The 70:20:10 framework and the transfer of learning

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21330
• Published date: 01 December 2018
• Author: Samantha J. Johnson,Deborah A. Blackman,Fiona Buick
• Date: 01 December 2018

QUALITATIVE STUDY

The 70:20:10 framework and the transfer

of learning

Samantha J. Johnson | Deborah A. Blackman | Fiona Buick

School of Business, University of New South

Wales, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory,

Australia

Correspondence

Samantha J. Johnson, School of Business,

University of New South Wales, Canberra at

the Australian Defence Force Academy,

Northcott Drive, Campbell, ACT 2612,

Australia.

Email: s.johnson@adfa.edu.au

The capacity of an organization to innovate, change, and be effec-

tive depends on the skills and abilities of employees, highlighting

the importance of developing individual capabilities. The 70:20:10

framework is used by practitioners to guide them when developing

effective learning and development programs. Although the frame-

work has been adopted globally in both private and public sectors,

its effectiveness has not been assessed in relation to the transfer

of learning. Using qualitative data from the Australian public sector,

this study explores how the framework is being implemented and

whether it facilitates the transfer of learning to build middle man-

agement capability. Results showed that despite middle managers'

awareness of, and willingness to take part in, ongoing skill develop-

ment, attempts to develop capability through learning transfer by

implementing the 70:20:10 framework were not achieving the

desired outcomes. The research suggests that learning transfer and

managerial capability development was hindered through four mis-

conceptions regarding the framework's implementation. These are:

an overconfident assumption that unstructured experiential learn-

ing automatically results in capability development; a narrow inter-

pretation of social learning; the expectation that managerial

behavior would automatically change following formal training and

development activities without the need to actively support the

process; and a lack of recognition of the requirement of a planned

and integrated relationship of all three aspects of the framework.

We suggest future research seeks to explicate the role of social

learning in supporting the efficacy of both formal and experiential

learning.

KEYWORDS

70:20:10, capability development, learning transfer, management

development, public sector, qualitative research

DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21330

Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2018;29:383–402. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrdq © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 383

The importance of developing individual capabilities is acknowledged (Huselid, Becker, & Beatty, 2005; Kirwan &

Birchall, 2006; Nieves & Haller, 2014), as an organization's capacity to innovate, change, and prosper depends on

employee skills and abilities (Ambrosini, Bowman, & Collier, 2009; Huselid et al., 2005; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen,

1997). This highlights the importance of investing in learning to enhance organizational performance (Park & Jacobs,

2011). Such an investment has traditionally occurred through formal training programs (Enos, Kehrhahn, & Bell,

2003). However, assumptions that formal programs will build managerial proficiency have been questioned (Awoniyi,

Griego, & Morgan, 2002; Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Kirwan & Birchall, 2006; McCall, 2010; Rabin, 2014). This is partly

ascribed to the challenge of transferring skills and learning back into the workplace (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Enos

et al., 2003; Holton III, Bates, Bookter, & Yamkovenko, 2007; McKeough, Lupart, & Marini, 2010).

Learning transfer challenges relate to trainee characteristics, training design and work environment (Baldwin &

Ford, 1988). Work environment aspects include the workplace transfer climate, that is, the degree to which individ-

uals believe that their workplace supports or inhibits the transfer of learning (Burke & Hutchins, 2008; Enos et al.,

2003; Lim & Morris, 2006; Martin, 2010; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993). This article focuses on work environment

aspects commonly raised as problematic: a lack of workplace support from supervisors, senior managers, and peers;

few supportive resources; limited opportunities to apply new skills; insufficient rewards for applying new skills and

knowledge; and high workloads (Brockman & Dirkx, 2006; Brown, Warren, & Khattar, 2016; Burke & Hutchins,

2008; Enos et al., 2003; Lim & Morris, 2006; Martin, 2010; McCall, 2010; Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993).

Multiple theoretical models have been derived from scholarly research to identify and reduce learning transfer

problems. There are tools to diagnose factors that enhance or inhibit workplace learning transfer (e.g.,The Learning

Transfer System Inventory) (Holton III et al., 2007; Holton III, Bates, & Ruona, 2000) and frameworks of ideal transfer

processes (Baldwin& Ford, 1988; Burke & Hutchins, 2008).In parallel, practitioner frameworks independent of schol-

arly researchhave been developed to overcome transferchallenges, but few have been empiricallytested (Blume, Ford,

Baldwin, & Huang, 2010; Clardy, 2018). In this article, we explore the implementation of the “70:20:10 framework,”

1

because it has been widelyadopted by human resource development(HRD) practitioners, particularlyin the Australian

public sector who believe it has potential to improve management developmentand learning transfer. Its popularity is

such that it “has gained significant momentum, and organizations are increasingly subscribing to [its] principles”

(Kajewski & Madsen, 2013, n.p). This is despite its atheoreticalnature and the lack of empirical evidence to support its

effectiveness (Clardy, 2018). The framework presents three types of learning: experiential, social and formal and is

based on the premise that training interventions combining these three types of learning are particularly effective in

managementand leadership development(Jennings, 2011; Lindsey, Homes,& McCall Jr, 1987; McCall Jr.,Lombardo, &

Morrison,1988; Rabin, 2014). While each elementof the framework has theoretical underpinnings, there is littleempiri-

cal researchon how the framework is implementedand its effectiveness in buildingcapability or supportingthe transfer

of learning(Kajewski & Madsen, 2013). In thisarticle, we address a gap in empiricalresearch on the effective implemen-

tation of the 70:20:10framework and the lack of researchinto learning transfer in public sectorenvironments (Awoniyi

et al., 2002; Kirwan& Birchall, 2006; McCracken,Brown, & O'Kane, 2012).

First, we present the 70:20:10 framework. We then use the literature to explain the transfer of learning and high-

light challenges relating specifically to management development and transfer in the public sector, where this frame-

work has been widely adopted in Australia. Third, we outline the methodology and data analysis. Fourth, findings

demonstrate how the framework has been implemented in the Australian public sector, highlighting a range of prob-

lems that are occurring. Fifth, we identify misconceptions in the framework's implementation, which may explain the

challenges being found in effective learning transfer. Finally, implications for both theory and practice are considered.

1|THE 70:20:10 FRAMEWORK

The 70:20:10 framework originates from empirical research undertaken by McCall Jr. et al. (1988) comprising four

separate studies of over 200 successful executives from six major corporations. Their research identified that

384 JOHNSON ET AL.