mmoooiomooiiooioiooioi

\immomoooiiiooiOll0001
^wimoioooomioiioiio
omiimoommioioo
mill
lit

A new blend
Robin Hoyle sets out the "universal concepts" that make
70:20:10 a successful nnodel

rainers like a good huzz word. We per cent from conversations with more experienced

T also like something that appears

scientific, concerned as we are that
mayhe the rest of the world thinks
of us as prone to a hit of mumho
jumho. If we can put numbers in there somewhere
- hallelujah!
W e l c o m e 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 per
cent of our skills and knowledge through formal
training inputs - workshops, e-learning etc - 20
people and 70 per cent from getting our hands dirty
and doing things.
I have no argument with that as a concept hut
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 that shows this is how things actually
happen, 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.
Read more...
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. It is

www.trainingjoumal.com January 2012 TJ

FEATURE
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 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 per cent
rather than just the 10 per cent' 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 at 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
LdD professional.
The traditional blend of learning concerns itself
with a mix of activities around formal LScD. 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'U be some e-learning
up-front to get everyone to a similar level of
knowledge and understanding of key concepts.
Maybe this will be followed by a workshop that
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
TJ January 2012 w
face-to-face time devoted to active learning, skills
can be practised 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 on after-course learning, it
was generally assumed that learners would re-visit
the e-learning for reinforcement and refreshers -
either specifically designed online aides mmoires
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 himself and defining his ideal self and
his real self, ie 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"
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 per cent - the experiences and
work tasks, projects and assignments that will give
him the experiences that will help him build the
required skills.
The planning for the 10 per cent - formal
learning including the traditional blend described
ahove - 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 hefare you engaged in those experiences? The
answer to that question is the subject of the courses
he attends and the e-learning he completes.
The 20 per cent - 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 is a chance to replace formal training
and development with unplanned on-the-job
experiences, 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 henefit is derived from
them. 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 take my word for it - 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 per cent.
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 making up that all-
important 20 per cent. 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:
some ideas and explanations of the kind of
The modem blend
eoncept goes ivell
beyond what ive have
previously described
as ^blended learning^
on-the-job tasks that will comprise the 70 per
cent. This doesn't have to be an exhaustive or
definitive list, but should give some ideas and
food for thought
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 hut, 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 that will form the on-the-job
learning activities
quality conversations that 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 Robin
by David Kolb (see http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/ldu/ Hoyle
sddu_multimedia/kolb/static_version.php for more is head
information). The thing is, while lots of concepts of Infinity
Learning.
and approaches seem new, the ones that work are
He can be
based on some pretty universal ideas. The learning contacted
cycle is one of those and 70:20:10 will work as a via www.
holistic blend of learning activities when it stays infinitylearn
true to those universal concepts. TJ ing.co.uk
January 2012 TJ
Copyright of Training Journal is the property of Fenman Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.