As artificial intelligence reshapes how we work, it’s also forcing a radical rethink of the corporate org chart itself, particularly at the intersection of people and technology. This has ignited a crucial debate: should HR and IT, two traditionally distinct functions, consolidate under a single leader, or forge a new kind of collaborative partnership? We’ll explore the emergence of roles like the chief productivity officer, weigh the risks of tech-led decisions versus human-centered strategy, and uncover what a “true partnership” between these departments looks like in practice—from shared governance to the day-to-day work of co-leading AI projects.
The concept of a chief productivity officer overseeing both people and technology is gaining traction. What are the primary benefits of this consolidation, and what significant risks of imbalance, such as one function overpowering the other, should leaders anticipate? Please share your thoughts.
The appeal of a chief productivity officer is undeniably strong, and it stems from a deep-seated frustration many leaders feel. For years, we’ve seen ownership of the employee experience get fragmented. HR might own the people strategy, while IT manages the workplace tools and platforms. This creates a disconnect where smart investments don’t translate into real change, processes slow to a crawl, and accountability gets completely muddled. Consolidating these functions under one CPO offers a tantalizingly simple solution: you get speedier processes, a single point of ownership, and a much clearer line of sight into the return on your technology investments. It’s an attempt to finally align the people, processes, and platforms that define modern work.
However, the risk is significant and shouldn’t be underestimated. You are merging two functions with fundamentally different DNA. HR is driven by a deep understanding of culture, ethics, and human judgment. IT is built around systems, data, and achieving scale. While AI needs both of these capabilities to succeed, housing them under one leader almost guarantees that one voice will eventually overpower the other. The most common scenario is that the tech-led perspective, with its focus on quantifiable metrics and systems, begins to dominate. This can lead to decisions that are technologically sound but culturally damaging, or the rollout of sophisticated tools that never get fully used because the human element of adoption was ignored. Over time, the organization can lose the very nuance and depth that makes it a great place to work.
HR often champions culture and human judgment, while IT is driven by systems and scale. When these functions are consolidated to drive AI initiatives, how can a company prevent tech-led decisions that neglect the human element, ensuring technology is adopted effectively and ethically?
This is the central challenge. The moment you consolidate, you create a power dynamic where the function with the more easily quantifiable metrics—typically IT—can overshadow the other. To prevent a purely tech-led approach, the organization has to deliberately and structurally embed HR’s perspective into the decision-making process from the very beginning. This isn’t about HR signing off on a project at the end; it’s about HR co-creating the project from day one. It means that before any AI tool is even considered, there must be a rigorous, human-centered analysis of the problem it’s supposed to solve.
The key is to reframe the goal. The objective isn’t to implement a new system; it’s to improve the employee experience or solve a specific workforce challenge. This shifts the conversation. Instead of IT presenting a solution, HR and IT must jointly define the problem and the desired human outcome. This requires building ethical guardrails and adoption metrics into the project charter itself. For example, success isn’t just measured by the percentage of employees who have logged into the new AI tool, but by qualitative feedback on whether it makes their job more meaningful, or quantitative data showing a reduction in administrative burnout. Without these foundational checks and balances, the human element becomes an afterthought, and you risk deploying technology that is ethically questionable or simply ineffective because people don’t want to use it.
Instead of merging departments, some leaders are forging a “true partnership” between HR and IT. Could you describe what this collaboration looks like day-to-day? For example, how do teams co-lead AI projects, from defining a problem to measuring the final outcome for the workforce?
A “true partnership” completely transforms the dynamic from a transactional relationship to a deeply collaborative one. In the old model, HR would simply go to IT with a request for a new piece of technology. In a partnership, they work side-by-side from the initial spark of an idea. It starts with problem definition. An HR business partner might identify that managers are spending too much time on performance review paperwork. Instead of researching software vendors, they bring this problem to their IT counterpart. Together, they sit with managers, map out their workflow, and truly diagnose the pain points.
From there, they co-lead the entire process. They might form a small, cross-functional team to test potential AI-driven solutions. IT brings the technical expertise to evaluate the platforms, while HR ensures the solutions are intuitive, fair, and align with the company’s culture. They jointly define what success looks like, creating a balanced scorecard of metrics. This would include technical metrics from IT, like system uptime and data accuracy, but also crucial human-centered metrics from HR, like employee adoption rates, sentiment scores from pulse surveys, and even data on whether the tool has improved manager-employee conversations. This day-to-day collaboration ensures that the technology is not just implemented, but truly integrated into the fabric of how people work.
To ensure a successful HR-IT partnership, what specific structures, like shared governance or cross-functional teams, are most critical? How should leadership incentives be redesigned to focus on employee impact and adoption, rather than simply on technology rollout metrics? Please elaborate with examples.
To make a partnership real, you absolutely must put formal structures in place; otherwise, it’s just good intentions. The most effective structure I’ve seen is a shared governance model, often in the form of an “AI & Workforce Steering Committee” co-chaired by the CHRO and an IT leader. This group is responsible for prioritizing projects, allocating resources, and resolving conflicts. Below this committee, you need dedicated cross-functional teams for each major initiative. These teams shouldn’t just be liaisons; they should be blended teams of HR specialists, IT developers, data analysts, and employee experience designers who are fully dedicated to the project’s success.
Redesigning incentives is perhaps the most powerful lever you can pull. If the IT leader’s bonus is tied solely to delivering a project on time and on budget (rollout metrics), while the HR leader is measured on employee engagement, their priorities will inevitably diverge. Instead, leadership incentives must be shared and tied to outcomes. For instance, both the CHRO and the IT leader could have a significant portion of their bonus linked to a metric like “productive hours saved for employees,” measured through a combination of system analytics and surveys. Or, they could be jointly accountable for achieving a 90% adoption rate and a positive employee sentiment score for a new AI tool within six months of launch. This forces them to think and act as one team, because their personal success depends on the true impact on the workforce, not just on checking a box for a technology rollout.
A key to success is shifting focus from organizational charts to shared outcomes. What are the first steps a CHRO and an IT leader can take to build mutual respect and establish shared goals and metrics for an upcoming AI implementation?
The very first step is for the CHRO and the IT leader to get out of their functional silos and build a foundation of mutual respect. This starts with genuine curiosity. The CHRO should spend time with the IT team to deeply understand the tech strategy, the current system architecture, and the constraints they operate under. Likewise, the IT leader needs to immerse themselves in the people strategy, understanding the nuances of company culture, talent development, and the human challenges the business is facing. This isn’t about becoming an expert in the other’s field, but about appreciating the value and complexity each brings.
Once that respect is established, they should collaborate on a small, tangible project to build trust and momentum. They can pick one specific, high-visibility pain point in the organization and jointly own the solution. The critical task here is to co-create a “shared success statement” before any work begins. This statement should clearly articulate the business problem, the desired outcome for employees, and the handful of shared metrics they will both be accountable for. For an upcoming AI implementation, this could be as simple as: “Our goal is to reduce administrative tasks for our sales team by 10 hours per month, leading to higher client satisfaction and lower team attrition, and we will measure success through system data, pulse surveys, and sales performance.” This simple, shared alignment is the bedrock upon which a powerful and effective partnership is built.
What is your forecast for the HR-IT relationship over the next five years?
My forecast is that the partnership model will overwhelmingly win out over consolidation. While the idea of a single chief productivity officer is compelling, I believe organizations will quickly discover that the nuances of both human capital and technology strategy are too vast and complex for one person to master effectively. The risk of creating a tech-first or people-first imbalance is just too great. Instead, we are going to see the CHRO and senior IT leaders become one of the most critical and tightly aligned pairings in the C-suite, second only to the CEO-CFO relationship.
Over the next five years, this partnership will become institutionalized. We will see more formal shared governance structures, budgets that are co-owned by HR and IT for workforce technology projects, and incentive plans that are explicitly linked. The lines will blur, with more tech-savvy professionals working in HR and more human-centered design experts joining IT. The debate won’t be about shared titles, but about shared goals and mutual respect. Ultimately, AI works best when it supports people, and that only happens when HR and IT move forward together—separate in their core expertise, but tightly aligned in their mission to build a better workplace.
