MIT Professor Pitches AI-Native Org Chart to CHROs

Companies racing to integrate artificial intelligence into their workforces may need to redraw the organizational chart entirely, according to MIT professor Paul Cheek, who is pitching a new model to chief human resources officers. Instead of showing who reports to whom, an AI-native org chart would map which employees and AI agents have access to which systems, who can spend from which budgets, and who gets consulted on which projects.

Cheek argues that HR leaders have a narrow opportunity to take ownership of how humans and AI agents are organized across the enterprise, and to make AI literacy a core part of that transformation. His pitch comes as companies rapidly embed AI tools into daily operations, raising questions about accountability, spending authority, and decision rights that traditional reporting lines were never designed to capture.

A new study from Cheek's independent research organization, the AI-Driven Enterprise Institute, found that just over 30% of executives at S&P 500 companies are AI-literate. That group is achieving 78% stronger AI execution than their peers, according to the study. The gap suggests that most senior leaders lack the fluency to oversee AI-driven changes in their own organizations.

Cheek says the first step for CHROs is investing in AI training and upskilling for executives and employees. The next is rethinking the org chart itself. «The CHRO title itself needs to change from managing headcount to auditing whether a given role needs a human's judgment or an AI agent's uptime,» Cheek says.

In Cheek's model, the org chart would become a dynamic, living document that changes as AI agents are added, retired, or even build their own agents. It would track access to everything from social media accounts to Salesforce, as well as spending authority and decision-making responsibilities. That approach treats AI agents less as software tools and more as participants in the organization's workflow, with defined permissions and oversight.

Cheek acknowledges that he has not yet found a company that has implemented this kind of technologically advanced org chart. But he believes AI could help generate one, and he has created his own prototype using AI. The absence of real-world examples suggests the model remains aspirational, even as pressure grows on companies to demonstrate measurable returns from AI investments.

Cheek's pitch to CHROs is three-fold: learn how AI works, teach those skills across the company, and rethink which work should be done by people and which should be done by AI. The CHROs who take on that job, he says, are going to «emerge from the woodwork as the most influential and the most important strategic leader in the organization.»

The vision arrives at a moment when HR departments are already being asked to manage hybrid workforces, skills shortages, and rapid technological change. Cheek's argument positions the CHRO not as an administrator of headcount but as an architect of how work itself is divided between people and machines. Whether companies adopt the model or not, the underlying question — who decides what AI agents are allowed to do — is becoming harder to avoid.

4Views

Author

Caroline Mercer

World News Correspondent

Caroline Mercer covers public affairs, politics, business, culture and daily news for Core Memo. The role focuses on verification, context, and clear explanations for readers.

All articles by this author