How to Design Your CX Organization

No one formula exists for designing a customer experience organization. Many considerations do, however.

I’ve heard from countless CX executives, both seasoned and new, about how much more successful they would be if they reported to their CEO and owned all of the resources needed to execute their strategy. This way of thinking is almost always a trap.

There are scenarios where total control makes for a strong CX foundation. But being overly focused on reporting relationships and ownership of resources can lead you astray. Your CX program, given the wrong organization model, will either be suboptimal or — even worse — counterproductive.

How to Establish the Right CX Foundation With the Right Organization Model

It’s never as simple as just ownership of resources and to whom you report. As you look to build a new CX program or tune the one you’ve got, consider five factors:

  1. What are the core cultural characteristics of the company?
  2. What key capabilities and priorities define the CX strategy?
  3. What is the best approach for exerting authority across the organization to develop and execute the CX strategy?
  4. Who does, or should, the CX executive report to?
  5. How are peer-level partnerships managed and which partnerships are the most important?

As with any other key strategy for the company, we need to look at each of these to guide us on organizing for effective and efficient CX.

1. What Are the Core Cultural Characteristics of the Company?

Modern business research is replete with cultural models. The one I see the most often, which is particularly well-articulated and put to use by professors at the University of Michigan, suggests that there are four types of culture that drive organizations:

  • The Clan Culture — collaborative, focused on teamwork.
  • The Adhocracy Culture — focused on innovation and risk-taking.
  • The Market Culture — where the bottom line is the main priority.
  • The Hierarchy Culture — following the traditional structure and chain of command.

It’s also not hard to peg companies as predominantly sales-driven or engineering-driven or singularly focused on Wall Street financials (much like the Market Culture).

None of these labels are intended as judgments; they simply describe styles, behaviors and belief systems that help define the company. Most companies exhibit several or all of these characteristics in varying degrees, but I believe that every company has a lens through which most things (including tough decisions) are fundamentally viewed.

The organization where I was chief customer officer for 12+ years is decidedly engineering-driven and has a strong Hierarchy Culture. This is not a bad thing at all. It aptly defines a company with a product orientation that has built one of the broadest and most competitive technology product portfolios in the world. And the company is driven from the top down by a true visionary. You could also call it acquisition-focused, data-driven and uniquely competitive.

I could go on, but you get the idea. My thesis is simply that you need to understand various characteristics and consider how they affect leadership styles — and especially CX leadership.

Related Article: CX Decoded Podcast: Jeb Dasteel and Brian O’Neill on CX Leadership

2. What Key Capabilities and Priorities Define the CX Strategy?

Ask 20 CX leaders what the scope of their role is, and you will get 20 different answers. Layer onto that lots of ever-shifting priorities (due to internal and external factors), and you will get a large number of answers reflecting a diverse view of how CX is defined. There is a great variety of industries, business models, and markets.

In my experience, however, you can find common ground — and a consistent way to think about CX strategy — in a core set of CX capabilities. I assert that these are:

  • Customer Feedback, Data, & Analytics — collecting, analyzing, interpreting and reporting on customer input, as well as managing customer data across the enterprise. Consider programs such as the voice of the customer, customer data management, analytics, storytelling, customer segmentation and customer advisory boards.
  • Customer Engagement — interacting and collaborating with customers through programs that focus on account management, awareness-to-buy engagement, post-purchase engagement, executive sponsorship, issue resolution, user experience and proactive “white glove” customer care.
  • Customer Success — capabilities focused on effective product or service usage, customer communities and platforms for sharing best practices, product adoption and value realization.
  • Customer Marketing — developing customer content and related marketing campaigns, account-based marketing, customer references and reward/referral programs.
  • Customer-Centered Transformation — orchestrating business transformation and change management programs through the lens of customer experience and outcomes.

You can find much more on these capabilities, and related metrics, in my earlier article on the subject here.

3. What Is the Best Approach for Exerting Authority Across the Organization to Develop and Execute the CX Strategy?

There are countless leadership styles to drive CX strategy development and execution, but we can focus on just a few key ones:

  • An own-it-all model — where the CX leader owns most core CX functions providing direct authority over much of the CX strategy.
  • A federated model — where the CX leader owns relatively few functions and manages the overall CX strategy by influencing their peers.
  • A distributed model — where there are several CX leaders for different lines of business or business segments.
  • No central approach to the CX strategy — self explanatory.

I think we can readily agree that the last option is the clear loser. Each of the others will be the best choice depending on the other factors in play.

In my ongoing research, an interesting view is emerging: 36% of respondents tell me that their current CX organization approach is the own-it-all model. 22% have the federated model, and 42% have either a distributed model or no central approach at all. If you look at the 36% with the own-it-all model, 81% say they would stick with it. 10% would move to the federated model if they could, and about 10% would move to the distributed model. A snapshot of current findings is in the figure below, based on the current sample of 230 respondents.

Source link

We will be happy to hear your thoughts

Leave a reply

Enable registration in settings - general
Shopping cart