Behind the rise of the chief productivity officer and what it means for companies and employees
A recent prediction in a Fast Company article raised some eyebrows in the HR profession, proposing that by 2026 the traditional HR director title will begin to give way to another executive role: chief productivity officer.
Rather than simply merging HR and IT, the newly created position of CPO (not to be confused with the already common chief people officer) is envisioned as the leader who orchestrates people and technology together to drive business outcomes. Moderna and the British government are among early adopters, but does the shift make sense for most other organizations?
Some people management experts say yes — if companies understand what the job is truly meant to solve for.
Cliff Jurkiewicz, the author of the Fast Company article and vp of global strategy and GM of the Customer Advisory Council at tech company Phenom, said the rise of the CPO is a correction to a problem employers created: turning “humans-in-the-loop” into a job description rather than a technical safeguard. “Employees became the final catch for broken processes and half-built workflows,” he says. “That’s where work becomes draining instead of meaningful.”
Jurkiewicz argues that the chief productivity officer title puts people back in the lead. The role establishes shared ownership of productivity across HR, IT and business teams, aligning skills development, workflow design and intelligent automation. “People and technology now operate as one system,” he explains. “Without someone stewarding that system, organizations drift into inefficiency.”
He points to three forces driving the shift: outdated leadership models, HR’s struggle to redefine its strategic purpose and the realization that human and digital work must be managed as an integrated whole. “This isn’t HR disappearing,” he emphasizes. “It’s HR being redefined around measurable productivity and intentional work design.”
Mark Onisk, chief content officer at the ed tech company Skillsoft, agrees that tighter integration is needed but cautions that merging HR and IT is only beneficial if it aligns with strategy and digital maturity. “When these functions collaborate, organizations can better use skills data, AI-driven analytics, and integrated platforms to close skill gaps and boost productivity,” he says. But without tech fluency, governance, and clear accountability, combining functions can create more confusion than clarity.
Onisk notes that the shift is being accelerated by the move from role-based to skills-based models. HR and IT can no longer afford to operate in silos, yet collaboration, not necessarily a new C-suite title, may be the more effective solution.
According to Erika Duncan, co-founder of HCM advisory People On Point, the prediction of a CPO replacing the HR director oversimplifies what’s really happening. “Strategic HR leaders have always been responsible for talent, performance, culture, and organizational effectiveness,” she says. “AI and workflow automation simply expand the toolkit.” The real opportunity is integrating human capital strategy with technology enablement, not collapsing functions into one executive, she proposes.
Neil Morrison, global chief people officer at EX platform Staffbase, shares that cautious view. He says organizations shouldn’t assume a hybrid role is necessary if the CHRO and CIO are already aligned. “Don’t let gaps in focus convince you that you need a new role,” he warns. “Merging functions can risk bias toward one discipline, leaving blind spots in people strategy or technical enablement.”
For many organizations, Morrison believes the deeper message is that strategic alignment, not structural overhaul, is what’s overdue.
Some say the debate is mis-framed entirely, meanwhile. Gia Lacqua, CEO of marketing agency network elivate, argues that companies don’t have productivity problems but, rather, capacity problems. “People aren’t drowning because they’re not productive enough; they’re drowning because they’re overloaded and operating in survival mode,” she says.
If a chief productivity officer simply demands more output, the role will fail, she suggests. But if it focuses on reducing friction and enabling meaningful work, it could represent a new era of human-centered leadership. “In that case, let’s call it what it is: maybe chief performance officer,” she says.
For Jan Hendrik von Ahlen, founder and managing director of JobLeads, a coaching and job listings platform, the CPO makes sense only if productivity is defined as outcomes, not oversight. “AI is reshaping workflows, and growth comes from enablement, not headcount,” he says. A strong CPO can connect skills to real work and simplify processes, he suggests.
“This isn’t HR disappearing,” he stresses. “It’s HR gaining teeth and velocity.”