In some ways, one should feel sorry for Bolt Financial's Ryan Breslow - who grew so frustrated with his company's human resources team that he sacked the lot of them.

Presumably, they had to deliver their own termination letters to themselves after, Mr Breslow says, they created too many 'problems that didn't exist'.

The HR team that was sacked - who may have been part of the cull of 30 per cent of the company's workforce in April, the fourth set of layoffs in as many years - may have respectfully disagreed.

But his braggart remarks have restarted the decades-old debate about just how useful HR departments are - having endured years of being the butt of the joke in shows such as the US version of The Office and the cult comedy film Office Space.

And they come hot on the heels of a report from the centre-right think tank Policy Exchange, which claims HR - meant to be the protective shield around the interests of a business - has become become bloated and over-encumbered.

Human resource departments are, it claims, more concerned with pushing 'radical' equality, diversity and inclusion policies and protecting corporate interests rather than looking after staff - and they're costing firms £10billion a year.

HR has exploded in Britain over the last 15 years: the number of people working in resource roles grew 83 per cent between 2011 and 2023 - and make up roughly 1.6 per cent of the workforce, twice the average in the EU.

This, the report's author says, is bogging companies down as they fixate on taking the 'right' political positions, while staff are cowed into keeping quiet lest they say the 'wrong' thing.

In Government, the proportion could be even higher - though it contests the figures in Policy Exchange's report. 

A 2022 audit of the Cabinet Office found it had around 700 HR staff out of around 11,000 people in the government department, or six per cent of the total workforce.

And with growth like that comes increasing bureaucracy: six-figure senior HR roles and a smorgasbord of equality training initiatives that, critics say, are distracting people from getting on with their work. 

Such infamous initiatives include the 'unconscious bias' training that cost the Government £370,000 over five years between 2015 and 2020, despite mandarins admitting they weren't sure how effective it was at combating stereotypes. 

Then there were the claims of 'emotional check-ins' before Cabinet Office meetings, as spelled out by former executive director Pamela Dow, who called the spread of such practices 'illuminating and depressing'.

Writing for the New Statesman, she said: '‘There is increasing concern that the size, remit and seniority of HR functions may be causing harm: to individuals at work, to the effectiveness of organisations, and to the economy.’'

They can, in fact, cause damage beyond work - as bank manager Carl Borg-Neal found out when he asked what to do if he heard a black person use the N-word in the workplace during an anti-racism training session.

Mr Borg-Neal, who worked for Lloyds, inadvertently used the word due to his dyslexia, and was dismissed for gross misconduct.

An employment tribunal later awarded him almost £500,000 in damages after it ruled that his question had been asked without malice. 

And questions must be asked about the purpose of HR departments when human resources staff themselves become the kind of issue they're hired to investigate.

Kristin Cabot, the chief people officer at tech firm Astronomer, went viral last July after she was seen in a romantic embrace with her boss, CEO Andy Byron, at a Coldplay concert in Foxborough, Massachusetts.

With nobody to take her case to - who manages HR for the boss of HR? - Cabot resigned, as did Byron. 

She has since claimed Byron lied to her about his marriage and that the scandal has rendered her 'unemployable' - presumably because HR departments are shredding her CV upon arrival. Byron has never spoken out.

Bolt Financial boss Ryan Breslow is not alone in dropping a dedicated HR department - but the claim does come with caveats. 

Energy sweetheart Octopus Energy hit the headlines in 2021 after CEO Greg Jackson told BBC News he had done away with a centralised human resources operation.

He pinned the decision on his distaste for so-called 'command and control', and experience of running small companies with just a few staff where he would have to wear many hats, including that of HR.

That's not to say Octopus doesn't engage in the process of HR, be it nurturing the development of hard-working and loyal staff or sorting grievances.

Instead, Octopus says, these are dealt with by managers who know their staff well 'rather than making it someone else's problem'. 

Kate Palmer, chief operating officer at UK HR juggernaut Peninsula, says no approach to HR is necessarily wrong - even one that does away with the concept of an HR department.

'The 'right way to do HR' in a business will vary greatly dependent on the business’ expectations of the role,' she told the Daily Mail.

'In some, there may be no HR function at all, with managers in the business taking on the responsibility alongside their day-to-day duties.'

She added: 'A business that wants to position itself attractively in the market, whilst staying compliant with the law should not underestimate the importance of HR.'

And despite his headline-grabbing claim, Bolt's CEO Ryan Breslow has admitted that the company still has a 'people operations' team.

And even he believes that larger companies should not be so quick to make the same move - though his, as a WFH firm, can do without.

'We replaced it with a couple-person people ops team, which was meant to just streamline people operations,' he said at the Fortune Workplace Summit conference.

'I can't say that I would advise the same in a large company but we're back in startup mode.

'Those HR professionals have really important insights when you're in a peacetime, when you're at a larger company.

'We're a remote company. A lot of the potential issues that you would have in a workplace don't really exist because you're not in the same room as somebody.'

Nethertheless, the financial services company boss has revelled in the praise of those who think along the same lines, tweeting an image of a winking ghost in a tie next to a gravestone reading 'RIP HR' on May 20.

'I didn't realized [sic] today was International HR Day,' he wrote - a snarky nod to the 'international day' invented by a Lithuanian body of HR professionals.

Detractors have also pointed out that Breslow's record in business is questionable. 

In 2021, he took out a $30million personal loan on which the company was named a guarantor - later defaulting on it, leaving Bolt to soak up the damage.

A US government investigation saw him leave the company, returning as CEO last year as its value dropped, with $37million of his shares cancelled.

And Bolt, which once professed to be worth as much as $11bn, has plunged in value to a reported $300million as of 2024.

Opinion remains split on his decision - between those who see HR as space-wasters to those working in the profession who, perhaps understandably, hold a different view.

Nicholas Behbahani, an HR professional, wrote: 'For me it’s genuinely surprising to hear a CEO publicly make a statement like this.

'The reality is that HR doesn't "create" problems; it uncovers and addresses the complex realities of human dynamics in the workplace. 

'Believing that removing your HR team makes your organizational problems disappear is a dangerous illusion!'

Forebodingly, IT executive Amy Diehl wrote on X: 'Firing HR and all your problems disappearing is like removing the smoke alarm because the noise was bothering you.'