More often than not, in the midst of a leadership development program design discussion with a client, they\u2019ll say something about 70-20-10. \u201cWe\u2019d like you to keep in mind the 70-20-10 model of development<\/a>,\u201d they say. \u201cHave you heard of that?\u201d<\/p>\n By this point, our faculty members are well-versed in gently pointing out that, yes, we’ve heard of it, because the research for that model was developed right here at CCL.<\/p>\n \u201cFantastic! We like to base most of our designs around that model!\u201d comes the response.<\/p>\n And so it\u2019s gone for much of the last 30 years, with 70-20-10 becoming a beacon for how leadership development designs should be arranged.<\/p>\n The theory behind it is as follows: 70% of learning should come from challenging on-the-job assignments; 20% of learning should be gleaned from watching and working with others; and a modest 10% represents formal, in-classroom or virtually-based learning. Instructional designers often loosely translate that to: \u201cmore interaction, less lecture; more pre- and-post-session work and more longitudinal programs in order to ensure learning transfer<\/a>, fewer day-long seminars filled with soon-to-be-forgotten theoretical concepts.\u201d<\/p>\n Is this a good model for learning? Yes.<\/p>\n And more so, it\u2019s widely accepted as the gold standard, a research-based, long-standing model often cited by development professionals, most of whom may not even know about the original research findings that eventually led to it.<\/p>\n Up until a few months ago, I was one of those development professionals. Then, I had the opportunity to meet with Cindy McCauley, a senior research fellow and expert in the area of putting experience at the center of talent development<\/a>, which stems from the work of Bob Eichinger and Mike Lombardo, the famed 70-20-10 creators. I needed some slides on Cindy\u2019s work, and while reviewing what she\u2019d sent me, I noticed one particular pie chart: \u201c70-20-10\u201d it said at the top of the page, but below, the chart had 5 different areas: \u201cchallenging assignments\u201d took up just under 50% of the circle, with roughly 40% split between \u201cother people\u201d and \u201chardships.\u201d A final 10% was split between \u201cformal coursework\u201d and \u201cpersonal life.\u201d I was confused.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat\u2019s this?\u201d I asked Cindy, only to have her confirm my suspicions: These were the original results from the CCL research question, \u201cWhere do key development learnings come from?\u201d That data found that \u201chardships\u201d were equally as important as \u201cother people,\u201d and that lessons from one\u2019s personal life aided development in an essential way. And yet, I\u2019d never heard of the 50-20-20-5-and-5 model.<\/p>\n Cindy explained: The originators of the model dropped<\/i> hardships and personal life events because organizations had little control over them. Coursework could be replicated, mentors could be assigned, but who could guarantee hardships? Or \u2014 more importantly \u2014 who would want to? After dropping those 2 pesky categories and doing some simple recalculations, the model shook out at the now-trusty 70-20-10 breakdown.<\/p>\n Consider that this model was developed in the late 1980s. Perhaps looking for or focusing on hardships felt unnecessary. If things were going well for an organization, why manufacture a hardship? And were hardships even something to discuss openly at work? Similarly, work wasn\u2019t likely considered the place to discuss one\u2019s personal life; workplaces were quite a bit more formal, and lines between the personal and professional were more clearly delineated than they often are today.<\/p>\n And in either case, Eichinger and Lombardo weren\u2019t wrong: It could be more of a challenge for employers to try to create these types of experiences for all employees (i.e., manufacture a hardship or ask employees to share leadership lessons learned outside of the office).<\/p>\n Still, you don\u2019t need to think too much about the current business environment to see how different things are today. It\u2019s not unusual for an employee to be friends with their whole department on Facebook. The lines between work and home have blurred significantly, as people bring their emails to bed on their smartphone and as family obligations are split more equally among couples, often requiring more flexible schedules.<\/p>\n In fact, according to several recent studies, Millennials report that a good balance between work and life<\/a> is one of the most important factors in accepting or continuing with a job or organization. If we don\u2019t help employees to mine their personal experiences for leadership skills, we risk not only losing out on prime learning opportunities but on disregarding a part of their life that they have identified as being of paramount importance.<\/p>\n As for hardships, I\u2019ve found it impossible to find an organization that doesn\u2019t have a full list at the ready. Layoffs, budget cuts, mergers, acquisitions \u2014 anything from C-suite scandals impacting morale and public brand to the stress some workers feel about being required to move or risk losing their position in the company. (And that\u2019s not even mentioning the global coronavirus pandemic and its aftermath.)<\/p>\n At this point, companies no longer need to manufacture hardships; these days, they\u2019re pretty much guaranteed.<\/p>\n Ignoring these hardships in favor of focusing solely on challenging assignments or coursework does a significant disservice to employees. Pretending hardships aren\u2019t there doesn\u2019t make them go away. In fact, ironic mental processing holds that asking employees to ignore a stressful hardship, such as rounds of layoffs, pretty much ensures that they won\u2019t be able to focus on anything else.<\/p>\n So where does this leave us trying to make use of this model? The phrase \u201cIf it\u2019s not broken \u2026\u201d comes to mind, but the problem isn\u2019t that the model is broken \u2014 it\u2019s that it\u2019s incomplete. And the answer to filling that gap has been there all along; crisis can be turned into opportunity<\/a>.<\/p>\n Organizations can address hardships head-on and develop learning opportunities around them rather than trying to sweep them under the rug. Who could turn their back on the chance to get 20% of learning lessons from that bucket alone? And they can do something similar with the area of personal life, which would both cater to the confirmed preferences of Millennials and honor the extra-professional experiences of all employees.<\/p>\n