As we reach the penultimate position in our countdown of the biggest lies in Learning & Development, we encounter #2—a sacred framework with surprisingly shaky foundations.
“Our learning strategy should follow the 70-20-10 model: 70% experiential learning, 20% social learning, and 10% formal learning.”
If you’ve been in L&D for more than five minutes, you’ve heard this proclamation. The 70-20-10 model has achieved near-religious status in corporate learning circles. Conference presentations reference it as established truth. Consultants build entire practices around it. Organizations restructure their learning functions to align with it.
But here’s the inconvenient truth: the 70-20-10 model is built on a foundation about as solid as a house of cards in a hurricane.
The Origin Story (Such As It Is)
The 70-20-10 model supposedly describes how successful executives learn and develop. According to the narrative, research shows that effective leaders attribute:
- 70% of their development to challenging experiences and assignments
- 20% to developmental relationships and coaching
- 10% to coursework and training
This sounds authoritative and research based. The problem? The actual research behind these specific numbers is… well, let’s be generous and call it “limited.”
The most commonly cited source traces back to work by Morgan McCall, Robert Eichinger, and Michael Lombardo at the Center for Creative Leadership in the 1980s and 1990s.1 But their research was based on interviews with about 200 successful executives, asking them to reflect retrospectively on what had contributed to their development.
Think about the methodological issues here:
- Small, non-representative sample
- Retrospective self-reporting (notoriously unreliable)
- No control group
- No verification of the accuracy of recollections
- Specific focus on executives (not all employees)
More problematically, the original research was never intended to be prescriptive. Instead of allowing the original work to live as observational insight, the L&D and other industries ‘hijacked’ it as gospel guidance.
The Appeal of False Precision
Why has the 70-20-10 model become so popular, despite never having been intended to be a leadership or development prescription? Because it offers several appealing qualities:
1 – It Sounds Scientific
Specific percentages suggest rigorous research and mathematical precision. “70-20-10” feels more authoritative than “mostly experiential learning with some social learning and a bit of formal training.”
2 – It Validates Intuition
Many L&D professionals intuitively believe that formal training is less impactful than real-world experience. The 70-20-10 model provides apparent scientific backing for this belief.
3 – It Shifts Budget Conversations
When organizations spend 90% of their learning budget on formal training (the 10% slice), the model provides ammunition for reallocation toward experiential and social learning.
4 – It Creates a Convenient Framework
The three categories provide a tidy way to organize thinking about learning approaches, even if the specific percentages are arbitrary.
5 – It Challenges the Status Quo
For an industry traditionally focused on courses and programs, the model suggests a radical reorientation toward workplace-based learning.
The Problem with Prescriptive Application
Even if we accepted the original research at face value (which we shouldn’t), using 70-20-10 as a prescriptive model creates numerous problems:
1 – Context Doesn’t Matter
The model treats all learning needs as equivalent. Should onboarding new employees follow the same ratio as developing senior leaders? Should technical training follow the same pattern as leadership development? The model provides no guidance for contextual adaptation.
2 – Individual Differences Are Ignored
People learn differently based on their experience, personality, learning preferences, and current skill levels. A one-size-fits-all ratio ignores this fundamental reality.
3 – The Categories Are Artificial
Real learning doesn’t neatly separate into experiential, social, and formal buckets. Most effective learning experiences blend all three approaches. Trying to parse the percentage contribution of each component is like trying to determine what percentage of a cake’s taste comes from flour versus eggs versus sugar.
4 – It Mistakes Description for Prescription
Even if the original research accurately described how some executives learned in the past, that doesn’t mean it’s the optimal approach for all learners in all contexts going forward.
5 – The Numbers Are Arbitrary
Why 70-20-10? Why not 60-30-10? Or 80-15-5? The specific percentages have taken on mystical significance despite having no empirical justification.
The Research Reality
More recent, rigorous research paints a different picture:
- A 2016 study by Deloitte found that the most effective learning approaches varied significantly by role, industry, and organizational context, with no consistent ratio emerging.2
- Research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology showed that the optimal mix of learning approaches depends heavily on the type of skill being developed and the learner’s existing expertise level.3
- A meta-analysis in Training & Development found that blended approaches (combining formal, experiential, and social learning) were most effective, but the optimal blend varied dramatically across situations.4
- LinkedIn Learning’s 2020 Workplace Learning Report found that learners themselves preferred different mixes of learning approaches depending on the topic and their career stage.5
When 70-20-10 Becomes Harmful
Rigid adherence to the 70-20-10 model can actually damage learning effectiveness:
1 – Underinvestment in Formal Learning
Some skills genuinely benefit from structured, expert-designed instruction. Complex technical subjects, regulatory requirements, and foundational knowledge often require more than 10% formal learning.
2 – Overemphasis on Experience Without Support
Simply throwing people into challenging experiences (the “70%”) without adequate preparation, coaching, or reflection can lead to failure and decreased confidence rather than learning.
3 – Neglect of Individual Learning Needs
Forcing all learners into the same ratio ignores the reality that some people need more structure, others need more autonomy, and most need different approaches at different times.
4 – Misallocation of Resources
Organizations may restructure their entire learning function around arbitrary percentages rather than focusing on what actually works for their specific context and challenges.
A Better Approach: Evidence-Based Learning Design
Instead of adhering to the 70-20-10 model, consider these principles:
1 – Start with Learning Objectives
What specific knowledge, skills, or behaviors need to change? Different objectives may require different approaches and ratios.
2 – Consider the Learner
What’s their current skill level? How do they prefer to learn? What constraints do they face? Design for actual people, not abstract percentages.
3 – Match Method to Content
Some content is best learned through formal instruction (complex procedures, safety protocols). Other content benefits from experiential learning (leadership skills, creative problem-solving). Still other content works well socially (cultural knowledge, practical tips).
4 – Test and Iterate
Rather than assuming a predetermined ratio, experiment with different approaches and measure what works for your specific context.
5 – Embrace Blended Learning
Most effective learning experiences integrate formal, experiential, and social elements rather than treating them as separate buckets.
The Useful Parts of 70-20-10
This criticism doesn’t mean the 70-20-10 model is entirely worthless. It offers valuable insights:
- Experiential learning matters: Real-world application is crucial for skill development
- Social learning is powerful: Peer learning and mentoring have significant impact
- Formal learning alone isn’t sufficient: Classroom training without application has limited effectiveness
- Integration is key: The most effective development combines multiple approaches
The problem isn’t with these insights—it’s with treating the specific percentages as universal prescriptions.
What This Means for You
If you’re an L&D professional:
- Question the orthodoxy: Just because 70-20-10 is widely accepted doesn’t make it empirically sound.
- Focus on effectiveness: Design learning experiences based on what works for your specific context, not on predetermined ratios.
- Embrace flexibility: Different learners, content, and situations may require different approaches.
- Measure and adjust: Use data to determine optimal learning mixes rather than relying on industry mantras.
If you’re a business leader:
- Be skeptical of magic formulas: Learning effectiveness depends on context, not on adherence to popular models.
- Support experimentation: Encourage your L&D team to try different approaches and measure results.
- Invest in what works: Don’t artificially limit formal learning just because a model suggests you should.
- Think holistically: The best development programs integrate multiple approaches seamlessly.
The Path Forward
The future of effective learning design lies not in rigid adherence to arbitrary ratios but in thoughtful, evidence-based approaches that consider:
- The specific learning objectives
- The characteristics of the learners
- The nature of the content
- The organizational context
- The available resources
- The actual evidence of what works
In our final installment, we’ll explore the #1 biggest lie in Learning & Development: “Learning styles are very important…” Until then, consider whether your learning programs are designed around what actually works or around what a catchy model suggests they should be.
Click here to follow Josh on LinkedIn:
Josh LeFebvre on LinkedInJosh is the founder of Kay/Allison - a firm solving corporate learning and talent development challenges. He provides strategic advisory, interim/fractional leadership, and complex project management services in the learning and development field. His 25 years of experience has demonstrated a focus on business impact and clarity punctuated by thoughtful analysis and plain-spoken recommendations. He is a long standing collaborator with Smartfirm and can be reached through our team or directly at josh@kayandallison.com.
The opinions expressed in this article are Josh’s and do not necessarily reflect the official views or positions of Smartfirm. This content is provided for informational purposes only.
References
[1] McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The Lessons of Experience: How Successful Executives Develop on the Job. Lexington Books.
[2] Bersin, J. (2016). The Disruption of Digital Learning: Ten Things We Have Learned. Deloitte Development LLC.
[3] Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 59-69.
[4] Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S. Department of Education.
[5] LinkedIn Learning. (2020). 2020 Workplace Learning Report. LinkedIn Corporation.
