With a daughter studying to be an actress, it is no surprise that the Kelly household is keenly focused on all the televised 'arts awards'. Recently, a ridiculous amount of column ink has been devoted to an “Americans just don't get Brit humour” defence of Ricky Gervais' turn as Golden Globes' host. Some people found Mr. Gervais' comments funny. Others, presumably all American, thought they 'went too far'. My opinion doesn't hold any consequence, but I thought what he said was funny but out-of-place; it wasn't the content but the context that I found offensive as he was host of the show.
Here in London, the Golden Globes was telecast with a panel providing commentary while the US commercials ran. One member was a comedian who sat crocheting in her stocking feet. As the show was coming to a close, she tucked into her shoes and laced them up. In my living room, I'd assume she would put her shoes on while chatting about the show, especially at 3 am, but on TV I thought she should have waited until off camera (or perhaps even worn them throughout the show). No issue with someone lacing her shoes, just not sure that it was the right move in the context of a televised commentary.
This balance of content and context is familiar to consultants, be they external experts or internal advisors. HR professionals are continually challenged to provide content expertise within a defined context. Does this rule apply in these circumstances? If we want to create this new organization, how will it impact this salary structure? Do we need to provide life insurance benefits akin to our US offering in Croatia? What title can we use in the UK that will align to the market and still fit our hierarchy? The business of Human Resources is to structure content into context.
Yet HR professionals are often hesitant, even challenged, to apply their HR expertise in the broader context of their business. A client recently shared concern about the communication dynamics of her firm's leadership team. The group is not only physically distributed, but is frequently dispersed in opinion, values and ideology. Rather than a 'common core vision', they form, break and re-form topical alliances. This 'push and pull' dynamic is generally encouraged by the firm's culture, but, as they approach a major acquisition, she fears it will disrupt focus and retard momentum. Despite being deeply concerned, "I just don't think they'd accept this input from me", she shared, "I don't know that I can challenge the effectiveness of the leadership team to lead the business as an HR professional." Another client, tackling compensation structure and cost, lacked visibility to product pricing and cost. They told us "these are business decisions not in our domain".
Was Ricky Gervais funny or not? That's a matter of opinion. What is clear, however, is that your assessment will reflect the content of his routine in the context presented. Similarly, an HR leader may not feel it is appropriate to challenge the exec team on style in every situation, but, in the context of stewarding a successful acquisition, this discussion content is entirely appropriate and necessary. Should HR direct or even opine on product pricing? Generally, I'd be inclined to say "no", but in the context of assuring there is sufficient business support for competitive compensation, this is absolutely essential.
Here in London, the Golden Globes was telecast with a panel providing commentary while the US commercials ran. One member was a comedian who sat crocheting in her stocking feet. As the show was coming to a close, she tucked into her shoes and laced them up. In my living room, I'd assume she would put her shoes on while chatting about the show, especially at 3 am, but on TV I thought she should have waited until off camera (or perhaps even worn them throughout the show). No issue with someone lacing her shoes, just not sure that it was the right move in the context of a televised commentary.
This balance of content and context is familiar to consultants, be they external experts or internal advisors. HR professionals are continually challenged to provide content expertise within a defined context. Does this rule apply in these circumstances? If we want to create this new organization, how will it impact this salary structure? Do we need to provide life insurance benefits akin to our US offering in Croatia? What title can we use in the UK that will align to the market and still fit our hierarchy? The business of Human Resources is to structure content into context.
Yet HR professionals are often hesitant, even challenged, to apply their HR expertise in the broader context of their business. A client recently shared concern about the communication dynamics of her firm's leadership team. The group is not only physically distributed, but is frequently dispersed in opinion, values and ideology. Rather than a 'common core vision', they form, break and re-form topical alliances. This 'push and pull' dynamic is generally encouraged by the firm's culture, but, as they approach a major acquisition, she fears it will disrupt focus and retard momentum. Despite being deeply concerned, "I just don't think they'd accept this input from me", she shared, "I don't know that I can challenge the effectiveness of the leadership team to lead the business as an HR professional." Another client, tackling compensation structure and cost, lacked visibility to product pricing and cost. They told us "these are business decisions not in our domain".
Was Ricky Gervais funny or not? That's a matter of opinion. What is clear, however, is that your assessment will reflect the content of his routine in the context presented. Similarly, an HR leader may not feel it is appropriate to challenge the exec team on style in every situation, but, in the context of stewarding a successful acquisition, this discussion content is entirely appropriate and necessary. Should HR direct or even opine on product pricing? Generally, I'd be inclined to say "no", but in the context of assuring there is sufficient business support for competitive compensation, this is absolutely essential.
