Chief Learning Officer - July 2008 - (Page 43)

Synchronous (adj.): happening, existing or arising at precisely the same time. Asynchronous (adj.): not synchronous. have thought a great deal about these two words. Candidly, though, it’s been a long time since I’ve truly contemplated their meanings. They’re commonplace. They’re technocentric cousins of “blended” or “self-paced.” They’re boring. And yet renewed contemplation leads me to believe that reﬂection on these two little words is well-deserved. Because, in reconsidering these words, I’m forced to reconsider a great deal more. The words are mile markers in the complicated evolution of organizational learning, and now is an exceptional time to look out the window. Why these words? What do they really tell us and how and when did they enter our frame of reference? I’m sure I’ll hear from the learning etymologists, perhaps even the brave soul who hunted these wooly mammoths of words and dragged them proudly into our learning camp, but in my experience, these words became the e-learning generation’s version of “classroom” vs. “video” or “real” vs. “Memorex.” We latched on to these two words as a way to compartmentalize learning modalities, to demonstrate evolution into a dawning Internet age. It’s not that they’re bad words. It’s just they they’re unsatisfying in the way we’ve applied them: to deliver technologies vs. a learning process or organizational capability. That being said, even as they’re currently applied, there really are best practices lumbering up from the foundation of these words. Words can create worlds, and in our world, the learning programs we design, buy or borrow nearly always use an explicit mix of synchronous and asynchronous elements (and, incidentally, symmetrical and asymmetrical — my personal favorites). But when we speak to true best practices for integrating modalities, setting aside the world built from those words, only one really delivers results: understanding and articulating a speciﬁc future vision, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the current organization and using both content and process to your advantage. I don’t just mean the process of delivery as enabling technologies for asynchronous and synchronous activities. I mean using the process in and of itself as the content because process is something on its own. Oftentimes, an organization’s behavioral tendencies are affected as much through process as they are through content. Learning is a complex and wonderful beast, I and we have the opportunity to wisely use whichever tentacle is in the right place at the right time. Asynchronous and synchronous should not be thought of only as delivery approaches, but as the learning itself. I’ll give you an example of what I mean. Last year, I became involved in developing a learning strategy at an organization undertaking an innovation initiative. I’ll call it ACME. ACME was interested in creating a new curriculum that could be delivered in its sophisticated development model that mapped learning delivery modalities to employee levels, tendencies and geographies. Using a blend of synchronous and asynchronous components, as many of us would, a proposed bestpractice framework to address ACME’s needs might look something like this: PROGRAM COMPONENT Deliver manager “launch” discussion framework (e.g., get manager to prepare employee). Deliver launch event. Deploy online course. Prepare facilitator and materials for large application session. Provide manager discussion guides for ongoing coaching/application. Deploy online reinforcement materials. DELIVERY Synchronous Synchronous first time, asynchronous thereafter Asynchronous Synchronous Synchronous Asynchronous In theory, this approach works quite well. Even adding the initial manager discussion improves results dramatically through a shift in the learning climate. It’s a pattern: an elegant, dependably effective solution pattern. And it usually works. However, it’s short-sighted in addressing the true problem patterns associated with innovation gaps. The behavioral dynamic at ACME, as with many global organizations of 6,000 people, or 300,000 people, instead requires a new look at how to best use the tools available to its learning groups. The company’s problem was not the lack of a formal innovation process, approach or capability — the musculature — in which most trainers’ current tools are most effective. At ACME, it was circulatory: a systemic fear of conﬂict, an engineering-heavy organization with a natural tendency of avoidance, gone awry at the departure of a central ﬁgure or change of vision, then reeling in an inability to innovate in light of incredibly agile competition. Chief Learning Ofﬁcer • July 2008 • www.clomedia.com 43 http://www.clomedia.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Chief Learning Officer - July 2008

Chief Learning Officer - July 2008 Contents Imperatives Selling Up, Selling Down Strategies Take Five A Customer-Driven Approach to Molding Tomorrow’s Leaders The Home Depot: Accelerated Leadership CLO Profile Birth of a Salesman: Selling Learning to Solve Business Issues Selling Learning’s Potential at Siemens Transform Corporate Learning With a User Network Wiki Training Increases Productivity for RMC Vanguard Mortgage Lessons From the Feds: Mapping Learning to Strategic Initiatives Department of Labor Centralizes Content Synchronous and Asynchronous: What’s in a Name? Coping With Cultural Barriers to E-Learning The Manager’s Responsibility for Employee Learning Case Study Business Intelligence In Conclusion

Chief Learning Officer - July 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.