Successful managers learn three to four times as much from experience as from interaction with bosses, coaches, and mentors. And they learn about twice as much from those conversations as in classrooms and formal learning programs.
The shorthand label for this viewpoint is “70:20:10.” It’s a handy framework to keep in mind, particularly when someone mistakenly thinks all learning is formal learning.
As Charles Handy has said, “Real learning is not what most of us grew up thinking it was.”
Is 70:20:10 a precise formulation like water boiling at 100° Celsius/212° Fahrenheit? Of course not. Learning discounted cash flow is unlike learning to counsel a troubled employee.
Trying to pin down the math on this is an exercise in frustration. Managers learn many different things, by many different means. And just as the boiling point of water changes with altitude, how people learn varies with culture, context, and the individual at hand. These variations don’t mean that 70:20:10 and 100° aren’t useful.
An academic tells me the 70:20:10 numbers are without basis because six PhD students who combed the past 50 years of peer-reviewed articles couldn’t find any empirical research to back them up. He says the numbers are therefore meaningless and the issue is not debatable.
I think he is using the wrong yardstick. My partners and I at the Internet Time Alliance have talked with hundreds, if not thousands, of managers about workplace learning in general and 70:20:10 in specific. It resonates with them. Most nod their heads that the numbers feel right.
So should corporations invest 70% in experiential, 20% in coaching, and 10% in the classroom? No, no, no. My colleague Charles Jennings writes:
For some organisations experiential learning (the 70+20 parts) may be the best approach for virtually all learning. For others, for example where compliance and proof of compliance training activity is critical, a greater focus on structured courses may be necessary.
The lesson here is not to become stuck on the exact ratios and percentages like a rabbit in the headlights . Everything will depend on context.
The reference model is not a recipe.
Charles Handy nailed it when he wrote, “The best learning happens in real life, with real problems and real people, and not in the classrooms.”
Hello Jay,
I really like your quote of Charles Jennings and the best part is the ‘+’ (the 70+20 parts). I propose to change the way we present the concept in 70+20+10 because in my opinion it’s all about finding the right blend for the right situation. I very much dislike and disagree with you on the final Charles Handy quote: it is an ‘or-or’ statement, or ‘better-worse’ statement and that leads to misinterpretation of the 70+20+10 concept. The best learning happens in real life when real people and real problems are connected with real relevant formal learning. Charles Jennings says everything will depend on context, I agree and say: from that context we should try to find and facilitate the optimum blend of formal and informal learning. With the context in mind the Charles Handy quote sound stupid.
Hi Jay and thanks for sharing this. I agree with you that 70:20:10 is not a blueprint. I think this model is useful when thinking about main components in a learning environment. There must be components which supports the individual learning (the 70 %-part), there must be social components and there must be components supporting the formal. If all these components are in place the actual content could be 33 %, 33 %, 33 % or maybe 65 %, 30 %, 5 % depending on context etc. If only one or two of these components are in place there is an unbalance because the whole learning need is not supported. Here in Sweden the 70:20:10 model works as enlightenment in discussions with organisations, otherwise they very easy fall into the mental scheme and blindspot that focus only on the 10 % of formal learning. With the backup of the 70:20:10 model it is easier to adjust the the mental scheme seeing formal training as the whole of learning.
Hi Jay,
I absolutely agree with your insight and also see it as a good reference model to help think of and explain effective learning strategies and solutions.
I see it more as a practical rather theoretical or academic framework.
Thanks,
Amir
Jay,
I can appreciate these numbers as well (even with my sordid “educational” background), but I think they offer another piece of advice. That is, when you do have to offer traditional classroom or formal learning, design it with more authentic experiences in mind. For example, instead of a presentation with multiple choice follow up for “Ergonomics in the Workplace”, provide background material and have teams brainstorm “ergonomic tip sheets” for workers in their particular environment.
Applicable learning with a useable end product (if only useable for the learner) has much more authenticity and validity than any multiple yawn model ever did (which, by the way, only verifies a learners ability to take take multiple choice tests).
(I can sketch this if you want — *wink*)
Lisa
I’m all in favor of the 20% and the 70% — but I need to keep this is perspective. When I get in an airplane to fly across the Atlantic, I don’t want the pilot to have learned to fly through conversations at the water cooler (virtual or otherwise). When I am in the hospital, I don’t want the surgeon who is going to operate on me to have learned his/her craft through conversations (virtual or otherwise) with peers.
Formal learning might be the smallest percentage of learning in our lives, but it is probably the enabling learning without which the 20% and 70% couldn’t happen.
No one is advocating abolishing formal learning. I want my pilots and surgeons to have learned by the book as well as by crashing planes in the simulator and doing rounds with wise senior doctors in residency.
Why does discussion of informal learning inevitably devolve to this? It mystifies me. Faced with advocacy of informal learning, otherwise lucid people inevitably bring up a straw-man argument against dumping formal learning in favor of 100% experiential learning. See http://www.informl.com/2010/12/24/overcoming-bipolar-thinking/
Don, I agree that the 10, 20, and 70 are all vital. I not abandoning the 10 — it’s my Rock of Gibraltar. It’s the 20+70 deniers who bug me.
Lisa, a sketch would be cool.
jay
I too believe that the ’70-20-10′ learning framework is very relevant in the workplace and not just for managers. What I am curious to know is how to encourage management/leadership, in global companies to implement the available methods & enablers in order to achieve the ’70% experimential’ (or what I call Job Experience) learning. Learning methods such as On-thejob, Job rotation and shadowing require alot of time and energy to organize, implement and follow-up. So when faced with these types of challenges, it ends up being easier to just send them on a formal training course …. What are the value argumentations that can be used to evoke this change in behaviour on the part of management?
Pingback: Desire Paths: An Aha! Moment | FLEx Design
Hi Jay. This discussion on the 70:20:10 numbers and your thoughts about bipolar thinking inspired me to make a model. This model can be seen here, http://bit.ly/Hgud7k.
The two groups, novice and experts have reversed learningstyle. For the expert workembedded learning is most important (importance should be understood as how vital it is for the actual capability to perform) and has also high weight (share of total learning). For the novice formal learning is most important and has also high weight. And so on.
For experienced persons which work in professions which are highly legal regulated, as pilots in the comment above, the pattern is different. Formal is of big importance but maybe of semi-weight. Embedded learning has for this group less importance but is still of great weight – and probabaly regards work-assignments outside the regulated.
For all three groups social learning is of semi-importance and semi-weight. The social arena is relevant for the individual as an arena where the person can discuss and reflect about personal learning viewpoints undependent of stage in work career or bransch.
Yes, but it’s all relative, isn’t it, Niklas? Importance is in the eye of the beholder. Formal may be most important to the pilot’s passengers but less important than experience to the pilot herself.