The Chief AI Officer Isn’t the Answer

The path to effective AI isn’t a new title—it’s strategy, structure, and clarity.

“Chief AI Officer” is the latest in a long line of well-intentioned, but misguided, responses to emerging technology. It reflects a familiar pattern: when uncertainty grows, organizations reach for new executive roles instead of addressing the underlying structure. But in this case, the impulse may be doing more harm than good.

Here’s the truth: Most companies do not need a Chief AI Officer.

They need a strategy for how AI creates value, a structure for how it is deployed and governed, and clarity on who is accountable for making it work.

Why the Role Falls Short

Over the past year, I’ve worked with companies evaluating whether to create a Chief AI Officer role. These discussions often begin with enthusiasm—but quickly reveal deeper organizational questions: Where should this role sit? What would it own? How would it interact with existing teams? The more we explore, the clearer it becomes that the problem isn’t a missing title—it’s a lack of structure and alignment. Here’s why:

• It’s rarely a net-new capability. AI has been part of many organizations for years—powering demand forecasting, fraud detection, personalization, and workflow automation. Adding a new title doesn’t advance the work. It will likely complicate it.
• It introduces unclear ownership. Who now owns data—the CIO, the analytics team, the Chief Data Officer, or the CAIO? What about the underlying platforms? Use cases? Budget? Accountability becomes fragmented, not focused.
• The reporting and handoff lines are problematic. Should this person report to the CEO? The COO? Under digital, technology, or operations? Every path has tradeoffs—organizational tension, budget misalignment, and competing authority.
• The CAIO role is often created to “own AI”—but that approach is flawed. Many CEOs push for a Chief AI Officer because they want someone to “own” AI. But AI simply can’t belong to one person. Marketing must own its segmentation models. Manufacturing must own its labor optimization. Finance must own its forecasting. A centralized executive cannot—and should not—own all functional AI outputs. What’s needed instead is a Center of Enablement that provides common tools and data management, supported by shared AI governance for oversight and enterprise-level alignment. AI output accountability stays where it belongs: with the teams that use AI to drive performance.

These are not theoretical concerns. They are real structural tensions that stall AI progress—not accelerate it.

My research studies on executive role structure and design found that layering in new C-suite titles—especially without structural clarity—can significantly hinder productivity, delay speed to market, and diminish output quality. The data is clear: when leadership responsibilities overlap or remain ambiguous, performance suffers.

And yet, the push continues. Executive search firms and large consultancies are actively promoting the role—often without companies’ best interests in mind. In the absence of a defined AI strategy, some companies are appointing CAIOs as a way to look like they’re taking action. But motion isn’t momentum.

This is not thoughtful AI leadership. It’s organizational theatrics. And it’s harmful.

Experience, Not Hype

I’ve led AI initiatives both before and after ChatGPT. I’ve built AI and analytics capabilities, integrated them across enterprise platforms, and guided their use in operations, marketing, and customer engagement. Today, I advise companies on how to build the structures needed to scale AI responsibly and effectively.

What I’ve learned is simple:

No title will make up for a lack of strategy. And no strategy will succeed without structural clarity.

That has been the core of my work at Org.Works—and it’s the premise of my book-in-progress, Fix the Structure, Fix the Results. When roles are ambiguous and governance is fragmented, even the best efforts fall short.

What to Do Instead

If you’re serious about AI, don’t create a new vertical. Design a structure that supports it horizontally—integrated across the enterprise, not isolated in a tower and not duplicative to other functions. That means:

• Establishing a Center of Enablement, likely within IT, to manage platforms, data, integration, and shared governance.
• Implementing a federated model so that business functions—product, operations, marketing, HR—can drive their own AI use cases within a shared framework.
• Democratizing AI broadly throughout the organization to support insights and individual and departmental efficiency and innovation.
• Developing a governance model that aligns with your business’s risk profile—clear, flexible, and enabling.

And if you already have data, analytics, or technology leaders in place, revisit their roles and reporting—not by creating competition, but by clarifying scope and enabling success.

What You Might Need Instead

In a few select cases, a Chief AI Officer may make sense—especially in R&D-led companies, highly regulated sectors, or firms where AI is a commercialized product. But even then, the role must be clearly defined and structurally integrated—not bolted on.

More commonly, what’s missing is not a title, but a function: A Process Leader or Enterprise Automation Architect—someone with cross-functional reach to orchestrate how AI, intelligent agents, and automation are applied across workflows. Not a Transformation Officer. Not a catch-all innovation role. But a business-minded, execution-focused capability embedded in operations.

Final Word

AI doesn’t need another executive. It needs strategic alignment, structural clarity, and empowered leadership that likely already exists within your organization.

Before you create another title, take a hard look at your operating model. Fix that—and AI will have the foundation it needs to deliver results.

See the article on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chief-ai-officer-isnt-answer-dr-janet-sherlock-i03de/?trackingId=Z5J8mTqGRDCetYtI6Xz2ng%3D%3D