More often than not, in the midst of a leadership development program design discussion with a client, they’ll say something about 70-20-10. “We’d like you to keep in mind the 70-20-10 model of development,” they say. “Have you heard of that?”

By this point, our faculty members are well-versed in gently pointing out that, yes, we have heard of it, because the research for that model was developed here, at CCL, in the very building in which my colleagues and I sit in today.

“Fantastic! We like to base most of our designs around that model!” comes the response. And so it has gone for much of the last 30 years, with 70-20-10 becoming a beacon for how leadership development designs should be arranged.

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: “more interaction, less lecture; more pre-and-post-session work and more longitudinal programs in order to ensure learning transfer, fewer day-long seminars filled with soon-to-be-forgotten theoretical concepts.”

Is this a good model for learning? Yes. And more so, it’s 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.

Up until 2 months ago, I was one of those development professionals. Then, I had the opportunity to meet with Cindy McCauley, Senior Research Fellow at CCL. Cindy is our leading researcher in the area of experience-driven development, which stems from the work of Bob Eichinger and Mike Lombardo, the famed 70-20-10 creators. I needed some slides on Cindy’s work and while reviewing what she had sent me, I noticed one particular pie chart: “70-20-10” it said at the top of the page, but below, the chart had 5 different areas: “challenging assignments” took up just under 50% of the circle, with roughly 40% split between “other people” and “hardships.” A final 10% was split between “formal coursework” and “personal life.” I was confused.

“What is this?” I asked Cindy, only to have her confirm my suspicions: These were the original results from the CCL research question, “Where do key development learnings come from?” That data found that “hardships” were equally important to “other people,” and that lessons from one’s personal life aided development in an essential way. And yet, I’d never heard of the 50-20-20-5-&-5 model.

Cindy explained: the originators of the model dropped 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 more importantly, 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.

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’t likely considered the place to discuss one’s 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.

And in either case, Eichinger and Lombardo weren’t 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).

Still, you don’t need to think too much about the current business environment to see how different things are today. It’s 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 smart phone and as family obligations are split more equally among couples, often requiring more flexible schedules.

In fact, according to several recent studies, millennials report that good work-life balance is one of the most important factors in accepting or continuing with a job or organization. If we don’t 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.

As for hardships, I’ve found it impossible to find an organization that doesn’t have a full list at the ready. Layoffs, budget cuts, mergers, acquisitions; 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. Companies no longer need to manufacture hardships; these days, they’re pretty much guaranteed.

Ignoring these hardships in favor of focusing solely on challenging assignments or coursework does a significant disservice to employees. Pretending hardships aren’t there doesn’t 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’t be able to focus on anything else.

So where does this leave us, as we approach 2018, trying to make use of this model? The phrase “If it’s not broken…” comes to mind, but the problem isn’t that the model is broken — it’s that it’s incomplete. And the answer to filling that gap has been there all along.

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.

Viewed through a hiring lens, giving the appropriate credence to lessons gained from one’s personal life might even increase the career opportunities for those with non-linear career paths, like employees who took time off to raise children or care for family members, or excellent job candidates who spent time pursuing an artistic passion or serving in the military before moving into their current line of work.

It is unlikely that I will stop hearing “70-20-10” from my clients any time soon. But my hope is that there is an appetite to modernize the revolutionary work of Eichinger and Lombardo, ironically by returning to CCL’s original research findings. It may have just taken us 30 years to grow into it.

One thought on “The Forgotten Influence of Your Personal Life and Hardships on Leadership

  1. Jonathan Vehar says:

    Trainer nerd comment about Hardships: a good reason to let people fail in experiential activities??

    Also, the “personal” ties in with work that IBM, McKinsey and others do in strongly encouraging volunteer work outside of the organization.

    Thank you for sharing this!!

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Start typing and press Enter to search