Summary: Recent analysis claims UK HR teams are too large, employing almost twice as many professionals as the EU. Yet this framing misses crucial context: the UK’s robust employment framework creates real legal and operational obligations that can’t manage themselves. Sickness absence sits at a 15-year high, AI-assisted grievances are surging, and the Employment Rights Act brings significant reform. The real issue isn’t headcount but where HR capacity is actually used.
A recent feature in The Times, drawing on analysis from Policy Exchange, argues that HR teams in the UK have become too large and costly. It notes the UK employs almost twice as many HR professionals as the EU and far more than the US, at an estimated economic cost of £10bn, characterising the function as having become “bloated.”
It is an eye-catching claim that fits neatly into a narrative already gaining traction; one that risks oversimplifying a far more complex reality.
It’s not the scrutiny that’s frustrating. Scrutiny of HR functions, and all parts of a business in fact, is entirely fair. HR teams should be able to justify the value they create, but the shallow framing of reducing it to headcount alone misses the point.
Size alone tells us very little about whether a people function is effective, whether organisations are properly managing their legal obligations, or whether businesses are equipped to handle an increasingly complex employment landscape.
The question shouldn’t be how many people work in HR, but whether organisations have the capability they need to manage the demands now placed on them.
The UK context that gets glossed over
The UK has a comparatively robust employment framework. It reflects years of policy choices aimed at protecting people’s rights and the belief that work shouldn’t cost people their health, dignity or financial stability.
But by building that kind of system, you also create real obligations in a legal, administrative and operational sense, which can’t manage themselves. So comparing UK HR teams to those in far less regulated markets simply doesn’t stack up. And that context matters.
Not only is sickness absence in the UK is at a fifteen-year high, but employees are also far more aware of their rights than they were a few years ago, and they’re much more confident in asserting them.
On top of that, we’re seeing a surge in AI-assisted grievances. Situations that a few years ago would have been nipped in the bud after an awkward conversation are now turning into multi-page documents drafted in legal language but not necessarily legally correct. These have to be unpicked by HR and carefully responded to so as not to escalate the situation further.
Then there’s the Employment Rights Act, one of the most significant reforms most HR practitioners will see in their careers. The operational implications are still unfolding, and so, if anything, this is a moment when organisations need stronger people capability.
The real issue isn’t size, it’s where the work sits
What gets lost in this headcount debate is how most HR capacity is actually used. In many organisations, people teams are overwhelmed with reactive work; they’re managing all types of cases and the volume is relentless, leaving little room for shaping strategy or building long-term capability.
So instead of asking if there are too many HR professionals, we need to look at whether the ones we have are genuinely spending their expertise on the right issues at the right time.
The organisations I see navigating this well haven’t slashed their HR teams; they’ve adapted their operating model. Automating tasks, investing in manager capability and creating genuine centres of expertise rather than stretching generalists across everything. This creates space for strategic work, giving HR a seat at the board table.
It’s frustrating to see inclusion folded into this debate as well. Yes, there are EDI initiatives out there that have been poorly designed and executed, and those should absolutely be challenged. But poor implementation is not an argument against the underlying principles.
In the Times piece, the shadow business secretary is quoted as describing the hiring of women and “non-whites” as a form of bureaucratic box-ticking. That framing ignores the reality that both groups remain significantly underrepresented in senior leadership.
Progress on closing the gender pay gap is slow, and minority ethnic professionals continue to face well-documented structural barriers to progression. Reducing inclusion work to a “tick-box exercise” is an easy line to deploy, but it misrepresents what well-designed EDI initiatives actually try to do.
At its core, the work is about removing structural barriers so that talent is not limited by ethnicity, gender, disability or background. The article dismisses both the data and lived reality of many people still navigating these barriers to career progression.
What actually needs to change
Honestly, the problem with HR isn’t that it’s bloated; it’s that too much of it is defined by what it reacts to rather than what it shapes.
Leaders increasingly expect HR to have a clear view on workforce planning, capability, retention and the commercial impact of people decisions. But delivering that requires time, expertise and credibility. None of that can come out of a function permanently submerged in day-to-day casework. In an employment landscape that is becoming more complex, reducing that capability is unlikely to solve the problem.
Key takeaways:
If you’re questioning whether your HR function is fit for purpose, consider these perspectives on where capability actually matters:
- Headcount alone reveals nothing about effectiveness. Size doesn’t tell you whether your organisation is managing legal obligations properly, handling complex employment challenges, or creating strategic value. The question isn’t how many people work in HR – it’s whether you have the capability needed to manage what’s now placed on the function.
- Most HR capacity drowns in reactive work, not strategic contribution. Are your people teams overwhelmed with case management, grievances and day-to-day firefighting? When HR is permanently submerged in reactive work, there’s no room for workforce planning, capability building or commercial impact. Where is your HR expertise actually being spent?
- The organisations navigating this well have adapted their operating model. They haven’t slashed teams – they’ve automated tasks, invested in manager capability and created genuine centres of expertise rather than stretching generalists across everything. This creates space for strategic work and earns HR a seat at leadership tables.
- The employment landscape is becoming more complex, not simpler. With sickness absence at a 15-year high, employees more confident asserting rights, AI-assisted grievances surging, and the Employment Rights Act unfolding, reducing HR capability now seems poorly timed. What capability will you need to navigate what’s coming, not just what exists today?
