Is it time to rethink the division of c-level executive power?

Totally out of my depth, and probably labeled crazy for thinking I may comment, but on a Sunday night, thoughts are going through my head... and I promised to use this outlet for it, so here it goes:

Is it time to rethink the division of c-level executive power?

Traditionally, there are three main disciplines in forming business leadership and strategy, namely the financial (CFO), the information (CIO) and the human resource management (HR Manager) functions.

As suggested by the titles, this is somewhat evolved from the pre neo-classical division of capital, and no longer focuses on land, labour and production stock, but on finance, information and human beings.

The question is, are these divides really helping to structure the modern day formulation of strategy at c-level, or are they not the proverbial boxes that acteurs should be thinking outside of, having grown to be a barrier to true strategic vision instead?

No one can argue against the fact that information technology is becoming more pervasive in every function of business each day, almost to the point of ubiquity. Similarly, the human factor, by its very essence, is integral to every part of the modern business, in that it has a visible impact on accepted thinking standards, where leadership is valued over administrative management, knowledge over information and even EQs over IQs in an environment where personality is examined equally if not more thoroughly than factual expertise in the recruitment process of many companies.

Why then separate the functions at the highest level of strategic thinking? Why create artificial divides and competition for resources?

With a shift from information to knowledge, the function of the CIO shifts towards that of a CKO, which ultimately needs to annex part of the HR responsibility, where knowledge is not detached from the people that utilize it. Even in the constant battle to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, the CIO's ultimate goal must be to create an environment where this knowledge is made available again to the human aspects of the organisation, be they executive decision makers or front line workers.

This clearly underlines the need for a CIO / CKO to have not only a strong technical background with outstanding strategic understanding of the business as a whole, including significant insight into financial management to cooperate with a CFO peer, but also the desire to understand human aspects in excess of processes and procedures to manage inanimate objects.

With that in mind, the CIO / CKO looks to be set for becoming a sort of super c-level executive on par with the CFO, combining the current functions of the CIO and the HR Manager under one hat, combining the responsibility of managing both tangible and intangible, animate and inanimate assets of the company, both in regards to but also in extend of their monetary value in the CFO's balance sheet.

Clearly, this development warrants the formulation of a new nomenclature to avoid the pitfall of forcing the competencies of one originating discipline into the mindset of the other. The most logical solution here seems to be a title that reflects both backgrounds without favouring the other.

Hence, the Chief Facilitating Assets Officer (CFAO) is born.