Recently, I had a conversation with an HR head about their company’s learning and development (L&D) strategy. Like most HR heads, without a moment’s pause, he confidently declared, “70-20-10, of course!” It was as if the phrase alone embodied the entire strategy—a one-size-fits-all solution that required no further explanation. Unfortunately, this is becoming all too common. The 70-20-10 model is now a buzzword frequently tossed around in boardrooms and management meetings, often without questioning whether it’s truly effective or even relevant in today’s world.

70-20-10, developed in the 1980s, is based on the notion that 70% of learning comes from on-the-job experiences, 20% from interactions with peers, and only 10% from formal training. But in today’s fast-paced, constantly evolving work environment, does this model still hold up? Or has it become an outdated mantra that fails to address the complexities and demands of modern workplaces?

In this week’s post, let’s examine why it’s time to rethink 70-20-10.

The absence of real data

A significant issue with the model is the lack of empirical evidence to back it up. Even the 70-20-10 Institute itself warns against using the numbers as a rigid mantra. In fact, Andrew Jefferson and Roy Pollock wrote in an article for the Association of Talent Development:

“Keep in mind that the 70-20-10 concept is a theoretical model based on retrospective musings by executives about what made them successful… It is neither a scientific fact nor a recipe for how best to develop people.”

This critique highlights a fundamental flaw:

The problem with on-the-job learning

At its core, the model emphasizes on-the-job learning (the 70%) – and for good reason. Learning through experience is invaluable. But the challenge with this is that it’s incredibly difficult to track, measure, and verify. Without metrics, how do we know if real learning is taking place?

Many companies end up launching broad “on-the-job learning” initiatives that remain underutilized because informal, experiential learning doesn’t neatly fit into programs. In reality, employees often resist or disengage from these initiatives because the organic, informal nature of learning in the workplace is difficult to systematize.

But here’s the catch: just because it’s hard to measure doesn’t mean it’s not valuable. Instead of sidelining on-the-job learning because it’s tricky to track, we need to develop creative ways to integrate and support it effectively. For instance, digital platforms that track real-time skills application or AI tools that analyze informal learning patterns can offer insights into this elusive 70%.

Formal learning deserves more attention

In the 70-20-10 model, formal learning is often relegated to just 10%, creating a sharp divide between learning and doing. This separation undercuts the value of formal education. As Tony Robbins aptly notes:

“The notion that unguided or minimally guided ‘learning by doing’ is the best way to learn something new is a falsehood. The research suggests it is a very inefficient way of learning most things.”

Formal learning programs are essential, especially as industries and technologies evolve at breakneck speed. Whether it’s leadership development, mastering new software, or adapting to regulatory changes, structured learning provides the knowledge foundation that helps employees navigate complex roles. By undervaluing this aspect of learning, we risk stunting employee growth.

The question isn’t whether formal learning is important; it’s how we can make it more effective. Rather than pushing it to the back, organizations need to focus on integrating formal learning with real-world applications, embedding training into daily workflows, and making learning contextual.

The flaw of manager-driven learning

Another glaring issue with 70-20-10 is that it assumes line managers will take on the role of L&D facilitators for on-the-job and peer learning. But let’s face it: most managers are already overwhelmed by their day-to-day responsibilities. Adding L&D tasks to their plate often leads to pushback or superficial engagement at best.

As Stephan De Kalb highlights in his LinkedIn article:

“Line managers, who often don’t have time to peer above their day-to-day organisational duties, need the time and space to deliver meaningful learning experiences for their workers. This can be a bridge too far for organisations where ‘doing more with less’ is the order of the day.”

The reality is that managers are often not equipped or incentivized to prioritize learning. As a result, this part of the model falls flat. Organizations need to rethink how they support managers in their dual roles and ensure that learning doesn’t become yet another “to-do” that gets pushed aside.

The road ahead

Given how rapidly industries are evolving, L&D needs to be more adaptable than ever. According to the World Economic Forum, the half-life of a skill has shrunk from 30 years to just five years, meaning that half of what we know today will be obsolete in just a few years. Yet, the 70-20-10 model has not adapted accordingly. We need new frameworks that align with today’s needs.

Take the UNIQ model from researchers at the London Business School, which integrates understanding (UN), identity (I), and action (Q) into a cohesive framework that reflects the complexity of modern learning environments. This approach focuses on the dynamic interactions between these elements, helping employees apply what they learn in a more holistic way.

Additionally, Training Industry suggests a revised ratio of 55/25/20 for on-the-job, peer, and formal learning. This shift reflects the growing importance of formal instruction and the influence of technology in today’s learning landscape.

Time to rethink 70-20-10

It’s time to challenge the unquestioned reliance on the 70-20-10 model. While the framework has served as a helpful guide, the world of work and learning has evolved dramatically. The rigid application of this ratio has begun to limit innovation in corporate learning, preventing organizations from adapting to new realities.

If you’re serious about building a more effective learning strategy, here are three critical actions you should consider:

1. Embed formal learning into real-world needs

One of the biggest mistakes companies make with formal training is treating it as a detached, stand-alone process. Too often, formal learning is seen as a box-ticking exercise—generic sessions or online courses that employees must complete without any clear connection to their daily work challenges. This leads to disengagement and poor retention of skills.

To be truly effective, formal learning needs to be deeply embedded in the realities of the organization and its people. Start by identifying the specific goals and pain points within your teams. Are employees struggling with certain technologies? Are leadership skills underdeveloped in certain roles? Is there a clear gap between what employees know and what the company needs them to know?

Once you have a clear picture of these challenges, design formal training that addresses them directly. Make sure the learning materials are not just theoretical but actionable. Employees should be able to apply what they learn immediately in their roles. This approach makes formal learning relevant, engaging, and a critical part of job performance, not just an obligatory add-on.

2. Let objectives, not ratios, guide your approach

The problem with 70-20-10 is that it pigeonholes learning into fixed categories. This can lead to an overemphasis on informal learning, simply because it’s supposed to take up the biggest share, even when formal training or peer learning might be more appropriate.

Instead of adhering strictly to a pre-defined ratio, focus on the learning objectives. What are you trying to achieve? For example, if your goal is to build foundational knowledge in a new area, formal instruction might be the most efficient way to do that. If you want employees to develop softer skills, like leadership or teamwork, peer-based learning and coaching may be more effective.

Here’s where many organizations go wrong—they blindly apply the 70-20-10 model without thinking critically about the specific outcomes they need. Each learning modality has its strengths, and your approach should be flexible enough to use the right one for the right purpose. Let your objectives dictate the method, not the other way around.

What does this look like in practice? Imagine you’re rolling out a new technology. You might start with formal training to give employees the foundational knowledge they need to understand the system. Then, follow it up with peer mentoring or team-based problem-solving sessions to deepen their understanding and application. Finally, integrate on-the-job learning by assigning real-world projects where employees can apply their new skills. The ratio of these activities might not fit neatly into 70-20-10, but it doesn’t need to—as long as it’s driving the right results.

3. Tailor learning to the employee’s journey

Another shortcoming of the 70-20-10 model is that it doesn’t account for where an employee is in their career or what they actually need at different stages. It assumes that all employees benefit equally from the same blend of on-the-job, peer, and formal learning. This simply isn’t true.

For new hires, formal learning is crucial—they need to quickly get up to speed on the company’s processes, culture, and the specific technical skills required for their roles. Throwing them into a purely on-the-job or peer-learning environment can be overwhelming and ineffective. Structured, formal training gives them the foundation they need to thrive.

On the other hand, more experienced employees might gain more from peer-based learning or coaching. These individuals may already have a solid technical base, but they need opportunities to develop leadership skills, navigate complex projects, or mentor others. For them, on-the-job experiences and informal learning may deliver better results.

It’s also important to consider the learning preferences and constraints of your workforce. A one-size-fits-all approach ignores the fact that some employees, like those constantly on the road, may need flexible, bite-sized learning through podcasts or micro-learning platforms. Others in desk jobs might benefit from more in-depth, structured learning modules. Tailoring learning strategies to where employees are in their careers, roles, and lifestyles will ensure better engagement and retention.

Why we must act now

The pace of change in today’s workplace is relentless. New technologies, evolving work environments, and rising employee expectations are transforming how we work—and how we learn. Sticking with 70-20-10 may feel familiar, but today’s world calls for a more dynamic, adaptable approach.

Now is the time to reimagine how we approach learning and development. We have more tools, data, and technology than ever before to create strategies that are tailored to your organization’s specific needs and deliver real, measurable impact. Why stick to one formula when we can design learning experiences that fuel growth, unlock potential, and prepare your workforce for the future?

This is our moment to innovate, to use the vast resources at our disposal to empower employees to not just keep up but to thrive in a rapidly changing world. Let’s craft learning solutions that fuel growth, unlock potential, and prepare your workforce for whatever comes next.