Episode Details

The most widely cited model when it comes to development is 70/20/10. While it is often referenced, it is also frequently misunderstood. This week we look at why development isn't quite 70/20/10.

Hello and welcome to episode 85 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today's biggest leadership challenges. This week we look at why development isn't quite 70/20/10.

The most widely cited model when it comes to development is 70/20/10. While it is often referenced, it is also frequently misunderstood. The idea is that organisations and individuals should focus development opportunities around three different areas:

• 70% of development should be "on the job"

• 20% should be with "other people"

• 10% should be through "courses"

So where did these suspiciously rounded-off figures come from? 70/20/10 was coined by Bob Eichinger, Mike Lombardo and Morgan McCall in the 1980s with the Center for Creative Leadership. They arrived at the figures based on responses from senior executives about their key development experiences. The 70/20/10 proportions were a rounded-off representation of the themes coming through those reflections. Despite the widespread acceptance of the model, it has also received a number of criticisms, most of which are unfair. For example, some suggest that 70/20/10 is saying that formal learning isn't important, or that the 'on the job' component is passive. Neither of those really reflect the model and the authors' intent.

One reasonable criticism is that the work was based on a relatively small number of US executives who also turned out to be predominantly male and white. Anyone who is familiar with research into leadership will recognise this isn't the only place where this has been a problem. In fact some argue that the bulk of psychological research has been conducted on university and college students - hardly a representative sample of the population. In addition, it does suffer from what we could call 'survivor bias'. When we ask existing leaders to reflect back on what made them successful, we're staring back in time to what made these people successful during the 1970s. A similar criticism can be levelled at research based on successful entrepreneurs who gain an almost cult-like status. If we ignore all of the unsuccessful entrepreneurs whose businesses failed, it's hard to gain a true perspective on what really made the difference for the successful ones.

The original intent of the model was to encourage organisations to proactively focus on the development of their people, and that a great way of doing that is through the work they conduct, the people they interact with, and the occasional more formal training they undertake. If we accept that original intent, it's easy to see that 70/20/10 is a helpful guide when considering development opportunities.

Since the original study the Center for Creative Leadership has updated the figures using a broader and more diverse sample. They have drawn out some interesting nuances to the model. Their latest research shows that the 70% "on the job" element is actually made up of challenging assignments (45%) and hardships such as business mistakes or losing a job (22%). So the 70 is actually 67. The updated 20% "other people" is actually 23%. And the 10% "courses" is actually 5% coursework and 5% personal life.

I'm sure you will appreciate that calling 70/20/10 the 45/22/23/5/5 model is far less catchy, so it's okay to stick with 70/20/10. What I find most interesting is the picking apart of the "on the job" component.

As I flagged earlier, often "on the job" is misinterpreted as passive learning - that somehow learning and dev