In brief: The 70-20-10 method is a skills development model that posits 70% of professional learning comes from on-the-job experience, 20% from interactions with peers and managers, and 10% from formal training. For L&D directors and corporate capability managers, it is a steering framework, not a budget allocation: it means formal training cannot do everything alone, and that the 70% experiential component must be organised, structured and measured to be exploitable.
The 70-20-10 method is a skills development model elaborated by Morgan McCall, Robert Eichinger and Michael Lombardo in the 1990s at the Center for Creative Leadership. It is based on research conducted with American managers to quantify sources of learning in a professional environment.
The model breaks down skills acquisition into three categories:
The 70-20-10 figure is not a rigid prescription: it is an indicative framework. Proportions vary by individual, profession and context. The model's value is in forcing the organisation to invest in the 70% and 20%, not only in the traditional 10%.
The model emerged from research at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) in the 1980s-1990s. Morgan McCall and his co-authors interviewed several hundred American managers on the experiences that contributed most to their professional development. They observed that managers overwhelmingly cited difficult work situations, expanded responsibilities and feedback from superiors, well ahead of formal training programmes.
Michael Lombardo and Robert Eichinger then formalised these observations in The Career Architect Development Planner (1996), proposing the 70-20-10 ratio as a practical framework for development professionals. The model achieved wide adoption in large corporations and training consultancies in the 2000s-2010s.
It is important to note that 70-20-10 never claimed to be a scientific result in the strict sense: it is a heuristic model derived from qualitative interviews with a sample of managers. Its proponents themselves insist that the proportions are indicative and must be adapted to context.
For L&D directors and training managers wishing to deploy the 70-20-10 model, here are the concrete levers by category:
For the 70% (experiential):
For the 20% (social):
For the 10% (formal):
The main challenge of the 70-20-10 model for L&D teams is measuring the 70% and 20%: how do you prove that on-the-job learning is occurring, that it is effective and that it deserves to be counted in the training report?
Edusign provides a concrete answer across several dimensions:
For training organisations deploying workplace learning or blended programmes anchored in the 70-20-10, Edusign ensures every hour of on-the-job training is documented, traced and exploitable. Quality compliance is no longer an additional constraint: it is a natural consequence of the tool.
Not in the strict sense. The 70-20-10 proportions come from qualitative interviews conducted with American managers in the 1980s-1990s, not from controlled experimental studies. Several researchers have pointed to this absence of rigorous empirical validation. The model is a useful heuristic framework, not a scientific law. Its value lies in the question it poses: if only 10% of learning comes from formal training, what are we doing to structure and value the remaining 90%? This question remains relevant regardless of the precision of the figures.
This is the main operational challenge of the model. Several approaches exist. First: structured debriefs after each mission or project, with standardised questions (what did I learn, how can I reuse it, what do I still need). These debriefs can be collected via digital questionnaires and archived. Second: regular development conversations between manager and employee, taking stock of on-the-job learning. Third: competency portfolios, where the employee documents their learning over time. The key is to make visible what happens naturally.
Yes, and quality-certification frameworks actually push in the direction of the 70-20-10 without naming it. Criteria on adaptation to beneficiaries and integration into skills development dynamics value programmes that articulate formal training with on-the-job learning. Workplace-based training is recognised as a full training modality in France, eligible for employer training plans. A quality-certified organisation deploying a 70-20-10 programme with documented debriefs and attendance proof is in compliance with the framework.
The 70-20-10 model redefines the notion of a training budget. The formal 10% remains visible and quantifiable (cost of training, LMS platforms, certifications). The social 20% requires investment in manager time and mentoring engineering (mentor training, tracking tools). The experiential 70% has no direct cost but requires engineering investment: designing stretch assignments, structuring debriefs, coaching managers to adopt a coaching posture. Overall, a well-deployed 70-20-10 programme can rebalance the budget: fewer costly external training courses, more internally valued learning.
Several contemporary frameworks complement or replace the 70-20-10. Bob Mosher and Conrad Gottfredson's 5 Moments of Need model distinguishes five learning situations (new, more, apply, problem, change) and proposes different resources for each. The 4C/ID model (four-component instructional design) is more prescriptive on the design of complex training. Harold Jarche's Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) concept emphasises individual responsibility in learning. For L&D teams, the 70-20-10 remains the most accessible framework to initiate a conversation about the diversity of learning sources.
