Episode 85 - It Turns Out Development Isn’t Quite 70/20/10

<h2 data-pm-slice="0 0 []"><strong>Summary</strong></h2> <p class="">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.</p> <p class="" data-rte-preserve-empty="true"> </p> <h2><strong>Transcript</strong></h2> <p class="">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.</p> <p class="">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:</p> <ul data-rte-list="default"> <li> <p class="">70% of development should be “on the job”</p> </li> <li> <p class="">20% should be with “other people”</p> </li> <li> <p class="">10% should be through “courses”</p> </li> </ul> <p class="">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. </p> <p class="">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 t