The Telegraph has a small story on its front page today about the fact that there are 700 people working in the Cabinet Office’s HR department. Each department also has its own HR function.
The striking comment for me was that this was a concern in terms of slowing down the civil service headcount reduction that Steve Barclay (chief of staff) has been tasked with reviewing.
The full article is behind a paywall, so there’s probably more detail that I’m missing - but I found it interesting that this large HR department is seen as a blocker to organisational development and change. www.telegraph.co.uk/.../
A quick Google suggests that there are around 475,000 full time civil servants. In smaller organizations I've often advised that a sensible rule of thumb is about one HR staff member per 100 employees. That would imply a total population of HR staff of 4,750. Even allowing for economies of scale and the fact that there are embedded HR teams with many regional and specialist civil service groups, a Cabinet Office team of 700 HR staff responsible for the home of the UK Home Civil Service doesn't seem entirely unreasonable in that context.
A quick Google suggests that there are around 475,000 full time civil servants. In smaller organizations I've often advised that a sensible rule of thumb is about one HR staff member per 100 employees. That would imply a total population of HR staff of 4,750. Even allowing for economies of scale and the fact that there are embedded HR teams with many regional and specialist civil service groups, a Cabinet Office team of 700 HR staff responsible for the home of the UK Home Civil Service doesn't seem entirely unreasonable in that context.
