Many of us will have seen the article in The Times by Harry Wallop on 27th February 2026 entitled ‘How HR’s expansion strangled British business’ in which he argues that there are more people working in HR today than there are doctors or lawyers. In 2010 there were 284,000 people working in HR and by the end of 2025, this climbed to 478,000. The UK apparently has more than double the number of people working in HR than in Europe and 60% more than in the US. This growth in HR has come at a time when UK productivity has flatlined and at a time when HR’s remit has, according to Octavius Black co-founder of MindGym, become ‘a cost centre with a moral purpose, rather than a business function with a commercial purpose’. One of the reasons for this, he cites, is the prevalence of sub-standard managers, paralysed with indecision, who have passed on anything awkward or challenging to HR who in turn have created endless KPIs around behaviour rather than focus on performance. In a recent report, the Policy Exchange estimated that if the UK had the same proportion of HR workers than the US, the UK economy would be £10 billion better off.

In his response, Peter Cheese, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), questioned the basis of these comparisons and argued that increased employment regulation, shifting workforce expectations and rapid changes in how work is now organised have all expanded HR’s remit. But surely this can also be true for other countries?

Yet another toxic debate

What was revealing in The Times article were the comments that followed it most of which were visceral and scathing of HR describing us as ‘woke’, ‘a scourge on business’ and ‘incompetent’. In our last article – Beyond Dispute – we discussed the toxic and binary nature of debate in our world today and its impact on organisations. We also highlighted the need to separate the arguer from the argument and find value in our differences; constructive disagreement in the search for the best outcome is vital but this needs to be based on trust and respect. This polarised and truly toxic debate about HR was troubling, especially with the emotive and disrespectful language used. What seemed to be missing on both sides of the argument was context. So here we go.

A proud history

Throughout the Industrial Revolution (1760 to 1820), workers as a collective group were of course vital, but individually they were expendable. Workers would work long hours and do what they were told to avoid poverty and dismissal, often in conditions that would today be considered inhuman. The system functioned well for the owners, but the life of the worker was hard and usually short.

WW1 saw a huge change in the demographics of the industrial workplace as women entered the factories to perform the jobs that had been vacated by the men being sent to the Front. Many men saw the introduction of women into industry as a threat to their livelihoods once the war was over, and pressure was put on government and employers to ensure their jobs would remain available when they returned to work. The fact that they could pay women less was not lost on the employers but, in the end, the might of the unions brought decades of inequality, which remains evident in the workplace today.

After WW1, the workforce returned to their jobs and the munitions industries went back to peacetime levels, and a slump came along that would return the plight of the working person to one almost similar to that which prevailed during the Industrial Revolution. In 1926 there was a general strike and in 1933 unemployment reached 3 million – 20 per cent of the working population. During this time, it once again became difficult for workers to push for better conditions. During WW2, conscription was once again imposed and again the nation’s women, who had by now achieved a slightly elevated place in the manual workforce, were called upon to work.

It was after the war that Personnel started to be taken seriously as a distinct discipline. For decades after WW2 there was full employment and a great demand for labour. Workers could flex their muscles and employers needed to manage things more sensitively and discrimination based on gender, race, disability, sexuality, or religion slowly became criminal offences. Personnel departments became the first line of defence against accusations ensuring that no discrimination was taking place, as lawsuits could be expensive. Its role in health and safety, training, recruitment, and discipline similarly increased. In the 1960s and 70s, employers began to realise that there was a positive payoff in treating staff fairly and including them in certain aspects of decision-making. Ongoing training, it was reasoned, helped retain staff, as did employee benefits and taking steps to improve work/life balance. 

It was not until the 1980s that the term ‘human resources’ (a term many people dislike) became commonly understood. There was a growing recognition that workers are valuable ‘assets’ that can be nurtured, developed, and encouraged to be loyal, bringing benefits to employer and employee alike. Chartered status was granted to the CIPD in 2000. 

Since 2000, Human Resources (HR) in the UK has undergone a significant transformation from a largely administrative function into a central, strategic one. This evolution reflects changes in legislation, economic conditions, technology, and shifting expectations of work and employment.

A key driver of change since 2000 has been the expansion of employment legislation, including enhanced parental leave, flexible working rights, and anti-discrimination laws. As a result, HR’s role became increasingly centred on ensuring legal compliance and managing risk, positioning it as a necessary but primarily reactive function within organisations. Advances in technology have enabled the adoption of HR information systems and people analytics, allowing HR teams to make more data-driven decisions. Routine administrative tasks became more automated (some would argue, alienating its customers), freeing HR to focus on EDI, employee engagement, performance management, and organisational culture. During this period, HR also began to take a more active role in shaping workplace environments and aligning employee behaviours with organisational goals. Legislative developments, such as gender pay gap reporting, increased transparency, and accountability, while societal expectations pushed organisations to take a more active stance on fairness and inclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic represented a pivotal moment for organisations and for HR with the move to remote working, implementing furlough schemes, and supporting employee wellbeing during a period of unprecedented disruption. 

How do we respond?

When challenged about the contribution we make, it is easy to question the data or to talk generally or abstractly about what we do. It is also a human reaction to move to a defensive position and avoid engaging in the debate. Most HR people we know (and we include ourselves here) work hard, often in incredibly challenging and emotive situations, to help the people and the organisations we work for. But we are missing a trick if we do not reflect on how we are perceived especially how people feel about us and the contribution that we make. If the perception is that we add no value and make no contribution to the bottom line or to the future success of the business, then we must take that seriously and open up a discussion with the people who are ultimately our stakeholders and customers. 

What have we learned?

As we transition to our new business venture, we have taken stock of our long careers in Personnel/HR. As we have said earlier, it is easy to become defensive when evaluating your success, or otherwise. So, what have we learned?

1. Language is everything. We need to use business language and talk in a way that people understand avoiding jargon that alienates people or reinforces already entrenched (and negative) views. 
2. If what we want to do cannot be measured with hard data in terms of improving business performance, we should not do it. We must apply the same rigour to what we do as our colleagues are expected to do in their functions and roles. Indeed, if we want to be seen as credible, we must do this first.
3. Business is about managing risk and not being totally risk averse. It is easy to weaponise employment rights to advance an argument or a certain position; this does nothing to enhance our credibility. Sometimes a level of risk is necessary.
4. It’s not about process; it’s about people.
5. Align HR Strategy with business strategy especially around workforce planning which many of us find challenging.
6. Improve bottom line HR service delivery and measure stakeholder engagement and customer satisfaction. 
7. We should start with our customers - especially colleagues on the front line - and help build line management capability. 
8. Avoid trends and gimmicks unless they help improve business performance and only when they are re-shaped to fit the organisation and its culture.
9. What we do does not sit in a silo or in some elevated position. So, engaging in non-HR issues is essential. This improves our business knowledge and our credibility.  
10. And finally, there is a balance to be struck between being a policeman and a friend. So often, it is easy to unconsciously fall into the former. It is vital to nurture relationships.

As a profession, we have a history that we can be proud of. However, we cannot simply rely as being in a protected ivory tower nor as having some divine right to be here. We must prove that the impact that we have is measurable; that we can improve the bottom line and deliver competitive advantage through our people. We especially have a critical role to play when our organisations are undergoing change and in helping high growth companies embed good people practices at the very beginning of their journeys, so they are built on strong foundations. This is something we will explore in our next article. 

Continually deliver and demonstrate value

In today’s organisations, HR demonstrates value not by delivering processes nor by taking a risk-averse position, but by driving performance, capability, and adaptability in an unprecedented and fast-changing world. We must demonstrate that we can improve performance, reduce risk, build capability, and support our organisation’s strategic goals. When we combine business understanding, data-driven insight, and a focus on people as a source of competitive advantage, we move from being a drag on the business to a critical partner in delivering organisational success. This is not a discussion that we should run away from; we should welcome it as the very act of leaning into this conversation immediately improves our credibility.