Dedicated AI leadership matters more than a title

AI appointments and platform policies leave a practical question open

An AI executive appointment leaves a practical question for the company: who has the time, authority, and business support to turn adoption into returns? Large corporations are adding senior AI roles as use expands, but an appointment alone says little about how the job works. Comparisons of reported return on investment, or ROI, suggest that executive attention and the choice of a primary AI platform matter.

But those comparisons need careful reading before companies decide what an appointment should accomplish. Korst, co-author of an August report, challenged a title-led response when speaking to CIO Dive for “Dedicated AI officers, platforms lead businesses to ROI.” “The headline many people will take from this is ‘hire a chief AI officer,’” he said. “That isn’t necessarily what the data or my experience says.” He focuses on the responsibilities behind the title and how the business organizes AI use.

Dedicated AI responsibility is associated with better reported ROI

The August report compared companies that created a position to oversee AI with those that assigned the work to an existing executive. Companies that created a position reported better ROI. Executives given AI oversight alongside their existing duties had to divide their attention, making leadership time central to the comparison.

Formal appointments show how widely companies have recognized AI at the executive level, though they answer a different question. The August report found that nearly 11% of Fortune 500 and S&P 500 corporations had a chief AI officer or an equivalent role, including Boeing, Eli Lilly, and McDonald’s. These examples show the presence of senior AI roles; the ROI comparison concerns whether oversight comes through a new position or an addition to an existing executive’s job.

Executive titles are also changing to reflect AI’s importance. In May, IBM surveyed 2,000 CEOs and found that executives were adopting hybrid C-suite titles, which combine responsibilities at the highest executive level, to reflect AI’s urgency. IBM sells AI technology and services, so it has a commercial interest in companies treating AI as a spending and leadership priority. Its survey tracks changes in titles, while the August report compares how responsibility is assigned and the returns companies report.

Korst’s concern is what happens beneath those changing titles. “The title is spreading faster than the dedicated role,” he told CIO Dive. He prioritizes genuinely dedicated responsibility, which means asking whether an appointment frees an executive to concentrate on AI or leaves existing duties intact. The practical test is how much attention the arrangement gives AI oversight.

A primary platform is associated with stronger reported returns

Executive attention is one organizational choice in the August report; platform use is another. Organizations using one approved AI platform reported higher ROI than organizations experimenting with several platforms under a formal policy. Because the comparison group already had rules governing multiple tools, the finding concerns how companies organize approved use. Korst reads it as a reason to choose a primary platform and pursue clear business uses within it.

A primary platform still leaves room to investigate tools suited to particular tasks. “That’s not to say that ROI-leading organizations aren’t continuing to evaluate and experiment with other tools for particular use cases; rather, the data seem to indicate that leaders have chosen a primary partner,” Korst said. In his view, a company can concentrate its main AI activity around one relationship while evaluating alternatives for specific needs.

Choosing that relationship therefore means deciding what the business intends to accomplish with the platform. An approved-tool policy sets out which tools employees may use, while a primary-platform decision focuses the organization’s main AI work. Targeted experiments can continue when a particular use warrants them.

Give AI leaders authority and active business partners

Acting on those choices brings the discussion from the report’s comparisons to Korst’s leadership recommendations. He advises companies to give AI leaders resources and authority, settle platform questions early, build business relationships, and anticipate future technology needs. These recommendations address how to run the role.

Resources and authority matter because dedicated attention gives an executive time to work, while decision-making power gives that executive a way to act. So a company assessing an AI appointment should examine which decisions the leader can make and what resources are available to carry them out. Assigning responsibility creates an expectation of results, so the appointment must give the person the means to pursue them.

The rest of the business also has to take part. Korst said AI requires a stronger partnership between technology and business leaders than any other technology transition he has experienced. His assessment places an ongoing obligation on executives outside the AI function to participate in the work and its decisions. An appointment establishes who is responsible, while business participation gives that person partners who can help turn decisions into action.

The chief information officer, or CIO, is a specific partner in that work. “A chief AI officer without the business beside them, or a strong partnership with their CIO, has a title, not a success mandate,” Korst said. Companies should examine whether the business and the CIO are actively involved in the AI leader’s work, because their involvement determines who helps make and carry out decisions across technology and business operations.

Platform selection is one decision Korst advises leaders to resolve early through those partnerships. Because the decision affects both technology and business outcomes, the people responsible for each need to agree on the platform’s purpose and who owns the work carried out with it. That agreement gives the AI leader a basis for deciding which business needs the platform should serve.

Once those initial choices are made, Korst advises AI leaders to keep investing time in business relationships and anticipating technology needs. Maintaining those relationships gives the role ongoing work beyond the appointment and platform selection. Planning for changing requirements adds another demand on the leader’s time, so a dedicated role needs room for both collaboration and decisions about what the business will need next.

Key takeaways for decision-makers

Dedicate executive attention to AI: Companies that created a position to oversee AI reported better ROI than those that added oversight to an existing executive’s duties. CEOs evaluating an AI appointment need to define its responsibilities and allocate enough time to carry them out.
Choose a primary AI platform: Organizations using one approved platform reported higher ROI than those using several under a formal policy. Business and technology leaders can focus their main AI work on a primary platform while continuing targeted experiments with other tools.
Give AI leaders authority and business support: CEOs need to pair AI accountability with resources, decision-making power, and active partnerships across the business. A strong CIO relationship helps the AI leader resolve platform choices early and plan for future technology needs.