There’s informal and then there’s informal

I was recently asked about 70:20:10 when I was talking about informal. I realized that while there’s some overlap, there’s also something else. So, being a pedant on terminology, er, emphasizing the importance of conceptual clarity, here’s where I say that there’s informal and then there’s informal.

First, I’m a fan of 70:20:10. I do believe it’s a bad labeling, but the notion that we need to look beyond ‘the course’ (e.g the 10) is an important one. While you can quibble about the obvious wrongness of the rounded numbers, it’s proved useful in helping executives think about learning not just being an event. My colleague Charles Jennings recites how he’s used it successfully to help open up eyes around coaching, stretch assignments, etc.

Formally, the model states that, roughly, 10% of what we use to perform came from formal courses. 20% comes from interaction with others, coaching and interaction with peers. Then 70% comes from doing and reflecting. That can be stretch assignments, trials and tribulations of different assignments, etc. Our brains are actively trying to make sense of the world, and we can do so on a decent basis, particularly if we’ve got a good foundation. Thus, the 10 is formal, and the 20 is, perhaps semi-formal, and the 70 is informal. To be clear, it is NOT about suggesting your investment be applied in this ratio; it is just about not focusing exclusively on the 10.

That good foundation comes from a learning experience designed formal experience. It starts with ‘backwards design’, looking at what has to be in the head vs what can be in the world. This includes not only emotional engagement and learning science-informed design, but also more. Preparing managers/supervisors to continue the experience effectively after the formal learning should be an included factor. That includes coaching performance and carefully chosen assignments. Those are the elements we can contribute to.

On the other hand, I also use ‘informal learning’ to refer to research, design, trouble-shooting, etc. That is, when you’re working on something that no one has the answer to when you start. That is, you learn the answer together. In this case, it’s informal because there is no expert with the answer, or you would go to them. (When you assign group projects in formal learning, there is an answer, even if the group doesn’t start by knowing it.) Ok, some someone somewhere might know it, but it’s not in your team, org, Community of Practice, or social network.

The open question is whether there’s overlap. In one sense, the 70 that’s being part of performing could be esoteric details about it that it’s not worth investing in formal learning about, but it is known. There may well also be a process of creating understanding that’s personal but also beyond what’s known. I’ll suggest that at the far end of the 70, you may well be treading in new areas. The understandings created there may be a better answer than others have found.

I think it’s useful to think of it as a continuum. That is, from formal about what’s known, to develop nuances, to tread in new areas for oneself or team, to new areas for everybody. So there’s informal and then there’s informal. That is, informally learning when the answer’s out there and when it’s not. We can facilitate the former to develop people, and the latter to develop our collective understanding whether organizational or societal. It’s about experimentation, innovation, and more.

Importantly, I think it’s important for individuals and orgs to be continually pushing along this dimension. It’s about continual learning, whether improving what is known by the entity (individual, team or org) or extending it for all. Facilitating this is still my suggestion as the path of value for L&D in the organization. It’s about going beyond ‘the course’ to the ongoing development of the whole process, following the best principles of what we know about how we learn, when known but also when not.