What an appealing idea; formalising what really happens (learning on the job) into a managed development framework. Saves cost, increases relevance and enhances learning; wins all around. So why haven’t we already done it?
For those less than familiar with the 70:20:10 model it is, in essence, a formalisation of what has long been recognised as one of the most effective ways to learn. It proposes that only 10% of an individual’s development time should be spent in the classroom undertaking formal education or training. 20% of development time should then be directed at structured learning events which are relevant to the workplace and not conducted in formal training environments; for example work-shops or coaching schemes. The vast majority of development, 70%, is to take place in the working environment through managed exposure to the full variety of experiences any role might be expected to encounter.
This is where the model mimics reality; as far back as medieval times the guilds of individual trades recognised the value of work-related experience to learning. The entire concept behind the apprenticeship and the journeyman was that you couldn’t reasonably learn your trade to a skilled level without five years of experience in practice. Indeed, to this day, some professions, notably medicine and the law, appear to implicitly recognise this as they continue to style their work as ‘practice’ – you never become the finished article because you are expected, and expect, to constantly develop. The current National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) scheme could be viewed as an attempt to replicate these time-honoured behaviours in a contemporary context. But herein lies the rub; many people appear dismissive of the NVQ as a cynical attempt to short-cut formal education or rigorous professional training.
If this sounds a bit like Del Boy from Only Fools and Horses “The University of Life, Faculty of Hard Knocks”, well, that might be because it is very close to that. What differentiates it however is how well structured and managed it is. Everyone is familiar with that old adage that fifteen years in the same job does not necessarily equal fifteen years of experience. It can simply be one year of experience repeated fifteen times. The trick with the 70:20:10 model is to avoid this potential pitfall. This is achieved through understanding the full range of experiences that a role occupant might reasonably encounter given their level of skill, ability and responsibility. This understanding can then be broadened out in a managed and safe way to guide development to a shape that suits both them and their employer.
The attractions are self-evident. With structured development based on what is happening to you and around you in your own work environment the learning is immediate (there is no delay whilst you try and equate classroom theory to practical application). It is also clearly relevant as the problems are real and your solutions either succeed or fail to varying degrees and, often, in short order. Peer support and advice is available from colleagues who share the same environment and constraints rather than through theoreticians. Perhaps most importantly the ‘pay-back’ on the development investment is more-or-less immediately apparent.
However the problem doesn’t lie with the concept or the framework; it is more with the behaviours and attitudes to those that operate and are affected by it. The two potential pit-falls are firstly the learners’ engagement with the process and their ownership of their own development. Secondly the degree of management focus on an individual’s development needs and their contribution to promoting and managing the development process in partnership with their direct reports is crucially important.
Without an explicit focus on their development it is easy to let the ‘day job’ dominate working life; in such situations development is piecemeal and at an organic rate of progress. At the same time it is hard for the developing worker to know what they need to learn because, by definition, they have not yet been exposed to it. Here is where effective management pays dividends; not only will they encourage and guide the learner’s efforts but management is ideally positioned to help identify the detailed learning needs having, as they do, an overview of both the role and the individual discharging it. They are also ideally placed to identify the necessary learning experiences and a safe environment in which they can be practiced.
This dependence on management, both by the learner and their manager, can prove one of the main stumbling blocks. With pressure to achieve whatever production or management targets the business sets it is easy to allow development to become the poor relation with insufficient focus on the individual’s needs or their contribution to the overall goal.
What appears to stand in the way of effective deployment of the 70:20:10 model is a lack of management comprehension, ability and appetite on behalf of both the learner and their manager. Yet, once harnessed we have witnessed its effects as transformational on not only individuals but also departments and even whole enterprises.
Latest posts by Nick Dobson (see all)
- 70:20:10 – Company goal or corporate bluff? - September 14, 2015
- Preparing for that ‘difficult’ conversation - July 6, 2015
- What do you tell your manager when the wheels come off? - July 6, 2015