Does the 70/20/10 rule developed in the 1980’s and 1990’s apply to enterprise learning and development in 2012?

This is Part Two: The 70/20/10 Rule.

In January 2012, a white paper was developed and published by Deakin Prime Corporate Education, Deakin University, titled ‘Demystifying 70:20:10’. Learning and performance consultant, Charles Jennings, has a much more in-depth background history, details other research and practical approaches in his August 2011 blog ‘Social & Workplace Learning through the 70:20:10 Lens’.

Needless to say that the 70:20:10 concept has been documented as:
• 70% of learning comes from on-the-job experiences, tasks, and problem solving;
• 20% from feedback and from working around good role models, coaches and mentors; and
• 10% from formal off-the-job training, learning and education courses.

However, this caveat must be applied to the 70:20:10 percentages as is not an exact prescription but rather, a working concept or framework.

I still have a problem with the concept, along with many of my colleagues, particularly the idea that “feedback and from working around good role models, coaches and mentors” is a lowly 20%. Workplace Learning doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it is developed and supported within a learning culture where learning takes place all the time by everyone. Therefore, coaching feedback from co-workers and good role models are a continuous process and the essence that binds on-the-job experiences, tasks, and problem solving into workplace learning.

Hence, the 20% concept of co-worker feedback and coaching is highly inaccurate and I believe that if it were limited in such a fashion it would decrease the effectiveness of a learning culture. It would be more accurate to say it’s a 90:10 concept rather than limiting co-worker coaching to a minor 20% role.

The Deakin Prime white paper appears to be a rigid rather than dynamic approach to the model as demonstrated in the “Interpretation of 70:20:10” where enterprises have apparently been asked to supply examples of where their learning programs fit into 70:20:10 model. Many enterprises have interpreted the 20% as strictly formal coaching or mentoring, while others have limited learning from co-worker and peers to a mere 20%.

The other problem I see in the Deakin Prime white paper is within their “Advice for effective practice” where they are more concerned with promoting a model that in reality sits behind learning materials design and learning practices. The advice that “educating both managers and their teams about the model …or setting targets such as a date by which managers complete 70:20:10 conversations with their staff”, indicates an educational institution getting bogged down in the model rather than understanding the dynamic enterprise learning concept that sits behind workplace learning practices.

While Heads of enterprise learning & development Departments may have conversations with the organisational senior management team relating to the concepts siting behind learning materials design and learning practices, business enterprises are more concerned with learning practices that directly support their competitive advantage.

The dynamic interpretation of 70:20:10: may well encompass: workplace learning of anything between 50% -100% and co-worker coaching and mentoring is often not 20% but in unison with workplace learning at the same percentage of between 50-100%. Also, in my experience as an enterprise L&D manager and practitioner, many workplace learning programs have no formal off-the-job training, learning or education course requirements.

Hence, to promote a workplace learning concept, conceptualised and developed by academics working within educational institutions rather than enterprise-based workplace learning practitioners is a recipe for disaster. The Deakin Prime white paper is a typical example of an educational institution becoming hooked on the model rather than the substance or investigating obvious discrepancies within the model.

I would prefer an enterprise learning model designed by enterprise learning practitioners, which is sufficiently dynamic to be applied in all enterprise learning situations and practices.

I don’t believe that 70:20:10 is an acceptable model for the full gamut of practices within enterprise-based learning.