{"version":1,"type":"rich","provider_name":"Libsyn","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.libsyn.com","height":90,"width":600,"title":"Episode 85 - It Turns Out Development Isn\u2019t Quite 70\/20\/10","description":"Summary The most widely cited model when it comes to development is 70\/20\/10. While it is often referenced, it is also frequently misunderstood. This week we look at why development isn\u2019t quite 70\/20\/10.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 85 of the Leadership Today podcast where each week we tackle one of today\u2019s biggest leadership challenges. This week we look at why development isn\u2019t quite 70\/20\/10. The most widely cited model when it comes to development is 70\/20\/10. While it is often referenced, it is also frequently misunderstood. The idea is that organisations and individuals should focus development opportunities around three different areas: 70% of development should be \u201con the job\u201d 20% should be with \u201cother people\u201d 10% should be through \u201ccourses\u201d So where did these suspiciously rounded-off figures come from? 70\/20\/10 was coined by Bob Eichinger, Mike Lombardo and Morgan McCall in the 1980s with the Center for Creative Leadership. They arrived at the figures based on responses from senior executives about their key development experiences. The 70\/20\/10 proportions were a rounded-off representation of the themes coming through those reflections. Despite the widespread acceptance of the model, it has also received a number of criticisms, most of which are unfair. For example, some suggest that 70\/20\/10 is saying that formal learning isn\u2019t important, or that the \u2018on the job\u2019 component is passive. Neither of those really reflect the model and the authors\u2019 intent.  One reasonable criticism is that the work was based on a relatively small number of US executives who also turned out to be predominantly male and white. Anyone who is familiar with research into leadership will recognise this isn\u2019t the only place where this has been a problem. In fact some argue that the bulk of psychological research has been conducted on university and college students - hardly a representative sample of the population. In addition, it does suffer from what we could call \u2018survivor bias\u2019. When we ask existing leaders to reflect back on what made them successful, we\u2019re staring back in time to what made these people successful during the 1970s. A similar criticism can be levelled at research based on successful entrepreneurs who gain an almost cult-like status. If we ignore all of the unsuccessful entrepreneurs whose businesses failed, it\u2019s hard to gain a true perspective on what really made the difference for the successful ones.  The original intent of the model was to encourage organisations to proactively focus on the development of their people, and that a great way of doing that is through the work they conduct, the people they interact with, and the occasional more formal training they undertake. If we accept that original intent, it\u2019s easy to see that 70\/20\/10 is a helpful guide when considering development opportunities. Since the original study the Center for Creative Leadership has updated the figures using a broader and more diverse sample. They have drawn out some interesting nuances to the model. Their latest research shows that the 70% \u201con the job\u201d element is actually made up of challenging assignments (45%) and hardships such as business mistakes or losing a job (22%). So the 70 is actually 67. The updated 20% \u201cother people\u201d is actually 23%. And the 10% \u201ccourses\u201d is actually 5% coursework and 5% personal life. I\u2019m sure you will appreciate that calling 70\/20\/10 the 45\/22\/23\/5\/5 model is far less catchy, so it\u2019s okay to stick with 70\/20\/10. What I find most interesting is the picking apart of the \u201con the job\u201d component. As I flagged earlier, often \u201con the job\u201d is misinterpreted as passive learning - that somehow learning and development will just happen as people go about their day job. But the \u201con the job\u201d element is not just business as usual. As CCL have highlighted, 45% of our leadership development tends to be through stretching and challenging assignments. We can take a proactive approach to giving people challenging accountabilities and roles in the context of their development goals. That would go a long way towards helping people to grow and develop. The tension we face in doing that is organisations typically want people who can already do the job, whereas individuals typically want jobs that allow them to develop. So organisations will need to shift towards seeing appointments and promotions as development opportunities, at least in part. We can still assess whether people have potential, but even the best tools still require us to roll the dice a bit on talent. Taking this approach may actually reduce the certainty that someone will work out. But it does reinforce, again, the importance of the \u201c20\u201d (or 23) part of 70\/20\/10. If we\u2019re going to stretch people, then we really need to surround them with people who can support and encourage their development. Giving someone a stretch assignment is far more like growing a plant from a seedling than it is like screwing in a new light bulb.   You might want to think about and discuss with your people the kind of stretch assignments that might aide in their development. If I think back through my career, I really wasn\u2019t ready for my first consulting role, my first people management role, my first executive leadership role, or for running my own business. Each transition felt like jumping into the deep end of the pool yet again. But it always felt like I had people around me cheering me on who were prepared to jump in to rescue me occasionally if that\u2019s what it took. In summary, 45% of our development is likely to come from challenging assignments. Work with your people to help identify their development goals and options to safely stretch them. I find the 22% of development coming from hardships really interesting. Does it mean that we should manufacture hardships for our people? Obviously not, although I do occasionally think that\u2019s what some leaders are trying to do. Rather we should see hardships as a key element of development. They are a great chance to learn, provided people see them that way and are supported to draw out the key development outcomes. Of course, hardships are more likely as you take on greater responsibility. As you work with people to give them challenging assignments, you\u2019re also increasing the risk of hardships. Think back over the hardships in your own career and how much you learned. For me the global financial crisis was one of the greatest business hardships I\u2019ve experienced. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s coincidental that the development gained through that tough time coincided with me being in a stretching role. Here in July 2020 we\u2019re still in the midst of a global pandemic. Are we helping our people to use this hardship as a development opportunity? Are we taking that mindset into it ourselves? Perhaps one way to help ourselves and our people come through this time is to focus on the opportunities to stretch and grow.  In all of this, the 70\/20\/10 model reminds us that we each need an opportunity to reflect and build on the learning through connections. Provide people with the opportunity to connect and reflect on hardships and learning. Be there for your people as they are stretched beyond what they think they can do. If we do this, we will all emerge stronger and more capable.  As I wrap things up and on a more personal note - how are you going? Can I encourage you that if you\u2019re finding these current circumstances challenging and stressful then, congratulations, you\u2019re a human being like the rest of us. Hopefully this episode reminds each of us of the opportunity to emerge stronger, and the need to support others through to the other side, whatever that might look like. Have a great week.   Reference Putting Experience at the Center of Talent Management By: Joan Gurvis, Cindy McCauley, and Milynn Swofford. Center for Creative Leadership https:\/\/cclinnovation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/talentmanagement.e-1.pdf ","author_name":"Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders","author_url":"https:\/\/leadership.today\/","html":"