The rise of the Chief Resource Officer (CRO) reflects how companies are reconceptualizing resource management within their organizations i.e., they are no longer managing resources in silos (e.g., Finance, HR, IT, etc.) and measuring performance by function but are looking at all resources as “shared” and measuring performance by organizational outcomes rather than function.
For example, in a manufacturing company, the leadership team blamed project delays on technical challenges; however, upon further investigation it was discovered that many factors contributed, including skills gaps, budget timing, and supplier dependencies. No single functional leader owned the challenges.
While adding a CRO is not an overnight solution, it may create tensions associated with overlapping functions. Some leaders may view it as encroachment rather than alignment, and as a result, leaders’ success with their CRO will depend upon having sufficient authority and clarity associated with the role. If there is no commitment to both, there is a risk that the CRO will be viewed symbolically rather than functionally.
The logic supports the need for a CRO; as organizations become more complex, the ability to coordinate will be just as important to achieving desired outcomes as capability.
You might be interested in: From Infrastructure Steward to Architect of Business Value
At JAMS Advisory, our view of the CRO is not an additional position in the organizational hierarchy, but rather as a connector ensuring that resources are not only “available,” but also work collectively towards achieving common organizational outcomes.
