The estimable Charles Jennings published an article yesterday in which he quotes a recently published survey by Lumesse, a presumed talent development company based in the US (Texas and Florida) with a heavy presence in South America. Charles begins:
“The results of yet another 70:20:10 survey were published recently. The researchers (possibly on work experience) declared that “50:26:24 is the average learning mix in most companies right now”.
“The report of the 50:26:24 survey went on to say:
‘It’s widely accepted that the 70:20:10 model is the most effective learning blend for business, but getting to that perfect mix can be a challenge. It’s early days and we’ve got a long way to go, but when we crunched the first numbers on our new study, we could see that the current average mix of training in the L&D industry is actually:
-
50% via ‘on the job learning’
-
26% through ‘informal training’
-
24% from ‘formal training’”
Charles goes on to pooh-pooh the findings, rightly so, by emphasizing that the 70:20:10 formula “is not a recipe to be used slavishly,” and, in fact, is not about the numbers at all. He says, “The numbers are a useful reminder that the majority of learning occurs through experience and practice within the workflow (the ‘70’), through sharing and supporting others, conversations and networks (the ‘20’), and that a smaller amount of overall learning occurs through structured training and development activities (the ‘10’).” Further he says that the whole point of 70:20:10 is to emphasize the importance of informal learning.
Charles is all het up regarding this survey. I can understand his reaction: Mr. Jennings is considered one of, of not the, foremost promoter of 70:20:10, and when someone gets it as wrong as Lumesse clearly has, I’m sure it hurts.
My reaction to Charles, however, is as follows:
Whenever I read the conclusions of just about any survey, I’m reminded of the landmark study that Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005 regarding published medical research, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” The title is self-explanatory, and we’re talking well-funded, ostensibly carefully constructed research here. If you extend Dr. Ioannidis’ conclusions to a self-styled, uncontrolled, voluntary online survey . . . well, let’s just say I wouldn’t take the “50:26:24” results too seriously.
Dr. Ioannidis’ study: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”
The New Yorker article regarding his study: The Truth Wears Off
The Atlantic article regarding his study: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
All make for enlightening reading.
Effective Intercultural Business 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
22 August 2014 at 11:06
Anne Egros, Global Executive Coach
Thank you Leo for bringing this topic, I have a scientific background in medical field and I cannot agree more on lies, damned lies and statistics!
The great thing about scientific surveys is that you can sell more products because people think they make better choices if it has been “scientifically proven”.Then it becomes a kind of religion: you are either a believer or not.
Majority of people think that foods that contain health claims backed by clinical studies are good and the more they eat such foods the healthier (generally means slimmer) they will become. A good example is Cholesterol or fat free products. As a result those products sold so well that three generations of Americans are overweight, diabetic or obese because those products are usually loaded with sugar..
Regarding education, learning and numbers, the concept of “We use only 10 percent of our brains” is false according to neuroscientist Barry Beyerstein who collected several kinds of evidence refuting the ten percent myth. If you are interested I collected some more myths about brain and education: http://zestnzen.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/neuromyths-busting_and_education/
22 August 2014 at 11:28
Leo Salazar
Oh, Anne, don’t get me started on the health claims of food marketers! There’s a special place in hell reserved for these people. Truly: as you wrote, think about all those people whose health they’ve ruined with their snake oil claims. My favorite is “clinically tested”. My first reaction when I hear that, as I’m sure yours is too, is: “Okay, tested: but what were the results?”
And, as you said in your blog, anything that claims it was based on “brain research” is most likely myth-driven. But most people don’t even question these claims, they uncritically accept the results of the survey/research, simply because they exist and that they’re packaged with a snappy headline. What people don’t realize is that there is no more validity to such claims than there is to a Facebook post, “What kind of Disney princess are you?”
22 August 2014 at 11:44
Anne Egros, Global Executive Coach
Leo, you also pressed my hot button regarding learning critical thinking. What concerns me the most is the misuse and manipulation of people on the internet.
Linked to your post I believe we all need to be trained formally on analysing data. How can you trust a journalist that just retweet a video without checking the sources ? we have seen wars starting on this simple act…
How can you judge today situation in Ukraine for example if you don’t know history, economics, politics and what is propaganda.? From my situation in Moscow, I can tell that everybody lies ! …Follow the money
22 August 2014 at 12:54
Leo Salazar
I’d forgotten you were in Moscow! What a unique position you’re in!!: a critically thinking Westerner at this particular time in history in that particular location. You’re seeing the doors closing that Gorbachov and glasnost opened, nearly 30 years ago. How exciting, but at the same time: frightening. We are treated in the mainstream media to images of Russians whose opinions of Putin are approaching God-like adoration, and accept every utterance of his as gospel.
At least, this is how I see it from my position here in the Netherlands, which, especially since the downing of MH17, is certainly skewed negatively. How do you see it?
25 August 2014 at 05:06
pauldrasmussen
Leo,
I understand Charles position, but if you are going to us numbers as part of your theory, even if they are only as he says reminders, this kind of thing is going to keep on occurring. When you look at the surface of the 70:20:10 position it is the numbers that are the first thing that people see and that I think will always be a fact.
25 August 2014 at 13:50
Leo Salazar
Hi Paul,
Good point. And Lumesse did present their results, such as they were, as merely an indication that there’s still a long way to go in structurally recognizing the importance of informal learning.
It may be awhile before 70:20:10 is as recognizable as a concept, as opposed to a strict measurement, as the 80:20 Pareto principle.
Thanks for your reaction.
Leo