Building Development into Job Experience
What Can Organizations Do to Build Development into the Job Experience?
Step 1) Consider the following: “Combining development and work makes even more sense if you believe the long-accepted maxim that there is a 70/20/10 formula that applies to leadership development. (That formula suggests that 70% of what you learn about leadership comes from on-the-job experiences. Coaching from your boss and others gives you the next 20% and the final 10% comes from formal classroom development.) While those exact numbers can be debated, most would say it is directionally correct. Why, then, do organizations spend virtually no time trying to gain a higher return from the 70%, a minimal effort on the 20%, and focus most of their resources on the 10%?
Willie Sutton, the bank robber, explained that he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is.” Willie’s statement is humorous, but he makes a valuable point. Applying that primitive logic, it becomes more obvious that you receive a much greater benefit from the time, energy, and effort you spend building development into your job than on the time you spend on anything else. For example, job-related feedback from a 360-degree instrument is a powerful tool to help combine development with work. Like Willie, you should focus your effort directly on the largest payoff at hand.
Step 2) Read the following article: Throw Your Old Plan Away: 6 New Ways to Build Leadership Development into Your Job
Step 3) Answer the following questions below using question and answer (Q&A) format; in other words, include the original question along with your response. Within your post, support your responses with information from the background materials or reputable outside sources and provide the full citation at the end. Use APA format for your references. Bring in your own personal experiences, readings, and research, where applicable.
- Tell us about a time when you saw the 70/20/10 formula of leadership development in action. Do you agree that these are the correct percentages? If not, what is a more realistic breakdown?
- What is the biggest problem with the 70/20/10 formula?
- If you could reapportion the percentages as they should be instead of as they are, how would you weight the formula? For example, if the classroom portion should be 25%, where do you remove the extra 15% so it all still adds up to 100%?
- Where in the 70/20/10 formula do you think coaching is most present?
Tell us about a time when you saw the 70/20/10 formula of leadership development in action. Do you agree that these are the correct percentages? If not, what is a more realistic breakdown?
The 70/20/10 formula describes a model whereby 70% of leadership skills are learned through on-job experience (experiential learning), 20% from boss, colleagues, and friends (social learning), while the 10% is from formal training experiences (formal learning) (Carlsson, 2020). A viable example in applying this model is the scenario of a teacher and student interaction in class. When a person enrolls for a teaching course, they learn basic skills and knowledge to guide them in the teaching profession. In this case, the course may take a time range of between two to four years to gain the formal skills. Upon deployment, the teacher is expected to have the mastery of skills and hence ready to execute work responsibly. In this case, being new in the profession, the induction process may include the head of departments in the particular learning institution to guide the new teacher and provide an opportunity for inquiry in case of challenges while on duty. Such also involves learning from fellow teachers on various methods they use to approach different students at different levels.
However, the more the teacher interacts with students, the more they acquire new teaching models different from those from college. Further, students perceive individual teachers differently, and such also contributes to how the teacher responds through teaching tactics. This becomes a continuous process as new students with different needs get enrolled in the learning institutions. The issue of transfers also prompts the teacher to adapt to new strategies in case of such scenarios. Regarding the above explanation, experimental learning is continuous and carries 70%; social learning is also partially continuous due to transfers to different institutions and interaction with new students, hence the 20%. In contrast, formal learning normally occurs for a significantly limited time, hence the 10%. Therefore, I believe that the 70/20/10 breakdown is appropriate for organizational performance.
What is the biggest problem with the 70/20/10 formula?
The 70/20/10 formula has various challenges that could deem it ineffective. Firstly, this model requires an organization to have a good learning culture adaptable to new changes. Learning culture requires open collaboration between employers and employees (Carlsson, 2020). As such, this model is limited for application in organizations with autocratic and authoritative leadership styles. Further, the application of the 70/20/10 formula can be challenging. Such is due to the need to critically analyze the needs of the organization’s staff and objectives. These could be challenging as the staff needs could fail to match the available resources and organizational goals.
If you could reapportion the percentages as they should be instead of as they are, how would you weight the formula? For example, if the classroom portion should be 25%, where do you remove the extra 15%, so it all still adds up to 100%?
In reapportioning the percentages, I would weigh the formula as 60/20/20. Although much of the learning is obtained through experience, formal training is critically vital and forms the basis of the knowledge required for performance (Nazarudin, 2015). In other words, formal training requires a bigger percentage because it poises the foundation of skills and knowledge that would further be advanced through on-job experience.
Where in the 70/20/10 formula do you think coaching is most present?
A lot of coaching unleashes in the 20%, whereby an employee learns from colleagues and friends. This is where the employee asks questions and expects guidance in difficult or challenging issues (Nazarudin, 2015). Here, collaboration is rampant as the employee inquires a lot from colleagues.
References
Carlsson, B. (2020). How do you design an experimental economy? (No. 2020/14). Lund
University, CIRCLE-Center for Innovation Research. http://wp.circle.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/202014_carlsson.pdf
Nazarudin, M. (2015). How 70: 20: 10 enhances workplace learning: The practitioner
perspective. http://www.academia.edu/download/40354990/u1220504_ICPR_How_702010_enhances_workplace_learning_v2_publish.pdf