I agree with the sentiment of this post entirely. As industrial age thinking employers increase pressure on all their employees to contribute more, employees have just "put their heads down" and let their "jobs" consume themselves. In my experience of working with knowledge workers, I've found this is especially true of those unbound to well-managed production processes, highly susceptible to change, and increasingly displaceable by advances in technology. And I've come to strongly believe that 100% dedication solely to the bounded fulfillment of one's job is a systemic problem for both employee and employer. However, I'm not crazy about the notion of simply constructing a rule-of-thumb ratio of professional development pursuits as prescribed here.

Instead, I advocate that knowledge workers take on their futures more systemically, as a "value providers." Essentially, the employee-to-employer relationship is an assumed and too narrowly defined value transaction that can/should be opened up to new thinking by both employee and employer, but especially too narrow for the knowledge worker employee under the pressures mentioned above. If knowledge workers can realize that what they really do is to provide value to their stakeholder's outcomes from their informational-based work, skills, and insights, then they can optimize their competency development based on the value they intend to create, from outcomes they intend to make, for the stakeholders they intend to serve (including, but not necessarily limited to their current employer, boss, team, and peers). Using this more systemic mindset, the "job" no longer constrains the true nature of what the knowledge workers contributions could/should be, or what they might be, within a wider scope that just the current employer or conversely narrowing upon the most value creating companies for the employer. Using this lens, the knowledge workers professional development is more grounded in their own stakeholder's outcomes directed value intentions and personally developed strengths rather than leaving a certain percentage to be bound by the narrower employee-employer job description transaction mindset that remains unchanged. I just prefer this way of thinking.

Does this value-based thinking make sense for you, or is that line of thinking just too impractical and you simply prefer pursuing a prescribed ratio of competency development? What say you?

Tyelmene--I completely agree with you that formulas are not the entire answer. Ideally, people are looking at where/how they want to develop themselves so they are moving in the direction of their aspirations and the value they want to bring in a more fluid way. Sometimes this can mean they are putting more attention on the future, sometimes less.

However, I'm also aware that for many people, a formula can make it easier for them to think about how they are spending their time. Are they devoting a percentage of their attention to the future, rather than just being completely consumed by the present and getting by? That's where the 70/20/10 rule can be helpful--more as a guideline than anything else. I see it as a reminder to not be 100% focused on meeting today's requirements with no regard for what the future might hold.