Navigation SearchNavigation ContactNavigation Products
Leader Pulse
Leadership ideas, trends, and smarts

Is 70:20:10 Relevant Today? Or Are We Living in the Past? - Part 2

By Tacy Byham, Ph.D.

Tacy ByhamIn part 1 of this blog series I introduced the numbers 10,000, 66, and 31, and the fact that they simply don’t add up. Now let’s discuss three often heard questions about 70:20:10.

70:20:10—What’s the Origin?

70:20:10 became a learning catch-phrase about 30 years ago. Researchers McCall, Eichinger, and Lombardo asked C-level leaders who had “landed” as successful leaders to reflect on the best development experiences over their lifetimes. In other words, “What experiences in your life caused you to learn the most?” Their responses showed that 70 percent of their greatest learning moments came from experience or on-the-job learning, and 20 percent came from learning from others, which includes coaching and mentoring. The final 10 percent came from formal learning experiences like classroom training, web-based training, or industry conferences.

They never intended “the ratio” to represent the ideal amount of time spent on each of these activities (and especially not in the allocation of a training budget). Rather, it was meant to represent the fact that the richest development comes less from formal learning and more from real-world experience. As we all know, the foundation of formal learning is critical.

This “misunderstood” framework has now been adopted as a learning paradigm to focus development efforts around the globe. While the efforts that come from on-the-job learning (the 70 percent) are the most valuable, they can also be the hardest for leaders to envision. Especially for frontline leaders who have limited experience with a task.

This challenge for first time leaders, feeling their way through leading a team for the first time, is exactly why we ask our next question—is there a right order to learning? Should we have experiences first, followed by coaching, and finish it up with formal learning as the 70:20:10 ratio would suggest? Let’s explore.

70:20:10 or 10:20:70—What’s the right order?

DDI has revised the original 70:20:10 to 10:20:70. Let me tell you a story to illustrate why.

I don’t golf, but I have many friends who do, and for years they have been asking me to join them for a round of 18. While I could easily go hack my way through the game weekend-over-weekend and, over time, improve my game weekend-over-weekend, the slope of my improvement trajectory is limited, and I am likely to pick up many bad habits along the way. Instead, it would be far better for me to spend a weekend at a golf clinic (formal learning), then receive some on-the-course training from a coach or my friends (coaching/mentoring), and finally apply this learning in a nice round of 18 holes (experience).

Similarly, it is far better to set our new leaders up for success in their skill development (e.g., selling or coaching) with formal learning than to let them learn by trial and error. In fact, as Alfred E. Neuman said “The problem with learning from experience is that you always get the test before the lesson." Hence, DDI’s take on this development philosophy is that of 10:20:70. (To explore more of the challenges of first-time leaders you may want to check out my new book Your First Leadership Job: How Catalyst Leaders Bring out the Best in Others, with co-author Rich Wellins, available in May 2015.

Is 70:20:10 still relevant today?

Though long-accepted, the ratio has never been validated with hard data, so we thought we’d take the opportunity to get a pulse while surveying 13,000 leaders for our Global Leadership Forecast 2014|2015. We asked leaders, from what experiences have you learned most? How do you allocate your learning time? Their answers are reason to rethink the 30-year-old philosophy.

 Is 70:20:10 Relevant Today

The actual time leaders spend on learning is quite different than 10:20:70. As illustrated by the graphic above, in reality, leaders experience more formal learning and more learning from others—and significantly less on-the-job learning than we’ve been accustomed to believing. But is that effective? We wanted to know that, too.

In isolating the organizations with the highest-quality leadership development programs, we found the ratio to be very similar to how leaders actually spend their time (see graphic above). Both results show a doubling of formal learning time and a drop of 15 to 18 percentage points for informal, experiential learning.

So, in conclusion, let’s not underestimate the value of formal learning. Based on our GLF 2014|2015 data, perhaps we should offer more consideration to that part of the mix. That being said, I don’t believe an exact ratio is as important as considering your audience and learning objectives. What is crucial is the mix—the blending of informal and formal learning. This has always been DDI’s philosophy…and it’s done wonders for my tee shot.

Read more about our finding and the Global Leadership Forecast 2014|2015.

Tacy Byham, Ph.D. is DDI's Senior Vice President.

Posted: 17 Mar, 2015,
Talk to an Expert: Is 70:20:10 Relevant Today? Or Are We Living in the Past? - Part 2
* Denotes required field
Consent to DDI Marketing *

I consent to DDI emailing me, collecting my personal data, and processing that information in the provision of services and for the purposes of marketing and research. I am aware of my rights and the ways in which my data will be used as referenced in DDI’s Data Privacy Policy. I am aware I have the right to revoke this consent at any time.

Please enter the number this image
 Security code