• My recent blog for the Human Capital Community of Practice focused on how many talent management firms go about the business of claiming the effectiveness of their offerings, whether it is a training program, assessment inventory, or other type of talent development solution. My concern was that many of these claims rest on faulty research (if any research) and invalid assumptions. Indeed, many myths persist, despite a lack of proof of their veracity. Case in point: The 70:20:10 Rule. 

  Basics of 70:20:10 

  Let’s review a little background on this prevalent ratio—before we begin to unravel it, which isn’t difficult to do. 

  Some very capable researchers from the Center for Creative Leadership published research nearly 40 years ago, the results of which suggested that: 

  70 percent of learning occurs on the job

• 20 percent of learning occurs through informal conversations with peers, bosses, mentors, and coaches, and so forth

• 10 percent of learning occurs through formal training courses and programs. 

Likewise, former General Mills Chief Learning Officer Kevin Wilde also questioned the relevance of the 70:20:10 ratio  in a September 201 Talent Management article. He simply said that the theory is long in the tooth and outdated given today’s learning challenges and capabilities. Wilde questioned its utility for architecting a learning curriculum and budget since it overstates the role of experience in development. Not that experience is unimportant, but that a more balanced model fits more appropriately— where learning from others, personal coaching, and tools such as action learning exist. Furthermore, how does the rule apply to learning tools that weren’t around 30 to 40 years ago such as technology-enabled learning systems, which allow for the reduction of in-class time while maintaining focus on specific skill development rather than information dissemination. 

Bottom Line 

The 70:20:10 rule is just one example where false conclusions have been drawn from alleged research. No doubt, there are others. For instance, a whole other discourse could be levied against the capability of so-called leadership inventories to predict on-job performance. But that’s for another day.

For now, just ask yourself if the learning programs and assessment tools you provide end users are really having the intended impact. If not, you owe it to yourself and your learners to conduct the appropriate research to validate your claims.