This is an interesting discussion. I still believe that the 70-20-10 structure is a good way to get folks who have historically relied on formal programs exclusively to think in new ways about their training needs. Informal learning — and developing a culture that honors it and skills for individuals to capture and retrieve it — is crucial in our always-on, data-driven workplaces. However, the writer here is correct that those numbers seem arbitrary and are probably meaningless. So, I guess I ride the fence on this debate, but am very interested to see more thought and research in learning, formal and informal.
I really love blogging, and this reaction on my earlier post on the 70-20-10 myth with extra information by Michelle is an example why I like blogging so much:
Hi,
maybe a recent quote from an article by DeRue and Myers in The Oxford Handbook of leadership and organization (2014) can shed some light in this discussion:The existing research on experience-based leadership development spans across a wide range of different types of experiences, including informal on-the-job assignments (McCall et al., 1988), coaching and mentoring programs (Ting & Sciscio, 2006), and formal training programs (Burke & Day, 1986). A common assumption in the existing literature is that 70% of leadership development occurs via on-the-job assignments, 20% through working with and learning from other people (e.g., learning from bosses or coworkers), and 10% through formal programs such as training, mentoring or coaching programs (McCall et al., 1988; Robinson & Wick, 1992).
Despite…
View original post 212 more words
In the Learning Age 
Leave a Reply