How your organization chart tells your employees what you think of them.

25 years ago, the position of Chief Information Officer (CIO) or Chief Technology Officer (CTO) -it's called that, the first time I met one, does not exist in most companies.

In the early digitization phase, most companies define digitization as "having a website" and sometimes hire a full-time "IT" person with a desk near the stockroom.

When e-commerce became a proven business model, and management noticed that working with computers for any record-keeping was a good idea, the "IT person" was moved to a desk in or near the server room. Sometimes, the IT person was lucky enough to get a few assistants.

Today, the CIO/CTO is a C-level executive, and most companies rely on their entire departments for a huge part of their marketing, sales, administrative work, and well... pretty much everything else.

It only proves how current management feels about "Information Technology" and what they contribute to the organization.

But what about Human Resources? A lot of companies treat HR as part of operations together with other important but boring stuff, such as accounting, legal compliance, and purchasing.

If the person in charge of training, recruitment, performance evaluation, and compensation has the same level of influence as the person who buys office supplies, it is a clue on how management treats its employees.

Especially if it's under the person in charge of operations, that position is judged by the "efficiency" of his department to cut costs as much as possible to increase net profit from gross profit.

Unlike technology, employees have been around forever. However, a lot of companies only see them as tools rather than the driving force of corporate success.

Some companies even gave the head accountant a C-level position.

But it's rare to see a company where the person in charge of everyone else's professional development a seat at the big boy's table.

The first time I heard of the "Chief People Officer" position, it just hit me, why isn't the person in charge of the human element of the organization not a C-level position from the start.

People are the hardest to manage. They are entitled, they have unique personal issues, they create problems when there are none, and all the other nuances when dealing with a person -like a high-maintenance girlfriend.

That is a lot of work.

Processes and Machines do what you expect them to do most of the time. People -not so much. That is why trillions of dollars are being invested in AI, but that's another article for another time.

But people are what makes any company move, even if you are a tech company. People are involved in everything from the highest level of strategic planning up to cleaning up the mess in the toilet.

But why is the development of people not a primary factor in a C-level discussions before? While it is happening, it is still rare. Most strategic level executives would claim it's being done, but if the person in charge of team development is not at that table, then it's lip service.