Listen to this article:
Abstract: The traditional 70-20-10 framework for organizational learning has become outdated, failing to account for advancements in technology, employee learning preferences, and the need for immediate impact. This paper proposes a revised 3-to-1 experiential learning model that better aligns with today's workplace. Grounded in experiential learning theory, the model emphasizes applied, hands-on learning experiences over abstract classroom training, with a 3:1 ratio of experiential to formal learning. Industry examples illustrate how the 3-to-1 model is implemented through immersive simulations, action-based coaching, and micro-learning reinforcement - enabling employees to directly apply new skills and see tangible business impacts. By transitioning to this more flexible, technology-enabled approach, organizations can enhance learning retention, engagement, and performance in the rapidly evolving modern workplace.
For decades, the 70-20-10 framework has dominated conversations around organizational learning and development. The framework suggests that 70% of an employee's learning occurs on the job through hands-on experience, 20% comes from feedback and interactions with others, and 10% is formal learning like classroom-based training (Matsuo, 2012). While simple and intuitive, the model fails to account for important advancements in technology, preferences for interactive learning, and expectations of immediate impact. The workplace has changed dramatically since the 70-20-10 rule was established. Unfortunately, many organizational learning strategies have not kept pace.
Today I will argue that a revised 3-to-1 experiential learning model better aligns with today's workplace and employee needs. Through a review of relevant literature and industry examples, key advantages of the proposed 3-to-1 model will be explored. Specifically, it will be shown how the model places a greater emphasis on applied, impactful learning experiences versus abstract or passive forms of development.
Experiential Learning: Definitions and Theory
Before examining specifics of the proposed 3-to-1 model, it is important to establish common understanding of experiential learning theory which serves as its foundation. Experiential learning theory, as established by Kolb (1984), suggests that knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Learning occurs through a four-stage cycle: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. When fully realized, learners actively construct knowledge through experience of the subject matter versus passively receiving information (Kolb, 1984).
The Case for Experiential Learning
Substantial research has demonstrated the advantages of experiential learning approaches. Compared to more passive classroom activities, experiential methods have been shown to enhance retention of learning, improve motivation and engagement, and facilitate real-world application of skills (Caine & Caine, 1994; Lewis & Williams, 1994). For the learner, experience provides context that allows abstract concepts to be grounded, interpreted, stored and retained (Kolb, 1984). Organizations also benefit as employees who have learned through experience show increased innovation and productivity (Caine & Caine, 1994). Given these advantages, most experts suggest workplace learning should be 70-90% experiential (Peterson & Hicks, 1996; Loewenstein & Spletzer, 1999).
Limitations of the 70-20-10 Model
While intuitively appealing, the 70-20-10 framework fails to fully capture how employees want to learn and develop skills today. Key limitations include:
Rigid percentages obscure reality. Research suggests the actual blend of formal/informal learning and on/off-the-job experiences varies widely by individual and situation (Yamnill & McLean, 2001; Bücker & Korzilius, 2015).
Abstract classroom training overvalued. Only 10% allowance for formal learning underestimates the important role that initial training and certification plays in today's regulated workplaces.
Social/feedback mechanisms unclear. How the 20% social learning actually occurs and its impacts remain poorly defined (Van den Bossche et al., 2010).
Tech-enabled learning ignored. Changes like microlearning, augmented reality, virtual/mixed reality and AI are not fully leveraged to enhance experiential learning (Morrison & Wilson, 2019; Gagnon et al., 2021).
Impact expectations not addressed. Employees increasingly expect learning to have visible, immediate impact versus abstract understanding (O’Leonard & Krider, 2014; Groh, 2012).
Introducing the 3-To-1 Experiential Learning Model
To address these limitations, a revised 3-to-1 experiential learning model is proposed: For every 1 hour of formal, abstract classroom-type training, employees receive 3 hours of applied, hands-on experiential learning supported by enabling technology.
Specifically, the model suggests organizational learning strategies incorporate:
Experiential projects and challenges that allow skills to be practiced in realistic scenarios.
Immersive simulations and virtual/augmented reality to experience consequences of decisions safely.
Action/project-based coaching and mentoring to receive real-time feedback on performance.
Micro-learning and reinforcement of core concepts through bite-sized, on-demand resources.
Peer collaboration on tasks that facilitate social/feedback-based learning.
Visible impact assessment through quantification of behavior changes and business outcomes.
The model strikes a better balance of abstract conceptual learning versus applied experiences that foster retention, engagement and immediate skill application. A 3:1 ratio reflects optimal experiential learning research while ensuring initial training foundations are not overlooked. Most importantly, it aligns with how employees naturally want to develop in today's workplace.
Industry Examples Illustrating the 3-To-1 Model in Action
The following industry examples demonstrate real-world applications of the 3-to-1 model:
Oil & Gas Operator Training
Classroom HSE procedures (1 hr)
Virtual well drilling simulator (3 hrs) allowing mistakes without risk
Mentored equipment operation (3 hrs) with expert feedback
Micro-videos reinforcing key steps (on-demand)
Peer groups collaborating on well design projects
Pharmaceutical Sales Representative Onboarding
Product/disease webinar (1 hr)
Shadowing experienced reps (3 hrs) on patient calls
Virtual reality detailing practice (3 hrs) with physicians
Coaching post-customer notes with KPI tracking
Community of practice sharing sales strategies
Hospital Healthcare Worker Resuscitation Training
CPR/AED certification class (1 hr)
Simulation mannequin training (3 hrs)
Augmented reality code response drills (3 hrs) in hospital setting
Micro-modules refreshing techniques
Debriefs with physicians on code response impact
These examples illustrate applied, technology-enabled experiential activities that directly follow and reinforce more passive introductory training. Learners receive feedback, apply skills in safe environments, and can immediately see the impacts of their learning - key attributes of optimal 3:1 model implementations.
Transitioning to a 3-To-1 Approach
While the benefits of the 3-to-1 model are clear, transitioning existing learning programs will require deliberate effort. Key recommendations include:
Assess current blend of activities. Use surveys, focus groups or observations to understand the existing 70-20-10 or other model in use.
Involve learners in redesign. Soliciting employee input on preferred approaches leads to higher buy-in and satisfaction.
Leverage enabling technologies. Identify simulation, VR/AR, collaborative and micro-learning tools to support applied experiences.
Develop experiential activities. Design challenging scenarios, observation/feedback mechanisms, peer collaboration opportunities and protocols for quantifying impact.
Pilot new offerings. Test redesigned activities with limited groups, gather metrics on engagement, retention and outcomes to refine approach.
Communicate vision and benefits clearly. Educating all stakeholders on rationale and value of new model fosters understanding and support.
Revisit and refine continually. As technology and workplace evolve, learning strategies must also adapt - establish feedback loops.
With intentional planning and stakeholder involvement, organizations can successfully transition learning programs to the advantages offered by a 3-to-1 experiential learning approach.
Conclusion
In today's environment of constant change, employees are expected to constantly reskill and adapt. Yet outdated models like 70-20-10 continue to guide many organizational learning strategies, failing to leverage technology and misaligning with learner preferences. This paper proposed a revised 3-to-1 experiential learning model that strikes a better balance between formal training foundations and applied experiences supported by enabling tools. Through reviewing literature on experiential learning theory and examining real-world industry examples, advantages of this revised model in better developing employees were demonstrated. By thoughtfully redesigning existing programs around more impactful applied activities measured using outcome metrics, organizations can significantly enhance the learning process, employee engagement and overall performance. As technology and workplaces continue to evolve rapidly, maintaining learning strategy flexibility will remain critical - but a shift towards a 3-to-1 model offers an important step forward.
References
Bücker, J., & Korzilius, H. (2015). Developing cultural intelligence: Assessing the effect of the Ecotonos cultural simulation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(15), 1995-2014.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1994). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Addison-Wesley.
Gagnon, K., Garst, B., Stone, G., Gitelson, R., Meyers, K., Schneider, L., Wagstaff, W., & Allison, A. L. (2021). Using virtual and augmented reality in youth development: An exploratory study on potential opportunities and challenges. Journal of Youth Development, 16(4), 40-58.
Groh, J. E. (2012). Developing tomorrow's workforce: Five programs that make a difference. Public/Private Ventures.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
Lewis, L. H., & Williams, C. J. (1994). Experiential learning: Past and present. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1994(62), 5-16.
Loewenstein, M. A., & Spletzer, J. R. (1999). General and specific training: Evidence and implications. Journal of Human Resources, 34(4), 710-733.
Matsuo, M. (2012). Leadership lessons from the 70:20:10 model for learning and development. Industrial and Commercial Training, 44(7), 429-432.
Morrison, R., & Wilson, M. (2019). Extended reality: How 5G technology will shape the virtual learning experiences of the future. TechTrends, 63(6), 730-736.
O'Leonard, K., & Krider, J. (2014). The corporate learning factbook®: Statistics, benchmarks, and analysis of the U.S. corporate training market. Bersin by Deloitte.
Peterson, D. B., & Hicks, M. D. (1996). Leader as coach: Strategies for coaching and developing others. Executive Excellence, 13(3), 8-9.
Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & Jansen, N. (2010). Transfer of training: The role of feedback in supportive social networks. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(2), 81-94.
Yamnill, S., & McLean, G. N. (2001). Theories supporting transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(2), 195-208.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Rethinking Learning and Development: The Case for a 3-To-1 Experiential Learning Model. Human Capital Leadership Review, 19(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.19.2.1
