The rise of the 70:20:10 framework for training, learning, education and development in organisations has prompted me to reflect on my own understanding of learning and work. In the 70:20:10 framework, 70% of learning comes from doing work [‘tough jobs’], 20% comes from learning from other people in the workplace, and 10% comes from courses and reading. It all seems sensible (except that I think reading is under-rated).

The 70:20:10 framework seeks to capture a broader view of learning and development in organisations; however, philosophically, I think it maintains an instrumentalist approach to the way organisations invest in learning and what is valued.

The instrumentalist approach regards learning and development primarily as a means towards some organisational end. That is, the organisation invests in learning and development in order to get a specific return or benefit. For me, it means that learning and development takes on the following characteristics:

• It is individually-oriented, where the focus is on the qualities individuals have and use.
• It is employment-related and task-oriented, where the focus is on applying appropriate skills and knowledge in the scope of employment at a particular standard.
• It is situational and practical, where the focus is on the suitable use of skills and knowledge that are specific to the context of professional practice.
• It is a means of classifying work, where skills and knowledge are the preconditions for competence that is achieved only through direct work experience.

In the broad, I have no substantial problem with this view but I do wonder whether it narrows our view of the contribution learning and development makes to people, work and organisation. Is that all we want from our investment in learning and development? Is this our only responsibility to developing people in the workplace? Does this deliver what the organisation or individual needs to be productive?

I am drawn to the German concept of Bildung. It is often translated into English as ‘education’ but the concept should probably also be linked to words like ‘journey’ or ‘formation’. [Note: despite my surname I don't speak German, so this translation has been gleaned from others.] In this frame, learning and development in the workplace contributes to the formation of the individual. So, work is but one experience from which the individual learns and develops.

The position of work in our lives is significant, so learning through work potentially makes a disproportionately large contribution to the growth and identity of the individual. If I take this view, I remain responsible for developing essential skills in the workforce but the way in which I go about it is now important. I am more aware of the whole person in the workplace and not just the bit that contributes through skills and knowledge specifically related to production. It positions me as someone who creates an environment at work in which the opportunity to learn is available.

The concept of Bildung gives me a basis for framing learning and development that goes beyond the instrumental view that we should only invest in knowledge and skill that has a direct application in the workplace. When I reflect on my own experience of work, I think that both my employer(s) and I have gained from me embracing the aimless satisfaction of learning.

I have often found that what seems to be useless knowledge in some circumstances turns out to be quite useful in others. There is no way of predetermining usefulness (or not usefulness), so it is best to learn about what is interesting and seeing where it takes you. Maybe, we should encourage the satisfaction of learning for its own sake and worry about application later.

To the concerns of those that need to see tangible returns on the learning and development investment, I say, individual competence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for organisational performance. The workforce reflects work, and so it is in a constant state of flux. We have no way to predict the future; consequently, we have no way of predetermining what skills (or perhaps more importantly, what knowledge) will be required to deliver performance in the right time and right place. We need an approach to that has development not control as its central mechanism.

The goal is to develop a capable workforce in every sense of that word. A workforce that understands, contributes, innovates, creates and advances. We need to let go the idea the outcome can be predetermined. Instead, maybe, we might embrace the idea that workforce performance emerges from the conditions we create that allow learning and development to take place.

So, my view of learning and development (which I have adapted from others) is best captured in this way. I begin with the concept of Bildung (the idea of learning as a journey of transformation) and the purpose of learning (by whatever means) becomes, for me, to:

• Produce the knowledge on which competence depends. This means knowledge of ideas and process as well as knowledge of people and situations. Technical competence is critical to accomplishment but so is the context in which the individual performs it.
• Produce the knowledge needed to justify any action taken. Competence is not a matter of simply observing and imitating behaviour in the workplace, it is about critical thinking. In an all our organisations, the purpose of learning must include the ability to justify action taken as an integral part of task performance.
• Produce knowledge that eases the transfer of competence. To be productive, individuals must be able to generalise—to transfer skills developed in one context to another. This requires that people gain further knowledge and skills to make the transfer possible. This process is closer to adaptation, where the individual must adapt or change existing skills and models to meet the demands of the new problem. The extent to which they can manage the transfer determines the extent and speed with which the individual can be innovative.
• Produce knowledge that promotes change. It is not enough to be competent in particular areas if a person is unwilling or unable to adapt to change. A skilled individual is more likely to develop and change the strategies they use if they have a good understanding of the concepts, theories and principles underlying various techniques, and understand the advantages and disadvantages of each.

I too am open to the charge of instrumentalism (it is difficult to escape entirely). But behind these four points sits the idea that people are transforming and the workplace contributes as a stimulus for change and development.

I read back on this post and sense I haven't expressed this idea. Most likely, that comes from the nature of concepts, the fuzziness of thinking and the limitations of my writing. So, maybe, we should go back to the start. For German’s, Bildung is an old concept. In 1796 (ish), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote the following in his novel, Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship:

...everything that happens to us leaves some trace behind it, everything contributes imperceptibly to form us.

I like this view.