• Read More …

Trainers like a good buzzword. We also like something which appears scientific, concerned as we are that maybe the rest of the world thinks of us as prone to a bit of mumbo jumbo. If we can put numbers in there somewhere – hallelujah!

Welcome to 70:20:10.

You might have seen the ratios 70:20:10 used elsewhere in relation to organisational training and development. I have come across it spoken about a lot in papers, presentations at conferences and business’s learning strategies. It resonates because it makes sense and represents how we think about how we learned to do the things we do. Essentially, the concept says that we learn 10% of our skills and knowledge through formal training inputs – workshops, e-learning, etc. 20% from conversations with more experienced people, and 70% from getting our hands dirty and doing things.

I have no argument with that as a concept – but let’s be clear, that’s what it is. It isn’t – as far as I can see based on empirical research (I’d love to be proved wrong – if someone has more information on research which shows this is how things actually happen then please let me know). As far as I can tell, no one has analysed how people gained their skills and determined that the proportions of experience and input outlined in the 70:20:10 model is actually what happens.

In fact, the 70:20:10 learning concept was developed by Morgan McCall, Robert W. Eichinger and Michael M. Lombardo at the Center for Creative Leadership in North Carolina. The model is specifically mentioned in The Career Architect Development Planner, by Lombardo and Eichinger.

What is interesting when you go to the source of the model is that the focus is not on some ad hoc process by which skills are somehow developed in an organic way through simply doing the job. Instead, the concept requires planning and management if it is to provide the benefits envisaged by its creators.

As with any concept, it can be misinterpreted and misused. I have seen it described as “the way learning naturally happens” and it’s a short leap from here to “let’s concentrate on the 70% rather than just the 10%” as though the nirvana of training is upon us. Maybe, just maybe, if courses and formal training are so unimportant in the skills development mix, we can do without them and simply throw our people in the deep-end which is how they’ll learn anyway! Except that misses out the planning and development bit and presents not a get-out-of-training free card but a whole raft of new and interesting challenges for the L&D professional.

The traditional blend of learning concerns itself with a mix of activities around formal learning and development. The idea – if used well – is to identify which media and which intervention will most effectively deliver the different components of a training process. Perhaps there’ll be some e-learning upfront to get everyone to a similar level of knowledge and understanding of key concepts. Maybe this will be followed by a workshop which concentrates on learning activities based on this level playing field of shared understanding. The activities come to the fore, because much of what would have been included in presentations has been moved into the pre-attendance e-learning. Benefits are obvious – with a greater proportion of face to face time devoted to active learning, skills can be practiced and feedback given. Done right, the traditional blended process allows the learning journey to be considerably advanced without a significant increase in resources. More often, though, the benefit is time and money – simply put, the same amount of content can be delivered with less time off the job. The e-learning component can be undertaken when convenient in a less disruptive fashion. Anyplace, anytime, anywhere was the original Martini mantra of the e-learning industry and in some respects this still holds good.

If there was any focus about after course learning, it was generally assumed that learners would re-visit the e-learning for reinforcement and refreshers – either specifically designed online aides memoires or just a fresh eye on the same stuff.

The 70:20:10 model provides a whole new set of challenges in designing this blend.

In the model as outlined by Lombardo and Eichinger, the start point is a learner taking a long hard look at him or herself and defining their ideal self and their real self – i.e. where do I want to be and where am I starting from.

Through conversations with others – perhaps some of it as formal feedback using a 360 degree mechanism – we get to a gap analysis of some description. This defines the behaviours required and the learning needed to bridge the gap. The model goes on to suggest that the learner then needs to plan the 70% – the experiences and work tasks, projects and assignments which will give learners the experiences which will help them build the required skills.

The planning for the 10% – formal learning including the traditional blend described above – is then framed within the context of the planned activities and experiences. The question put to the learner is “What would you need to know and learn before you engaged in those experiences?” The answer to that question is the subject of the courses they attend and the e-learning they complete.

The 20% – conversations and informal learning with subject matter experts, coaches, and peers – acts as the glue in the whole learning process. Supporting reflection, providing feedback and adding information as and when required.

So where are the challenges?

The first is in ensuring the organisation, and those whose buy-in to this process is required, understand what it is you’re trying to do. If they think that this a chance to replace formal training and development with unplanned on-the-job experiences then the process will fail. There are two reasons for this. As outlined above, the model is based on the idea of planned work experiences, supported by learning geared to ensure that maximum benefit is derived from those on-the-job experiences. The second is that some rigour about what we want people to learn is necessary. What happens in organisations where on-the-job learning is the only game in town is that the existing culture and current practice and behaviours become entrenched and reinforced. The learning is “how we do things around here”. In some organisations, that internal and well-entrenched culture is not what is needed or desirable in the future. Culture change is sometimes the most important and urgent need and on-the-job learning simply doesn’t achieve that on its own. Don’t believe me – ask News International!

What happens if the requirement for the training is to institute change and innovation? One formal input to contextualise this required planning process may be to share information about why innovation is required and what benefits will flow from doing things differently. We need to be flexible about where and how we deploy the 10%.

The second challenge is to engage with those who will act as the glue in the learning process. Experts, managers, coaches are a pre-requisite for this process to work properly. They may need considerable help to adapt to this role and to have those quality conversations which will make up that all important 20%. Many of them will need to go around the 70:20:10 cycle themselves in order to adopt the skills and behaviours needed to support other learners.

In our experience these coaches need practical support.

We find two things work:

1. Some ideas and explanations of the kind of on-the-job tasks which will comprise the 70%. This doesn’t have to be an exhaustive or definitive list, but should give some ideas and food for thought.

2. Crib sheets about the things to look out for and observe and the feedback to be provided.

While we can all recognise that supporting the development of individuals is a key role for people managers, the reality is that it is done with very variable results. Some managers take to this role with alacrity and are extremely skilled, but as everyone in training knows they are usually the exception. Building individual and team capacity is not often on many managers’ to do lists and if it’s there at all, it often slips down to priority number 27.

So the modern blend concept goes well beyond what we have previously described as ‘blended learning’. It requires…

• Individual training planning with each individual taking an honest and reflective look at where they are now and where they want to be;
• Planned work experiences and tasks with deadlines and anticipated outcomes;
• A process of guided discovery to learn the essentials before embarking on the projects, tasks and assignments which will form the on-the-job learning activities;
• Quality conversations which acknowledge achievement, support reflection and are the basis for further planning.

Those of you who have been wrestling with these issues in the past will recognise that this looks a lot like the elements of the Learning Cycle developed by David Kolb (see: http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/ldu/sddu_multimedia/kolb/static_version.php for more information). The thing is while lots of concepts and approaches seem new, the ones which work are based on some pretty universal ideas. The learning cycle is one of those and 70:20:10 will work as a holistic blend of learning activities, when it stays true to those universal concepts.