Share article
Companies appoint a CX manager and quietly assume they’ve settled the question of who is responsible for the customer. Research and psychology both show why that’s a trap, and what a CX manager should own instead of the customer experience itself.
Picture a CX manager. Let’s call her Klára. She starts the job with a clear brief: raise NPS (Net Promoter Score, a measure of how willing customers are to recommend a company) by ten points. Within a year, she builds a customer listening programme, maps the main customer journeys, sends leadership a clear monthly report and compiles a list of forty points where customers run into problems. NPS doesn’t budge. At her annual review, the CEO asks her why.
The honest answer is uncomfortable. The biggest problems sit in billing, delivery and returns. Klára runs none of them. She spent the whole year doing exactly what she was asked to do, and still couldn’t succeed, because she was made responsible for an outcome that is shaped by other people. This isn’t one person’s failure. It’s a failure of the brief. And I’ll admit that this, more than anything else, is what frustrates me about our field: watching capable people eventually leave, exhausted and convinced they’ve failed, when the only real mistake was a task that could never be done.
On X Pulse, Dan Bauer has already written about why customer experience can’t hang on a single department and why it needs journey owners, in his article CX Without an Owner Doesn’t Work. The piece Who Really Runs Customer Experience looks at what governance should look like at leadership level. I want to look at the other side of the same coin: the person the company “assigns” responsibility for CX (customer experience) to. What goes on in the heads of the people around them, why the role so often hits a wall, and how to design it so it actually makes sense.
We have a team. We don’t have an owner.
When I first read the Qualtrics XM Institute study The State of CX Management, 2023, one pair of numbers stopped me in my tracks. Of 220 CX professionals at companies with more than a thousand employees, 78% said their organisation had a centralised CX team, and 62% had a senior executive responsible for CX across products and channels. On paper, then, most companies have sorted out CX ownership. Yet according to the same study, more than two thirds of companies sit in the first two of five stages of CX maturity, and only 3% have reached the top stage, where customer experience is genuinely woven into how the business runs.
The data is telling us something unexpected here: having a CX team doesn’t mean having clear ownership. And when you look at what’s holding companies back, the picture comes into focus. The most common obstacle is “other competing priorities” (66%), while 36% of respondents cite conflict between departments. But the biggest difference between CX leaders and laggards wasn’t technology or budget. Lagging companies were 43 percentage points more likely to cite inconsistent support from leadership, and 32 percentage points more likely to cite a lack of leadership for CX activities, than the leaders.
Gartner reached a similar conclusion from a different angle. Its Customer Experience Management Survey 2019 of 400 managers showed that marketing was increasingly taking responsibility for individual CX activities: the share of marketers who said their department alone ran the voice of the customer (VoC) programme rose from 38% in 2017 to 56% in 2019. At the same time, Gartner pointed out that decisions about CX spending were still spread across a whole range of departments. So responsibility is moving in one direction, while money and decision-making power stay somewhere else.
Why responsibility dissolves
This is one of the things I genuinely love about CX: a problem that looks organisational turns out to have its roots in psychology. In 1968, the social psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané published an experiment in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in which participants heard, over an intercom, another person having a seizure. When they believed they were the only ones listening, the vast majority stepped in. The more people they thought could hear the call, the later and less often they helped. The authors called this the diffusion of responsibility: the more people who could act, the less obliged each of them feels to do so.
Inside companies, this mechanism plays out every day. Every director sincerely believes they care about customers. But when a problem sits at the boundary between two departments, say between what marketing promises and what logistics can actually deliver, everyone reasonably assumes the other side is dealing with it. Meanwhile, the customer waits.
In its commentary on the CX Index 2025, Forrester named, among the causes of the fourth consecutive decline in CX quality in the US, the persistent gap between how executives perceive the quality of their customer experience and how customers actually experience it. That gap isn’t new. Bain & Company described it back in 2005 in its study Closing the Delivery Gap: of the 362 companies surveyed, 80% believed they delivered a superior experience, but according to their customers, only 8% actually did. A gap that size doesn’t open up because companies don’t care how customers feel. It opens up where no specific person has the job of measuring it, finding its causes and closing it.
The “we’ve got someone for that” trap
You’ll find an overview of organisational models, from a centralised team to a hybrid model with journey owners, in Dan Bauer’s article mentioned above. What interests me here is something else: what actually happens when CX ownership “lands” on a single team or a single person.
The best data on this comes from Aimee Lucas and Bruce Temkin’s report The Federated Customer Experience Model, originally published by Temkin Group and now maintained by the Qualtrics XM Institute. It’s based on a survey of 199 organisations with annual revenues above 500 million dollars. When the authors asked what central CX teams explicitly had in their remit, the top of the list was dominated by activities that generate insight: analysing customer insights (58%), sharing them across the company (57%) and reporting CX metrics (55%). At the bottom were activities that change behaviour and processes: leading process improvement (27%), creating employee training (21%), employee engagement initiatives (20%) and employee feedback programmes (18%).
The question of what CX teams are actually good at produced a similar result. Most respondents named working with customer insights. Teams were weakest at analysing and redesigning processes, designing new experiences, and training and coaching people. In other words, CX teams excel at what happens in spreadsheets and struggle where change actually happens.
The authors explain why. A central team has limited access to divisional leaders, lacks deep knowledge of their businesses, has priorities that don’t line up with the goals the divisions are measured on, and competes for budget with other central functions. According to the report, only around a quarter of companies say they can genuinely change how the business operates based on customer insights. Seven in ten CX professionals in their survey named “other competing priorities” as an obstacle.
The relief nobody admits to
I want to add a thought of my own here, because it seems to be missing from discussions about how to organise CX. Once a company has a CX manager, the psychology of diffused responsibility takes on a new dimension. The other directors are no longer just some of the many people who could act. Now they know exactly who should act. And for them, that’s a relief. The returns problem is a “CX issue”, so let CX deal with it. By appointing a single owner, a company can paradoxically weaken everyone else’s sense of responsibility even further.
I’ll confess I didn’t see this for a long time. I believed a good insight would sell itself. It doesn’t. An insight without an owner in operations is just interesting information, and the CX manager who brings it is seen by others as the messenger, not the decision-maker.
The CX manager doesn’t own the experience. They own the system.
This brings us to the misunderstanding that, in my view, lies behind most of the frustration felt by people in CX roles. A company appoints a CX manager and quietly assumes that, from that moment on, they “own the customer experience”. But the customer experience is created by billing, logistics, product, sales and support. The CX manager runs none of these processes. So they can’t own an outcome that is shaped by other people.
In its description of a CX centre of excellence, Qualtrics puts it surprisingly bluntly: the central CX team shouldn’t “own” the customer experience. Its job is to guide the rest of the organisation in adopting good CX practices and building them into their own work. Augie Ray, a VP Analyst at Gartner, said much the same in his commentary on the 2019 survey: the voice of the customer, personas and journey mapping shouldn’t be the responsibility of a single department.
I find it helpful to distinguish between two types of ownership. The CX manager owns the system: the measurement methodology, a single definition of metrics, the voice of the customer programme, prioritisation, reporting and the process that turns insights into actions. Departments own the outcomes: specific points along the customer journey, how they perform and fixing the problems that arise there. It’s a lot like finance. The CFO doesn’t own each division’s revenue, but they do own the system by which it’s planned, measured and reviewed. Nobody would ever say “finance is everyone’s responsibility”, and leave it at that, so that nobody actually runs it.
In practice, this means rewriting the brief for the role. Instead of “The CX manager is responsible for customer satisfaction”, the job description should say something like: “The CX manager is responsible for ensuring that every key point in the customer journey has a named owner, a target metric and a regular performance review, and that leadership can see where results are falling short of targets.” It sounds less heroic. But it can be achieved, and it can be measured.
Three kinds of authority, and why only one is on the business card
That leaves the question of how someone without line authority can get the head of logistics to change a process. Curtis Bingham, founder of the Chief Customer Officer Council community, distinguishes between three sources of authority available to a CX leader. I consider this distinction one of the most useful things I know about the role, because it shows that each source is built in a different way.
Positional authority comes from your place in the organisational structure. According to Bingham, it gives you an initial boost in influence, because a new CX leader attracts attention, but on its own it isn’t enough. In an interview with Zendesk, Bingham is blunt about it: if a CX leader sits four or five levels below the top, they have neither power nor authority. For company leadership, this suggests a simple check: who does your CX manager report to, and does that person sit at the table where priorities are decided?
Borrowed authority comes when someone with influence, typically the CEO, publicly says “this person speaks for me”. This is the biggest lever senior executives have, and also where they most often fall short. Data from the XM Institute’s The State of CX Management, 2023 shows that companies lagging in CX were 43 percentage points more likely than CX leaders to cite inconsistent leadership support as an obstacle. That’s because borrowed authority runs out. A sponsor who introduces the CX programme once at a company-wide meeting and then goes quiet tends to take authority away from the CX manager rather than give it.
Earned authority is built through results, and it takes the longest. Bingham cites the example of Jeb Dasteel, former chief customer officer at Oracle, who, according to Bingham, had no responsibility for customer service, product management or customer programmes, and yet was among the most effective people in his role.
What this means for the CX manager
In practical terms, I take three things from this. First, it pays to spend your first few months building authority rather than launching a big programme. One visibly solved problem, tackled together with operations and with a result you can put a number on, will do more for your position than the best dashboard in the world. Second, borrowed authority has to be negotiated explicitly. “Leadership support” isn’t enough. You need a concrete agreement: where and how often the CEO will publicly back CX, and who decides when departments disagree. Third, successes belong to the owners in operations, not to the CX team. Every bit of credit a CX manager keeps for themselves reinforces the impression that CX is their project, and in doing so weakens everyone else’s sense of responsibility.
Ambassadors: a network that can’t run on enthusiasm
A common response to a CX manager’s limited reach is a network of ambassadors, people who look after the customer experience directly within their own departments. It’s a sensible move. An ambassador has exactly what the central team lacks: access to operations, an understanding of the context and the trust of colleagues. The XM Institute calls this stage cross-functional participation and describes it as ambassadors bringing CX into their departments alongside their day-to-day work.
And that “alongside” is the catch. When companies in the XM Institute’s 2023 survey named their biggest obstacle to CX, the most common answer (66%) was “other competing priorities”. For an ambassador, this isn’t just true at company level; it’s true in their own calendar. Every hour spent on CX is an hour not spent on the goals they’re measured on. That’s why a network built on enthusiasm typically looks great for the first few months and then quietly falls asleep.
The federated model report shows several ways companies tackle this problem, and they’re worth going through, because each one targets a different weakness:
- Seniority and ownership of initiatives. Technology company Ciena created a group of Customer Experience Champions made up of directors and senior directors representing 20 areas of the business. They aren’t “liaisons” who simply receive tasks. Each of them is responsible for specific improvement initiatives in their own area and reports on them regularly.
- A regular rhythm and two-way flow of information. At Concur, a global group of CX catalysts received an update every two weeks on what the CX team was working on. The catalysts could sign up for projects and, crucially, flag related activities in other parts of the company that the central team didn’t know about.
- Dedicated time. Through its Take Three programme, VMware allowed employees to step away from their usual jobs for three months and spend that time in the central Customer Advocacy team; there was also a two-week version. People returned to their teams with a stronger customer mindset and a real appetite for further improvement.
- Ambassador as a job, not a volunteer role. Microsoft had around 100 so-called CPE Leads (Customer and Partner Experience) spread across more than 70 regions and 17 business segments. The key detail: they were hired and managed by the individual divisions, not by the central team. The centre provided them with data, methodology and coaching. CX wasn’t extra work on top of the job; it was the job, and responsibility sat where the budget sat.
If you’re setting up an ambassador network, ask yourself a simple question: does each of them have something customer-related in their annual goals, and does their line manager know how much time they spend on CX? If not, you’re not building a network. You’re building a list of volunteers.
A role that’s meant to gradually dissolve
While preparing this article, what struck me most was the idea Temkin’s report builds towards: the CX manager’s role changes fundamentally as the programme matures. The authors describe a journey through four stages. In the first, centrally led stage, the CX team holds the methodology, the data and the projects, and draws its authority from leadership. In the second, ambassadors or a working group are added. In the third, specialist teams emerge outside the central CX team. And in the fourth, federated stage, the centre coordinates strategy and standards, while the divisions have their own people responsible for CX within their part of the business. In its XM programme maturity model, Qualtrics places the federated model only at the fourth, advanced stage.
For the CX manager, this has a personal consequence that rarely gets discussed. According to the report, the people who succeed in this kind of evolution are those who develop a deep understanding of each department’s business. Rather than doing CX themselves, they teach and support others. They accept that it’s fine to let go of control so that others can take on responsibility. And they never stop learning. Some people from the central team, the authors say, choose to specialise and move into one of the centres of expertise.
The hardest part is letting go of control. A CX manager whose value rests on being the only person who understands the data has a natural reason to hold on to ownership. But that’s exactly the behaviour that keeps a company stuck in the first stage of maturity. Paradoxically, a CX manager’s success is measured by how much responsibility they’ve managed to hand out.
Honestly, this idea changed how I see the whole field. We’re used to measuring how important a role is by how much sits under it: people, budget, decisions. A good CX manager goes in exactly the opposite direction, and earns the best possible reference at the moment the company realises it can look after its customers without them. I don’t know many roles in business whose goal is to make themselves dispensable. And that’s precisely why I think it’s one of the most beautiful.
Seven signs the CX manager role has been set up wrong
Dan Bauer describes the general symptoms of a company that isn’t managing its customer experience in Customer Experience: A Simple Guide for Anyone Getting Started with CX. The signs below are narrower. They relate to how the CX manager role itself has been defined, and they work well as a checklist both for leadership and for CX managers who feel they keep hitting an invisible wall.
- The job description says “responsible for NPS” or “responsible for customer satisfaction”. In other words, for an outcome created in departments the CX manager doesn’t run. A better brief would be: responsible for ensuring every key customer journey has an owner, a target and a regular review.
- The CX team fixes what it finds itself. It rewrites emails, tweaks forms, handles escalations. It looks like hard work, but in reality it’s a sign that owners in operations are missing or are relying on the CX team.
- Successes are presented as the CX team’s successes. Every such presentation reinforces the idea that CX is one department’s project.
- The CX manager presents at leadership meetings but doesn’t make decisions. The charts are shown, people nod appreciatively, and the meeting moves on to the next item. No action with an owner and a deadline comes out of it.
- Ambassadors have neither CX in their goals nor dedicated time for it. The network then only works for as long as personal enthusiasm lasts.
- The CX team’s success is measured by output. The number of reports, surveys and mapped journeys keeps growing, but nobody tracks how many changes operations have actually made as a result.
- If the CX manager left tomorrow, the programme would grind to a halt. This may be the most accurate test of all. If CX stands or falls with one person, the company hasn’t distributed responsibility; it has simply moved it.
None of these signs on its own means the CX manager is failing. More often than not, they mean the brief is.
Back to Klára
Let’s return to our CX manager for a moment. What might her year have looked like with a different brief? Instead of “raise NPS by ten points”, she would have been tasked with making sure billing, delivery and returns had named owners with targets they were measured on. The CEO would have committed in advance to discussing CX results with his directors regularly and publicly. Klára wouldn’t have spent her first three months building dashboards, but on one joint project with the head of billing, with a result both of them could put a number on. And at the end of the year, nobody would be asking her why NPS hadn’t moved. They’d be asking the directors responsible for each journey.
For me, the most important point in all of this is that the CX manager shouldn’t be the owner of the customer experience, but its architect and its conscience. They design a system in which responsibility is clearly divided, and they keep relentlessly asking who will do what, about what, and by when. The experience itself belongs to the people who create it every day.
One final observation. Forrester repeatedly named weaker employee experience (EX) among the causes of declining CX quality in 2024 and 2025, and in 2026 it added a new Employee Experience Index to its overall Total Experience Score for the first time. For the subject of this article, that makes perfect sense. A CX manager without authority, an ambassador without time and a journey owner whose targets stop them from deciding in the customer’s favour are, first and foremost, employee experience problems. Anyone who wants to solve responsibility for CX also has to look at what working life is like for the people they’re entrusting it to.
And if you take just one question away from this article, make it this one: what would happen to your CX programme if your CX manager left tomorrow? If the answer is “it would stop”, you don’t have a CX manager problem. You have a problem with who owns the customer.
