70-20-10 Leadership Development Model: Research & Origins

Executive Summary

The 70-20-10 leadership development model is one of the most widely cited frameworks in talent management—and one of the most misunderstood.

Originally derived from a 13-year research study at the Center for Creative Leadership, the model demonstrates that approximately 70% of leadership capability is developed through challenging assignments, 20% through learning from others, and 10% through formal coursework. An additional 25% of significant learning comes from adversity and personal hardship.

Far from being a convenient slogan, 70-20-10 is a research-based framework for designing development architecture. More than three decades later, experience remains the dominant teacher of leadership effectiveness.

Experience is the Best Teacher

My grandfather was a general contractor and a carpenter. He built houses the old- fashioned way, with no electric anything and no nail guns. When I was 10, it was my summer job to help him build a house. I was handy because I’m ambidextrous (I could pound and saw with either hand). He was solely right-handed.

Of course, I made a lot of mistakes. After all, I was 10 and building a house. He would tell me to measure something and cut a board for him. When it wouldn’t fit, I had to do it again. He said, “measure twice and cut once”. All cuts after that were accurate. I asked him where he learned all of the techniques and tricks he used. He said “you learn by trying, correcting and doing”. Experience is the best teacher. Seventy years later, I still measure twice and cut once. It is a lesson of experience.

The Origins of the 70-20-10 Leadership Development Model

I’m Robert Eichinger, co-creator—along with the research staff of the Center for Creative Leadership—of the 70-20-10 meme. (A meme, as the dictionary defines it, is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person.)

For a detailed look at the model, see The Leadership Machine by Michael M. Lombardo and Robert W. Eichinger.

In the late 1980s, Michael Lombardo and I were teaching a course at CCL called Tools for Developing Effective Executives. The course summarized findings from The Lessons of Experience study, conducted over a 13-year period and published in 1988.

My role was to convert the study’s findings into practical applications. Mike represented the research staff. I brought practitioner experience from PepsiCo and Pillsbury.

One central question guided the research:

Where do successful leaders actually learn the skills that make them effective?

The Research Behind 70-20-10

The Lessons of Experience study interviewed 191 successful executives across multiple organizations. Researchers collected 616 key learning events, “Lessons of Success,” and coded them into 16 categories.

To make the findings practical for executive education, we recoded the 16 categories into five broader learning sources. This simplification made the framework usable without distorting the data, much like grouping hundreds of cognitive biases into a handful of categories for training purposes.

The five categories were:

Learning from challenging assignments
Learning from other people
Learning from coursework
Learning from adverse situations
Learning from personal experiences outside of work

For development planning purposes, we could not design adverse situations or personal hardships. Yet together, those two categories accounted for 25% of the 616 lessons.

The remaining 75%—the portion organizations could intentionally design—became the basis of the 70-20-10 leadership development model:

70% Learning from challenging assignments
20% Learning from others
10% Learning from coursework

The original ratios were 69-22-9. We rounded them to 70-20-10 for memorability and adoption.

Is the 70-20-10 Model Research-Based?

Some critics claim 70-20-10 does not come from research. It clearly does.

The original findings have been replicated at least nine times across geographies including China, India, and Singapore, as well as among female leaders. While no study produced a perfect 70-20-10 ratio, results were highly consistent.

Companies such as 3M have replicated the study internally and found similar patterns.

In a large-scale replication, CCL compiled 6,000 lessons from managers across demographics, sectors, and levels. The results aligned with the original findings, with some variation in percentages for women. My TalentTelligent Co-founder, Roger Pearman, assisted in this research.

Experience remains the dominant source of leadership development.

What 70-20-10 Actually Means

The 70% refers to full-time work and part-time assignments such as task forces, stretch roles, and study groups. These challenging assignments expand capability through responsibility.

The 20% refers to learning from others, primarily bosses, mentors, and peers. Interestingly, the research found that learning from bad bosses can be “stickier.” Learning what not to do is often more memorable.

The 10% refers to formal coursework, classroom training, structured learning, and credentialed programs.

If we incorporate the 25% derived from adversity and personal hardship, the fuller representation might be expressed as 70-20-10-25.

The best learning occurs when all four sources are experienced for each leadership capability.

Some have said that 70 20 10 doesn’t come from any research. It clearly does. Some have said the 70 20 10 is just common sense. It is now! Experience has always been the best teacher.

Modern Relevance: 70-20-10 in the Era of AI and Digital Learning

If the study were repeated today, the 10% component might be larger due to eLearning, AI-enabled coaching, VR simulations, and virtual platforms.

However, digital learning does not replace experience. It enhances it.

AI may accelerate knowledge acquisition. Virtual simulations may compress exposure cycles. But the central insight remains intact: You learn leadership by doing progressively larger versions of what later become significant responsibilities.

There is also evidence that women may experience different developmental ratios due to differential access to challenging assignments. If females are not given as many stretch roles as their male counterparts, learning from others may increase while experiential opportunity decreases.

These nuances underscore an important point: 70-20-10 is not a rigid formula. It is a design framework.

Common Misinterpretations of the 70-20-10 Model

The model is often misapplied as:

A budgeting formula
A training allocation rule
A literal percentage requirement

It was never intended as any of these.

The 70-20-10 leadership development model is a descriptive framework derived from research about how leaders actually learned. Its purpose is to guide development architecture—not to constrain it.

There is natural variation across industries, functions, organizational levels, and cultures. The model emerged from research on senior leaders in large global companies. Other contexts may produce different ratios.

What remains constant is this: experience is the primary driver of leadership growth.

Designing Leadership Development Around Experience

Organizations that reference 70-20-10 without designing challenging assignments intentionally risk turning the model into rhetoric rather than architecture.

Development must include: