Learning with the 70-20-10 model
Professional development? Many people think first of courses, seminars and certificates. Yet professional growth has long since stopped happening only where a certificate awaits at the end. Much of what truly moves us forward at work, we learn where we need it: in our day-to-day work.
This is exactly the idea behind the 70-20-10 model, which also guides Felber Advisory in developing young talent. But what exactly lies behind these three numbers?
70%: learning through experience
In the model, experiential learning plays the biggest role. Around 70% of professional development is attributed to what employees experience and try out for themselves in their daily work: handling tasks independently, solving problems, testing new ideas — and making mistakes along the way. The workplace itself becomes a place of learning.
For managers, this means not equating development with training alone. Those who give employees new tasks, hand over responsibility and create room to experiment make “learning by doing” possible right in the daily routine. That does not mean simply leaving employees to get on with it, however. An experience does not automatically turn into learning. Discussion, reflection and feedback help people make sense of what they have experienced and learn from it. And this is exactly where the next 20% come in.
20%: learning through others
Feedback from a manager, a conversation with an experienced colleague, mentoring or a quick exchange within the team: the model attributes around 20% to social learning.
This area matters more than the smaller number might suggest. Social learning can connect the other two: experiences become more valuable when they are reflected on together.
And we do not learn through conversation alone. We also watch how colleagues and managers handle situations, and we model our own behavior on theirs. That is why managers in particular play a dual role: they create learning opportunities, and at the same time they are role models.
For companies, this means: it is not enough to trust that exchange will somehow happen.
According to the model, mentoring, feedback, peer learning and access to experienced colleagues can and should be actively encouraged.
10%: learning through courses
And then there are the remaining 10%: formal learning, for example through courses, self-study, workshops or other structured training.
This is by no means the model saying that traditional training is unimportant. Rather, it challenges the notion that employee development is complete once someone has attended a course. A leadership course can teach the fundamentals. But whether it actually leads to different leadership behavior is decided afterward: Is there an opportunity to apply what was learned? Do I get feedback? Can I talk through difficult situations with others?
This is precisely where it becomes clear that 70, 20 and 10 should not be seen as three separate drawers. Their strength lies in how they work together: a course conveys knowledge, everyday work puts it to the test, and exchange with others helps reflect on it.
What does this mean for companies?
The obvious answer would be: 70% of the training budget for hands-on experience, 20% for mentoring and 10% for courses. But that is exactly how the model should not be understood.
The numbers are not a rule for how resources or learning time must be divided up. Instead, 70-20-10 can serve as a kind of framework for thinking: What opportunities do employees have to try new things in their daily work? Who can they learn from? Where do they get feedback? What formal training do they need — and how do we then make sure that what they have learned can actually be put into practice?
For employees, this can create more opportunities to keep developing and to take on responsibility. Companies, in turn, can link training more closely to concrete tasks and make better use of the knowledge that already exists within the organization.
The prerequisite is a culture that supports learning and tolerates mistakes. If workloads leave no room to experiment, managers have no time for feedback and mistakes must never happen, even the finest 70-20-10 concept on paper will be of little help.
Is it really 70, 20 and 10 percent?
Finally, a critical look is worthwhile. The catchy numbers suggest a precision that is not backed up scientifically. After all, the model originally goes back to surveys of successful executives about their own learning experiences. The resulting distribution therefore cannot simply be applied to every person and every profession. How important each form of learning is depends instead on the job, the person and the situation.
Perhaps the model's strength therefore lies less in the three numbers than in the question behind them: Do we see learning as something that happens at a single point in a course — or as an ongoing part of our work?
For developing young talent, it is precisely this shift in perspective that is interesting. Sometimes the next training course really is the right answer. But sometimes all it takes is a new task, a bit of trust and someone to ask when things don't work out right away.
Sources:
Johnson SJ, Blackman DA, Buick F. The 70:20:10 framework and the transfer of learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2018; 29: 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21330
Richard Harding (2022) Debate: The 70:20:10 ‘rule’ in learning and development—The mistake of listening to sirens and how to safely navigate around them, Public Money & Management, 42:1, 6-7, DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2021.1951517
Comments