The idea that we learn 70% from experience, 20% from others, and only 10% through formal education has become highly influential in workplace learning (1,5). What does this mean for Higher Education?
Major organizations such as Reuters, Goldman Sachs, and Coca-Cola have reportedly embraced it. But when we look more closely, the evidence behind this rule is surprisingly weak (2).
Where does it come from?
The 70–20–10 model is often linked to the work of McCall, Eichinger, and Lombardo, and later promoted by Charles Jennings. However, their research focused specifically on how executives develop leadership skills over time and not on learning in general, and certainly not on students in higher education. Even in this original context, the authors were cautious, describing the proportions as indicative rather than exact (e.g., “there is a good chance…”), not as a fixed rule (7,9).
What does the evidence say?
Despite its popularity, there is no solid scientific evidence supporting the 70–20–10 ratio (2,6). Reviews of the literature find that the numbers are often repeated without verification. One of the few empirical studies (4) in this area actually reported a very different distribution:
- 16% learning from experience
- 44% from others
- 30% from formal training
Even this study had limitations: a small sample (84 executives from one company) and reliance on self-reported perceptions rather than direct observation.
Why does the myth persist?
Part of the appeal lies in a broader assumption: that we learn best by discovering things ourselves (3). While informal learning is undeniably important, this assumption is debated in educational research itself. Notably, one of the original researchers, Morgan McCall, later referred to the 70–20–10 rule as “folklore.” (8)
What does this mean for higher education?
- Informal and experiential learning matter: but they do not replace formal education
- Learning cannot be reduced to a simple percentage split
- Evidence suggests a more complex and context-dependent balance
Takeaway
The 70–20–10 rule is a compelling story but not a scientifically grounded model. For higher education, this is a useful reminder: Well-designed formal teaching remains central to learning, alongside opportunities for interaction and experience—not just 10% of it.
References
- 1Cross, J. (2013). 50 suggestions for implementing 70–20–10.
- 2 De Bruyckere, P. (2012). Never trust neat percentages? 70–20–10 rule.
- 3 Dillon, J. (2012). Is informal education better than formal education? In Bad Education.
- 4 Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the transfer of learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 369–387.
- 5Jennings, C. (2013). 70:20:10 framework explained.
- 6 Kajewski, K., & Madsen, V. (2012). Demystifying 70:20:10.
- 7 Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (1996). The Career Architect Development Planner.
- 8 Vermeren, P. (2014). Jennings’ 70–20–10 framework.
- 9 Wilson, M., Van Velsor, E., Chandrasekar, A., & Criswell, C. (2011). Grooming top leaders. Center for Creative Leadership.
