![\"7020101\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/news.loop.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/7020101.jpg?resize=635%2C314&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Morgan McCall and his colleagues, who are usually credited with originating the 70-20-10 ratio in the 70-20-10 model for learning and development, probably didn\u2019t get the memo. Or they got it, but they were convinced that including perfectly even numbers was the best way to go. We\u2019ll probably never know. But we shouldn\u2019t hold grudges against them either. The 70-20-10 model is great for organizations.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not against this model of workplace learning. It can be successful if consciously implemented, and my belief is based on science. According to the In-Focus report from Towards Maturity \u201c70+20+10=100: The Evidence Behind the Numbers,\u201d companies that embrace this model are:<\/p>\n
But 70-20-10 may not be the best name for this particular learning strategy because the numbers are rarely that absolute; they\u2019re guidelines. But the numbers are in the name, so they still raise some eyebrows. For clarity:<\/p>\n
But why? For instance:<\/p>\n
Why 10? <\/strong> Why 20?<\/strong> Why 70?<\/strong> Again, these numbers are guidelines, so they should depend on each organization\u2019s learning needs. Thus, they can change: 10 may become 19, 20 may become 36, while 70 may become 47. You can make any combination.<\/p>\n The numbers can change and they should change. But why stick to them in the name of this great model if they do change? What should we call 70-20-10 instead? Well, there\u2019s no use reinventing the wheel. Everyone knows what the numbers stand for:<\/p>\n Thus, the 70-20-10 model, becomes the three Es learning model, or the Experience-Exposure-Education model. I think the names without the numbers are better.<\/p>\n What do you think? Will we ever drop the numbers?<\/p>\n BY Livia <\/em>Mihai, a writer<\/em> for Matrix by\u00a0<\/em>Cypher Learning. Retrieved from:\u00a0http:\/\/www.clomedia.com\/2017\/05\/17\/70-20-10-unfortunate-name\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
\nTen is an awfully low number compared to the total of 100. Does 10 mean formal learning is not that important?<\/p>\n
\nPeople talk a lot. When they\u2019re at work they talk about work as well as personal issues. Sometimes they learn new things, other times they just talk. Should all words uttered in the workplace have a daily cap?<\/p>\n
\nThere are plenty of days when employees must do tasks they already know how to perform perfectly. There are industries where main things don\u2019t change for years. Learning through on-the-job experiences is effective and important, but is it truly 70 percent important?<\/p>\n\n
Share this:<\/h3>