the work floor. Employee-generated Learning engages your workforce and gives people recognition and clout within the organization. Because knowledge is captured and shared in-house, this approach is much cheaper than third-party or off-the-shelf training. It will help you to reduce training costs significantly. It is also very scalable: you can let hundreds of employees follow online training made by their co-workers and your workers don’t have to wait until a trainer is available or a course starts. They can access home-made training anytime, anywhere. Because of all these benefits, Employee-generated Learning is the only sustainable way to train your workforce.

Criticisms of the 70:20:10 Model

Feel like you need more data supporting 70:20:10 to believe in the model? You’re not alone. Lack of evidence is one of the most significant criticisms of the framework. Even though the framework is widely popular on the one hand, many people question it for various reasons on the other.

The 70:20:10 model was brought to life by three researchers. They asked about 200 executives to fill in surveys to identify three events in their careers that made them manage differently. Many people argue that this survey didn’t gather enough empirical data to support the model. And not just that.
The 70:20:10 framework states that only 10% of things employees learn comes from formal learning. That component of the model, just like 70 and 20, should not be taken literally and is just a guideline.

When Kajewski and Masden (2012) of DeakinPrime recently went in search of the origins of the 70:20:10 rule, they concluded: “From our review it is clear that there is a lack of empirical data supporting 70:20:10 and, while the above mentioned sources are frequently credited, there is also a lack of certainty about the origin.”

Educational psychologist Alan Tough is another frequently cited source, although the closest he came, apparently, was to conclude that “about 70 percent” of adult learning takes place outside institutional frameworks. As Will Thalheimer noted in his criticism of the graph showing the supposed percentage retained from various types of instruction (10 percent of what they read, 20 percent of what they see, 30 percent of what they hear, and so on), when does research ever result in percentages that are exact multiples of 10? (Thalhaimer, 2006).

Arguments for the 70:20:10 Model

Along with the criticism, there are many arguments as to why the 70:20:10 is a valid and valuable framework.

Some say spending 10% of your time on formal learning is not enough. Even though it is just a rule of thumb, it is interesting to know how many hours 10% of an employee’s time actually is. A Dutch study has broken it down for us. Taking the 10% literally, that means that employees spend 180 hours a year on formal learning. Nut when it comes down to it, employees only spend 35 hours a year on formal learning according to Statistics Netherlands. If you consider that most formal learning happens at kindergarten, school, and college or university, it makes sense that people spend less time on it at work.
One of the most important things to know about 70:20:10, is that it has been created to inspire other learning techniques. It is not meant to be seen as a prescriptive model.
Informal learning covers the most significant part of 70:20:10. And thanks to that, employees don’t have to wait for formal training anymore. Also, they can work on a specific topic or skill with their coach or mentor and improve their performance.
Research done by Charles Jennings and Towards Maturity shows that 90% of employees find collaboration essential or very useful to do their job. Only 37% think the same about formal learning.

Benefits of Implementing the 70:20:10 Model

With all the arguments for and against implementing the model, it is fair to say that you shouldn’t see it as a scientific model or recipe for guaranteed success. Whether you believe in the framework or not, it is worthwhile to check out its benefits.

For a long time, L&D focused on just formal learning. This was a massive shift in thinking. Thanks to the informal part of the 70:20:10 framework, employees don’t have to wait for formal training anymore. They can learn by interacting with colleagues or applying learning content.
To successfully implement 70:20:10, your organization needs to foster a learning ecosystem. In such an ecosystem, you work with various tools and platforms that facilitate performance support, knowledge sharing, and formal training. Studies show that employees who have access to a Learning Management System LMS and work in an organization that embraces 70:20:10, are more engaged learners and retain more knowledge.
Because 70:20:10 enforces employees to give each other feedback, ask questions, and collaborate, they often realize that development happens all the time and in a variety of ways. That is highly motivating for employees.
70:20:10 is an efficient way of learning that improves productivity, and that doesn’t just apply to employees. People in teams can learn about each other’s strengths and weaknesses, complement each other, or teach each other new skills to develop themselves.
Since 70:20:10 is not a fixed model but a guideline, it lends itself to be applied in different ways - and thus, in the way that is the best for your organization.

Implementing the 70:20:10 Model

Does the thought of employees taking an active part in their learning and development make you smile? Would you love to cultivate collaboration between employees and teams in your organization? If this is brand new for your organization, it might be challenging for everyone to adapt to the new approach.

It all starts with making sure people understand that employees’ development is not just about following a course. That it is something employees can work on themselves, during their daily tasks, without having to go anywhere. You don’t have to raise awareness among everyone who works in your organization. Especially if your organization is large. It is a good idea to start small: with a business unit, for example.
Before you implement the 70:20:10 framework, think about what you want to achieve. What is your end goal, and how does this model help you to get there? Where in your organization, business units, or teams does it fit?
Because knowledge sharing is a big part of the 70:20:10 model, it may seem like a robust system isn’t needed to implement it. Don’t be fooled. To reach your objectives, you need a 70:20:10 development plan. The first step to forming a plan is to determine where you are. Once you have the outlines of your plan, it is time to start filling it up. Think about how much time and budget you want to spend on formal learning, which team leaders and managers will play a significant role, which tools you need to invest in, and so on. The decisions you make should lead you to where you want to be. Who will be coaches and mentors?
Now that you have a plan in place, it is time to start thinking about what tool can assist you. There are various paths you can walk. However, one thing is sure: you need tools employees can use for performance support, knowledge sharing, and formal learning. Having tools and platforms that facilitate a learning ecosystem helps you pave the way to success. Learning Management Systems (LMS) are traditional tools that support L&D with managing their learning activities. Truthfully, LMS are on the decline, but they can come in handy as a database of training for L&D. Almost opposite of the LMS, we have Learning eXperience Platforms (LXPs). LXPs enforce a bottom-up approach and put employees in charge of what, when, and how they learn. They are like the Netflix of learning: employees can search for content on-demand, recommend content, and find experts in their domains. Performance Support Systems (PSS) improve performance by helping employees to solve problems on the go. They offer practical information to solve a particular learning need on the fly.
Once you have everything prepared and in place, there is not much that can stop you from starting. It is time to implement 70:20:10 and get going. While the employees within your company are learning, collaborating, and taking courses, it is up to you to steer everything in the right direction. NPS surveys allow you to ask learners a straightforward question: “Would you recommend this to a friend?”. The learner gives a score from 1-10. Based on these scores, you receive an overall NPS score. The feedback you get can provide you with insights into how engaging and helpful employees find this way. Implement useful feedback to improve processes, and move forward, step by step. It may take a while and some improvements until everything is going as smoothly as you want. Don’t worry, that is completely normal.

The 70:20:10 Model in Practice

Key Findings from "Lessons of Experience"

Key findings from Lessons of Experience that should be quoted more often are that “formal coursework, however, was sometimes included by executives as an event that made a significant difference to them” and “coursework that had an impact on the executives seemed to have two things in common: it dealt with a relevant issue, and it occurred at a good time for the manager.” The right training at the right time can have a significant impact, but whether that is 2 percent or 22 percent is impossible to say-and neither scientific nor terribly useful.

Individual Capability and Environment

As learning professionals we should remember what Gilbert’s Behavioral Engineering Model taught us: Worthy performance is always the interaction of individual capability and environment. Optimizing performance requires attention to both.

The Importance of Context

Thus, learning professionals need to keep in mind that the 70:20:10 concept is a conceptual or theoretical model based on retrospective musings by executives about what made them successful and broad summary statements of the findings. It is neither a scientific fact nor a recipe for how best to develop people. Just because people think that they learned a certain percentage from coaching, for example, doesn’t mean that is the ideal amount. Or, as a recent blog suggested, should training departments spend only 10 percent of their time and resources on formal training!

Moving Forward with the Model

The hypothesis about how much learning occurred and where is impossible to test. So, what are we to make of 70:20:10? It is a useful reminder that employees are learning all the time-by observing, by making mistakes, through interactions with others and sometimes through formal course work.

Alternative Perspectives

The 3-to-1 Learning Model

A simpler 3-to-1 model is actionable and effective. My humble suggestion is that we replace the 70-20-10 model with something I call the 3-to-1 learning model. It’s a simple, actionable model: for every one formal learning event, you should design and facilitate three on-the-job application exercises.

For example, let’s say you want your managers to do a better job of giving effective feedback. Your “curriculum” would become an action learning journey like: Week 1: Live workshop to learn and practice an effective feedback framework. For example, a facilitator could teach the B.I.G.

The Model's Creator Perspective

I’m Robert Eichinger, and I’m the co-creator, along with the research staff of the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), of the 70 20 10 meme [the dictionary defines a meme as an “idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person”]. For a detailed look at this meme see The Leadership Machine, Michael M. Lombardo and Robert W.

It was the late 1980s and Michael Lombardo and I were teaching a course at CCL called Tools for Developing Effective Executives. The course was basically a summary of the findings of The Lessons of Experience study done over a 13-year period at the Center, and published in 1988. My job was to convert the study’s findings into practical learnings and applications. We were working on a section of the course on planning for the development of future leaders. One of the study’s objectives was to find out where today’s leaders learned the skills and competencies at which they were proficient.

Since we were facilitating a course about how to develop effective executives, we could not use the adverse situations (one can’t plan for these to occur) and personal experiences outside of work (we couldn’t facilitate these). That noted, it is important to understand that these two categories made up a full 25% of the original 616 learning events. So the final, easy-to-communicate meme for learning was 70 20 10.

One critique of this simple formula, aside from the frequent one that “it is not from any research”, is that 70 20 10 (three round numbers) seems too convenient. The basic findings of the Lessons of Success study have been duplicated at least nine times that we know of. These include samples in China, India and Singapore, and for female leaders, since the original samples of executives in the early 80s were mostly male. No study resulted in a perfect 70 20 10 finding, yet the results were considered very consistent with the original findings.

In a massive replication of the initial study, CCL compiled 6,000 lessons from managers across demographic categories, economic sectors, and enterprise levels. The analysis indicated the same results, with some slight variation in percentages for women. Some have said that 70 20 10 doesn’t come from any research. It clearly does. Some have said the 70 20 10 is just common sense. It is now!

I must add that, in various studies and in practical application there is a lot of variance between organizations and levels and types of people. These studies were mostly about how to develop people for senior leadership positions in large global companies. The meme for other levels of leadership and different kinds of companies might be different.

The research was clear that learning is 75% work-related and 25% personal hardships. We calculated the 70 20 10 based on the 75%. The 70% is full-time work and part-time assignments like task forces and study groups. The 20% is learning from others, mostly bosses. The study also found that learning from bad bosses is “stickier”. If the study were to be repeated today, we speculate that the 10% figure (coursework) might be larger because of eLearning, AI, VR and Zoom. If the sample included a larger representation of females, learning from others would increase and learning from jobs would decrease. Experience remains the dominant source of the Lessons of Leadership.

tags: #70 #20 #10 #model #learning #and