70-20-10 Change Management?

HR may say they understand 70-20-10,
but the 10 still commands 80% of their budget.

So I spent a large amount of time this week helping a new large client think about developing leaders.  They used the McCall, Eichinger, & Lombardo model as a prism to re-think the capabilities an HR organization needs to support world-class leadership development.

Luckily, I was able to connect with Charles Jennings from the UK.  Here is his current depiction of the model:

I cannot help but think:

Doesn't this also apply to CM?

As you watch the following clip, substitute "Change Management" where he uses "Training" or "Learning."

As applied to Training & Development, here is how Jennings applied this thinking at Reuters some years ago. (click to enlarge)

I'd be lying if I didn't say I'm a bit concerned at how CM has become a commodity in many organizations.  Large providers now sell CM Training, and organizations use their Training budgets to buy Change Management.

If I think about it from the "inside" perspective, I would say that Training & Development + Performance Management = Strategic HR.  The challenge is to structure that part of HR, not by top-down function (Education or Talent Management in a separate box than OE consulting or Performance Management consulting), but by a bottom-up view.  Leaders do not think, "well, I need to learn to be a change leader separate from applying that learning and converting it into performance."  It is all one integrated subject from the leader's point of view.

After all, Change Management is a core competency of the leader of the future.  Leaders can't afford to learn (and forget) it in a training room.  We need to help them learn and apply change management skills on the job.