70-20-10 Model

The 70-20-10 model is one of the most widely cited frameworks in corporate learning and development. It describes where workplace learning comes from: 70% through direct experience and on-the-job challenges, 20% through interaction with others — colleagues, managers, mentors — and 10% through formal, structured learning events such as courses, workshops, or e-learning.

#Where the model came from

The framework was developed by Morgan McCall, Michael Lombardo, and Robert Morrison at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) in the 1980s. It was never a controlled study. The ratios came from interviews with successful executives who were asked to reflect on what had contributed most to their professional development. The numbers captured a general pattern in those reflections — they were not derived from measurement or statistical analysis.

This origin matters because it shapes how the model should be used. The 70-20-10 split is a descriptive approximation, not a prescription for how to allocate training budgets or design curricula.

#What each component means in practice

#The 70 — experiential learning

The largest share represents challenges encountered while doing the actual work: taking on stretch assignments, solving problems that have no obvious answer, leading projects with real stakes, recovering from failures. This kind of learning is hard to engineer directly, but it can be supported. Managers who assign meaningful work, provide timely feedback, and create psychological safety for honest reflection are enabling the 70 without running a single training program.

#The 20 — social and relational learning

The middle portion covers learning through others. This includes feedback from managers, peer conversations, mentoring relationships, and observing how skilled colleagues approach problems. Structured programs like coaching, communities of practice, or peer learning cohorts can make this component more intentional without turning it into formal training.

#The 10 — formal learning

The smallest share encompasses classroom training, online courses, certifications, and structured workshops. Formal learning is the part most L&D departments have historically spent the most resources on — which is precisely the tension the model creates. That tension is productive when it prompts organizations to think about what happens before and after a formal learning event, not just during it.

#The main criticisms

The model has attracted significant criticism, most of it valid.

No empirical basis. The ratios rest on self-reported retrospective accounts from a specific population of senior executives in the 1980s. They have never been replicated in a controlled study, and the research that does exist on workplace learning suggests the proportions vary substantially by context, role, and organization.

Often misapplied as a budget rule. L&D departments sometimes use the model to justify cutting formal training spend rather than expanding experiential and social learning. This misses the point. If the 10% of formal learning isn't good, reducing it further while doing nothing about the other 70% helps no one.

Informal learning is not automatically effective. Experience produces learning only when it is reflected upon, connected to useful frameworks, and corrected when it goes wrong. Someone repeating a flawed approach for five years has 70% experiential learning — none of it beneficial. The model says nothing about quality.

#How to use it well

The 70-20-10 framework is most useful as a design heuristic — a prompt to think beyond the course. When you're designing a learning initiative, ask:

• What on-the-job experiences will actually build the capability we need?
• Are managers equipped and incentivized to coach and give feedback?
• What peer learning structures can we build into the workflow?
• Does the formal training component transfer into the other 70?

When those questions shape the design, the model does its job. When the numbers become targets in a spreadsheet, the model becomes a distraction.