A recent analysis by the center-right think tank Policy Exchange suggests that bloated human resources departments are costing UK businesses approximately £10 billion annually. The report argues that these departments have pivoted away from employee welfare to prioritize rigid corporate interests and aggressive diversity initiatives.

The £10 billion drain and 83% growth in HR roles

According to the Policy Exchange report, the scale of human resources in Britain has expanded dramatically over the last 15 years . The number of professionals in resource-related roles grew by 83% between 2011 and 2023, leading to a surge in high-salaried senor positions and an increase in administrative overhead.

The think tank claims this expansion has resulted in a "smorgasbord of equality training initiatives" that often distract employees from their primary professional duties. Policy Exchange argues that this shift toward "radical" equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) policies has come at the expense of genuine staff support, effectively turning HR into a cost center that drains billions from the economy.

The Cabinet Office's 6% HR workforce ratio

The trend of HR bloat is not limited to the private sector; the British government has also faced criticism for its reliance on administrative oversight. A 2022 audit of the Cabinet Office revealed that the department employed roughly 700 HR staff out of a total workforce of 11,000, meaning 6% of the entire department was dedicated to human resources.

This institutional density reflects a broader trend where the machinery of management begins to outweigh the machinery of production. When a significant portion of a government department is dedicated to internal resource management, critics argue that the resulting bureaucracy slows decision-making and increases the likelihood of internal friction.

Ryan Breslow's gamble in firing the Bolt Financial HR team

The debate over the utility of these departmetns has reached a boiling point with high-profile corporate departures. ryan Breslow, the head of Bolt Financial, recently sparked industry-wide discussion by sacking his entire human resources team. Breslow claimed that the HR department was creating "problems that didn't exist" and insisted that he trusts his employees to resolve issues, such as bullying, independently.

Breslow's decision represents a radical departure from the modern corporate playbook, which typically views a robust HR department as a necessary shield against litigation. By eliminating the middle layer of bureaucracy, Bolt Financial is testing whether a direct-management approach can be more effective than the traditional HR-mediated model.

Carl Borg-Neal's £500,000 victory against Lloyds Bank

The risks of an overreaching HR department are highlighted by the legal battle involving Carl Borg-Neal and Lloyds Bank. As reported in the source material, Borg-Neal was dismissed by Lloyds Bank after questioning the use of the N-word by Black people during an HR-led training session. He eventually won £500,000 in damages.

This case raises a critical, unanswered question: at what point does the department hired to mitigate corporate risk actually become the primary source of that risk? While the report highlights the financial cost of such failures, it remains unclear whether Lloyds Bank or similar institutions have fundamentally altered their training protocols to avoid similar litigation.

The Astronomer scandal and the Kristin Cabot resignation

The perceived hypocrisy of modern HR is further exemplified by the scandal at the tech firm Astronomer. Kristin Cabot, who served as the chief people officer, and CEO Andy Byron both resigned after they were spotted in a romantic embrace at a Coldplay concert in Foxborough, Massachusetts.

Cabot has since claimed that Byron lied to her about his marital status and that the ensuing public scandal has left her "unemployable." The incident serves as a stark example of the gap between the strict EDI and conduct policies HR departments enforce on general staff and the actual behavior of the executives who oversee those very policies.