The 70/20/10 strategy - what does neuroscience say?
Related content
Replies (1)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I feel this article has missed the fundamental point of the 70:20:10 reference model.
There is no 'magic number' organisations should be striving for in their learning strategy. The point is that we all learn most of what helps us do our jobs well in the '20' and '70' spheres - as part of our daily workflow.
The Lumesse and DDI reports are total red herrings.
The Lumesse author starts from the premise that there is a 'perfect blend'. A plainly false assumption as the ratios of experiential/social/structured learning that come together as effective ways to build high performance will vary not only between industries and organisations, but also between job roles, specific task contexts, level of initial expertise and probably another dozen or so factors.
Another problem with the Lumesse data is that the 'ratio' question is based on a flawed dichotomy. It asks individuals to self-report the percentage of 'learning mix' between [a] on the job; [b] informal; [c] formal. If anyone can offer an explanation of the difference between [a] and [b] I would be interested to hear it. Most informal learning occurs on-the-job, but some on-the-job learning may be formal (for instance directed instruction in an apprentice/master relationship).
The other question in the Lumesse questionnaire displays a similar lack of understanding of the difference between 'training' and 'learning' as well as the confusion between 'on the job learning','informal learning' and 'formal learning'. If this study were to be presented to anyone supervising an undergraduate research assignment it would have been rejected out-of-hand.
Equally, the DDI study assumes a 'right ratio' based on what appears to be a time-based measure (although this is not clear). DDI's assumption is that 70:20:10 is the amount of time spent splitting learning between on-the-job, learning through others, and formal. Its brief report then goes on to 'debunk' the 70:20:10 model as some limited research carried out by DDI (providers of formal leadership development programmes) has indicated that in its sample set (presumably gathered from participants on DDI programmes) the ideal ratio associated with high quality was 52:27:21. The idea that this ratio could be generalised beyond the sample group is stretching the point. It is meaningless.
The DDI study does make one sensible point, although it bases this an incorrect assumption: it is that ratios can have the effect of emphasising the separation of different types of learning rather than seeing the different ways in which we all learn as synergistic.
Anyone who has any experience of using the 70:20:10 reference model will understand the importance of continually looking to leverage the different approaches to help individuals, teams and organisations grow capability and performance. The 'numbers' and ratios are not some type of target. Nor are the categories - experience, exposure to others, and formal education - a way to separate learning. They are, in fact, a way to extend our thinking about learning and improving performance as a continuum rather than as a series of courses or programmes. Creating cultures of continuous development.
Many organisations are using 70:20:10 as a framework to help them support learning as part of the daily workflow. Virtually no organisation or learning professional I have worked with has fretted about whether they are 'hitting' a specific ratio.
if you re-read the Lumesse and DDI reports with those companies business models in mind, you will come to different conclusions than those presented in this article.