Customer Experience is now firmly established on the strategic agenda of many companies. Customers are surveyed, data is analyzed, customer journeys are developed, and metrics such as the Net Promoter Score are tracked. Today, we probably know more about customers, their needs, expectations, and pain points than ever before.

And yet, the actual customer experience often improves surprisingly little.

This is a contradiction I find particularly interesting when working with organizations. If the knowledge is there and the methods are well established, why do the same customer problems sometimes persist for months or even years?

The uncomfortable answer is this: Customer Experience often does not fail because of the customer. It fails because of the organization.

This is something we discuss regularly at O’Donovan. Customer centricity is not just about customer journeys, surveys, or data. What matters is whether an organization is actually capable of turning these insights into decisions and implementing meaningful change.

Put differently: understanding the customer is not enough. You also need to act on that understanding.

We don’t have an insight problem. We have an execution problem.

Consider a typical company. There is customer feedback. There are complaints. There are reports. There may even be a well-developed customer journey. The key pain points are known and have probably been presented several times already.

Then you ask a fairly simple question:

Which customer problem have we known about for more than twelve months, and why does it still exist?

That is when things get interesting.

Because often, the issue is not a lack of insight. It is the organization’s inability to turn those insights into consistent, coordinated action. This is also the starting point of our Executive Guide, “10 Reasons Why Customer Experience Fails.”

The problem is not market research. Nor is it necessarily the quality of the data collected. It lies in decision-making processes, responsibilities, priorities, and organizational structures.

And that is when Customer Experience becomes a matter of organizational development.

A Customer Journey Alone Does Not Change an Organization

Customer journeys are a good example of this.

They are an excellent tool for shifting perspective. They show how customers actually experience a company. Not along departmental lines and organizational charts, but along their own journey.

That can be very insightful.

But a customer journey initially changes only our perspective. It does not change a process.

This is exactly where a gap emerges in many companies. Weak points are identified. Breaks between channels and systems become visible. Problems at the handoffs between departments are recognized. Everyone nods in agreement during the workshop.

And then what?

If these insights do not lead to decisions, clear responsibilities, and concrete actions, the customer journey remains an analytical tool. In the worst case, it ends up beautifully visualized on a wall while the customer continues to experience the same problem.

The PDF captures this point very well: what matters is not only the quality of a customer journey, but also the organization’s ability to turn the insights gained into coordinated action.

For me, that is a crucial distinction.

Customer Experience Management must not stop at understanding. It needs to influence decisions.

More Customer Data Will Not Solve This Problem

The obvious response is often: we need more data.

So another survey is conducted. Another dashboard is built. NPS, complaint data, service requests, and usage data are consolidated. The data set grows.

But none of this changes anything by itself.

Data initially creates knowledge. Impact only happens when that knowledge is prioritized, assessed collectively, and translated into concrete decisions. This is why companies can have an impressive data landscape and still spend years discussing the same customer problems.

A more useful question to ask within your own organization is therefore not:

“How much customer data do we have?”

But rather:

“What specific decision have we made differently in the past three months because of customer feedback?”

If there is no clear answer to that question, another dashboard is probably not what is missing.

The problem runs deeper.

The Customer Does Not Know Your Organizational Chart

Another reason lies in the structure of many organizations.

Companies are organized, quite sensibly, around functions and areas of responsibility. There are sales, marketing, service, IT, product management, operations, and other departments. Each area has its own tasks, objectives, and metrics.

The customer does not care about any of that.

They do not experience your departments.

They experience your company.

If sales promises one thing, service says another, and IT implements the process differently from a technical perspective, the customer does not think: “Interesting interface issue between three organizational units.”

They are much more likely to think: “Why doesn’t this work?”

That is why I think it is too simplistic to treat silos as the enemy. Silos are often not the cause of the problem, but the result of how organizations are structured. They become critical when decisions are made exclusively within these boundaries and no one takes responsibility for the customer experience across them.

This is one of the reasons why genuine customer centricity almost always requires cross-functional collaboration.

Because Customer Experience is shaped at the handoffs.

And that is exactly where organizations become interesting.

When Everyone Is Responsible, Sometimes No One Is

Customer Experience has another distinctive characteristic: a large number of people contribute to it.

At first, that sounds positive. And it is.

But it can quickly create a classic organizational problem.

Sales is involved. Marketing is involved. Service is involved. Product management and IT are involved. Everyone contributes to part of the customer experience.

But who is accountable for the overall outcome?

In many companies, the honest answer is: no one, really.

Decisions then need to be coordinated across departments, initiatives lose priority amid day-to-day business, and improvements take months to implement. Each department does its job. Yet the customer experience does not improve significantly.

The Executive Guide therefore provides an important test: Is there clear accountability for cross-functional Customer Experience topics, and does whoever holds that accountability also have the necessary decision-making authority?

Because accountability without decision-making authority is ultimately little more than a well-worded responsibility on paper.

When Everyone Hits Their KPIs but the Customer Still Loses

This brings us to another classic issue: metrics.

Of course, organizations need KPIs. They create transparency and help manage performance.

The problem arises when each department focuses exclusively on optimizing its own metrics.

Sales maximizes conversions. Service reduces handling times. IT optimizes technical stability. Each individual decision may make perfect sense from the perspective of the respective department.

And yet, the combined result can still be a poor customer experience.

This is one of the most interesting questions when designing Customer Experience: Are our metrics optimizing individual departments, or are they actually optimizing the customer experience?

The Guide highlights precisely this tension and asks whether metrics encourage collaboration along the customer journey or primarily drive optimization within individual departments.

At first, this may sound like a minor detail of performance management.

But it is not.

It determines which behaviors are rational within the organization.

Customer Centricity Does Not Belong in a CX Department

There is another trap that initially seems perfectly logical.

A company wants to improve its Customer Experience. So someone is given responsibility for it.

A CX department is established, or an existing team takes ownership of the topic. They conduct surveys, facilitate workshops, create customer journeys, and develop ideas for improvement.

That can be important.

But this department can never create the customer experience on its own.

Because Customer Experience is shaped wherever processes are designed, decisions are made, and services are delivered to customers.

That is why customer centricity must not be seen as a specialist discipline reserved for a small group of experts. Sustainable customer centricity becomes a leadership and organizational responsibility. This is also a key point highlighted in our Guide.

A CX function can facilitate, create transparency, provide methods, and drive change.

But it cannot take responsibility for the customer away from the rest of the organization.

And Please Don’t Turn Customer Centricity into the Next Project

There is another pattern we see in many transformation initiatives.

A topic becomes important.

So we turn it into a project.

Project team, kick-off, action plan, milestones, presentations. Everyone is engaged. For a while, momentum builds.

And eventually, the project ends.

Unfortunately, the customer experience does not end with it.

Customer centricity therefore cannot work as a project in the long term. Projects can initiate change. They can help develop structures and create momentum. But at some point, the capability needs to become part of everyday leadership and organizational practice.

That is precisely why the Executive Guide describes customer centricity not as a time-limited initiative, but as an organizational capability that needs to be continuously developed.

For me, that is at the heart of the entire topic.

Customer Centricity Starts with the Organization

Perhaps we are sometimes asking the wrong question.

We ask:

How can we understand our customers even better?

Yet many companies already know a remarkable amount about their customers.

The more interesting question might be:

How can we turn the customer knowledge we already have into coordinated action more quickly?

Suddenly, the conversation shifts to decision-making processes.

To accountability.

To leadership.

To collaboration.

To priorities.

To performance and target systems.

And to an organization’s ability to actually implement change.

That is why, for me, sustainable customer centricity does not start with the next tool. It starts with the organization.

The final point in our Guide brings this together very well: organizations that deliver a strong Customer Experience are not necessarily different because they know more about their customers. They are different because they act on what they know.

A Quick Reality Check for Your Organization

If you want to understand where your organization stands, ask yourself a few simple questions:

• Are there customer problems you have known about for more than a year?
• Do you create customer journeys without consistently turning the insights into change?
• Do you collect a lot of customer feedback but make few decisions as a direct result of it?
• Do your departments optimize their own KPIs more than the overall customer experience?
• Is it unclear who is actually accountable for cross-functional CX topics?
• Do improvement initiatives regularly lose priority amid day-to-day business?

If you find yourself nodding at several of these points, it does not automatically mean that your Customer Experience work is poor.

It may simply mean that you already know enough about your customers and now need to focus on your organization’s ability to change.

That is why our Executive Guide also includes a concise CX Reality Check with ten statements and an immediate assessment. It helps you evaluate whether your organization already has the right foundations for sustainable customer centricity or whether structural barriers are limiting the impact of your CX initiatives.

Conclusion: Customer Experience Is an Organizational Capability

More data can help.

A customer journey can help.

A CX team can help.

New technologies can help.

But none of these can replace an organization’s ability to turn customer knowledge into coordinated action.

That is what ultimately determines whether Customer Experience remains a strategic ambition or actually reaches the customer.

Customer centricity is not reflected in how many insights a company has collected about its customers.

It is reflected in what the company does with those insights.

And perhaps that is the most important question to take away from this article:

What does your organization already know about its customers, and why has it not acted on that knowledge yet?

Go Deeper: Listen to the Podcast, Download the Guide, or Talk to Us

If you would like to explore the topic further, there are three ways to do so.

Listen to the podcast: In the corresponding episode of Veränderungsstabil, I take a deeper look at why customer centricity must go beyond methods and discuss the role that organizations and leadership play in making it work.

Download the Executive Guide: Our PDF, “10 Reasons Why Customer Experience Fails,” takes a closer look at ten common organizational causes. For each one, you will find specific indicators to look out for and a reflection question for your own organization. At the end, the CX Reality Check allows you to assess where your organization currently stands.

👉 Download the Executive Guide “10 Reasons Why Customer Experience Fails”

Or would you prefer to move beyond analysis and start actively improving your Customer Experience? Then let’s talk about which organizational levers you can use to make a real difference.

👉 Schedule a no-obligation consultation with O’Donovan Consulting.

We invest a great deal of time and energy in welcoming people into organizations today.

There are onboarding processes, induction plans, welcome packages, introductory meetings, and the well-known first 100 days. By now, companies understand quite well that the way people join an organization can determine how quickly new employees find their bearings and develop a connection with it.

But eventually, there is also a last day at work.

And suddenly, a completely different set of rules seems to apply.

Someone who was a valued colleague, top performer, or trusted sparring partner just yesterday resigns. Or the organization decides that continuing the working relationship no longer makes sense.

And what should be a normal process can quickly turn into an emotionally charged situation.

This is where a leadership capability becomes visible that receives surprisingly little attention:

The ability to manage separations well.

Organizations are not static entities. People join. People develop. Roles change. Interests shift. And people leave organizations again.

This is just as much a part of organizational life as growth, promotions, or new hires. Yet many organizations still treat departures as if they were accidents. As something that should never have happened in the first place.

Perhaps it is time to start approaching endings with the same care and intention as beginnings.

Why We Are Better at Onboarding Than Offboarding

When a new employee joins, very few companies today would say:

“They’ll figure it out somehow.”

When someone leaves, however, things often look very different.

Information comes too late. Managers take the departure personally. Colleagues are unsure how to respond. Customers hear about the change indirectly. And after years of good collaboration, the final few weeks suddenly become uncomfortable.

Yet the logic should actually be quite simple.

An organization cannot decide whether people will eventually leave.

But it can certainly influence how they leave.

That is the difference between professional offboarding and leaving behind a trail of damage.

Good offboarding is therefore not simply an administrative HR task. It is a leadership responsibility.

Of course, access rights need to be revoked, hardware returned, and employment references prepared.

But the questions that really matter lie elsewhere:

How do we communicate with each other?

How do we inform the team?

How do we communicate with customers?

What actually needs to be handed over?

How do we want to bring our time together to a close?

And what kind of relationship do we want to have afterwards?

Why Resignations Become Personal So Quickly

On paper, a resignation is a business decision.

In reality, it is rarely purely rational.

Leadership, after all, is about relationships.

You invest time in people. You build knowledge. You develop projects together. You may even be planning the next few years with someone.

And then that person says:

“I’m leaving.”

Of course, that can be disappointing.

That is human.

For a moment, it may even feel as though someone is letting the team down. Especially when a great deal of time and energy has been invested in that person’s development.

In the podcast, we speak very openly about the fact that these feelings are perfectly valid. What matters is what happens next.

Because it becomes problematic when disappointment turns into exclusion.

When an employee suddenly stops receiving information.

When meetings take place without them.

When colleagues sense that they should probably avoid working too closely with “the person who is leaving.”

Or when someone who was valued yesterday is suddenly treated like a traitor.

Good leadership does not mean having no emotions.

It means handling them responsibly.

Poorly Managed Departures Cost Organizations a Great Deal of Energy

Many companies postpone necessary separations for a surprisingly long time.

Everyone involved already knows that the working relationship is no longer functioning.

And yet, nothing happens.

People often describe this as a “professional working relationship.” In reality, it often means:

We have agreed to a ceasefire.

The work somehow continues. But it consumes a disproportionate amount of energy.

The team notices the tension.

Managers spend their time dealing with conflicts instead of shaping the business.

Customers may sense that something is wrong.

And the person involved may already be doing little more than the bare minimum.

In our conversation, we describe this kind of delay as one of the major consequences of poorly managed separations.

Of course, that does not mean every conflict should end in a separation.

Quite the opposite.

Many difficult situations can be resolved.

But it makes just as little sense to maintain a working relationship at all costs when it has long been clear that it is no longer the right fit.

Sometimes, a clean separation is the more respectful decision.

For both sides.

The Final Steps Can Change How We Remember the Entire Journey

Imagine hiking together for seven hours through a beautiful landscape.

You have good conversations. You laugh. You help each other. Perhaps you lose your way at some point and find your way back together.

And then you spend the final half hour shouting at each other.

What will you tell people about the hike the next day?

Probably not much about the first seven hours.

Surprisingly, the same thing happens in organizations.

People work successfully together for five, seven, or ten years.

There are shared projects, successes, setbacks, and personal relationships.

And then, sometimes, just a few weeks are enough to rewrite the entire story.

Suddenly, everything was bad.

The manager was supposedly always difficult.

The employee was never really that good anyway.

Does it have to be this way?

No.

A good time together can still have been a good time, even if it eventually comes to an end.

That is why the final stages of a working relationship should be managed with care and intention.

The People Who Stay Are Watching Closely

When someone leaves an organization, the focus is understandably on the person who is departing.

But there is another important audience:

everyone who stays.

Colleagues pay close attention to how an organization treats someone once the working relationship comes to an end.

They see whether that person continues to be treated with respect.

Whether information is withheld.

Whether people suddenly start speaking negatively about them.

Whether their employment reference takes unnecessarily long to arrive.

And this leads to a very simple question:

If I leave one day, will they treat me the same way?

In the podcast, we discuss exactly this effect. Poorly managed departures do not just change the relationship with the person leaving. They also change how those who stay perceive the organization as a whole.

That is company culture.

Not the values poster.

Not the careers page.

Not the campaign featuring smiling employees.

It is about how we treat people when they are no longer directly contributing to our organization.

A professional separation therefore sends an important message:

You are more to us than your current role.

Offboarding Is Employer Branding

Of course, the impact does not stop at the office door.

Former employees talk about their experiences.

In private.

With friends.

On LinkedIn.

At their next employer.

Or on employer review platforms.

Companies cannot control that.

But they can influence the story there is to tell.

If you treat someone disrespectfully during their final weeks after years of good collaboration, you should not be surprised by negative reviews.

Conversely, a well-managed departure can send a remarkably strong employer branding signal.

In the podcast, we talk about companies that even publicly support former employees in finding a new role. Colleagues post recommendations and say something along the lines of:

“We’re sorry to see her go. But if you’re looking for someone great, talk to her.”

What does that tell a potential applicant?

A great deal.

It shows:

Even when the working relationship ends, people continue to treat each other with respect.

That is probably more credible than many polished campaigns about company culture.

A Good Separation Keeps Doors Open

There is something else that is often underestimated.

A resignation does not have to mean the end of a relationship.

Perhaps the former employee will return one day.

Perhaps she will become a customer.

Perhaps she will recommend the company to others.

Perhaps, a few years later, an entirely new form of collaboration will emerge.

Careers today are becoming increasingly non-linear.

People move between organizations, gain new experience, and sometimes return later with new skills and perspectives.

Why should companies deliberately destroy these relationships?

A professional offboarding process therefore does more than protect the past.

It creates opportunities for the future.

What Does a Good Separation Culture Look Like?

Every separation is different.

A voluntary resignation is different from a redundancy. A working relationship that has been deteriorating for years requires a different approach from two partners realizing that their goals have simply moved in different directions.

Even so, there are a few principles that almost always help.

1. Normalize Separation

People leave organizations.

That is normal.

Not every resignation is an act of betrayal.

And not every separation is a failure.

The more openly and naturally companies can talk about this, the easier it becomes to address difficult developments early on.

2. Don’t Ignore Emotions

A separation can hurt.

That is not a sign of unprofessionalism.

But emotions should be something people can talk about rather than allowing them to indirectly shape behavior.

Status, recognition, and unmet expectations in particular can play a significant role. Addressing these issues early can prevent conflicts from emerging later whose real causes no one fully understands anymore.

3. Create Clarity

Uncertainty is one of the biggest drivers of poorly managed separations.

Who does what?

How long will the person remain with the company?

Which responsibilities will they continue to handle?

What needs to be handed over?

What will customers be told?

What do colleagues know?

The clearer these points are, the less room there is for rumors and exclusion.

4. Communicate Differently with Different Stakeholders

Not everyone needs the same message.

A long-standing customer will have different questions from a newsletter subscriber.

A close colleague will probably want to hear about the change personally rather than discovering it by chance on LinkedIn.

That is why it is worth planning communication carefully:

Who is directly affected?

Who should be informed personally?

Who needs detailed information?

Who simply needs reassurance that everything will continue as usual?

In the podcast, we also discuss how this kind of orchestration is more challenging than it sounds and how even good planning cannot prevent every mistake.

5. Keep Handover Processes Pragmatic

Of course, there is knowledge and responsibility that needs to be handed over.

But not every minor detail requires a ten-page handover document.

The question should not be:

“How do we document everything?”

Instead, ask:

What does the organization actually need to ensure that customers, teams, and projects can continue without disruption?

6. Mark the Departure Intentionally

A farewell does not need to be dramatic.

But it should be acknowledged.

A meal together.

A personal thank-you.

A message to the team.

Perhaps a brief look back at what was achieved together.

This creates a clear sense of closure.

And that is exactly what is often missing when separations are handled poorly.

The Ability to Manage Separations Is the Ability to Manage Change

Why does this topic belong within the context of Veränderungsstabilität?

Because change almost always means letting go of something.

A role.

A process.

A familiar way of working.

A product.

A strategy.

Or a person.

An organization that automatically interprets separation as failure will also find it more difficult to embrace other forms of change.

Because then every ending represents a loss.

But Veränderungsstabilität does not mean holding on to as much as possible.

It means being able to distinguish between:

What needs stability right now?

And what needs to change?

That is exactly what we discuss in the podcast. An organization that is stable in the face of change is not frozen in place. It can consciously move between stability and change and accept that sometimes something new can only begin when something else comes to an end.

Conclusion: Good Leadership Also Shows at the End

The way an organization handles separations says a great deal about it.

Perhaps even more than the way it handles new hires.

During onboarding, both sides share a common interest.

Everyone wants to make a good impression.

Offboarding is more difficult.

And that is precisely when you see whether an organization’s values truly apply.

Respect.

Trust.

Fairness.

Professionalism.

Or whether those values only apply for as long as someone continues to perform their role.

A good separation does not have to be pleasant.

It can be sad.

It can be disappointing.

And it can be difficult.

But it should be clear, respectful, and mature.

Because sometimes, a good ending is simply a good ending.

And that can be enough.

Go Deeper: Listen to the Podcast Episode

In a blog article, the topic of separation culture can be explained relatively neatly.

In the podcast, it becomes much more concrete.

In the latest episode of Veränderungsstabil, Matthias Musmacher and Holger Heize discuss why separations in organizations so often go wrong, the human and financial costs involved, and what professional offboarding can look like.

And we do not stop at theory.

We also share how we are currently approaching separation at O’Donovan ourselves, the thinking behind our approach, and what did not go quite as smoothly as planned.

So if you want to know what these principles look and feel like in everyday business, the episode gives you a behind-the-scenes look at how we are putting them into practice.

🎧 Listen to the full episode of Veränderungsstabil here.

Are You Facing a Major Change in Your Organization?

Separations are just one form of organizational change.

New structures, changing responsibilities, strategic realignments, or transformation programs present leaders and teams with similar challenges.

O’Donovan supports companies in shaping these changes in a way that enables organizations to remain effective, keeps customers in focus, and gives people the clarity and direction they need.

👉  Schedule a no-obligation consultation with O’Donovan Consulting.

Frankfurt am Main, August 7, 2026. Holger Heinze stepped down from the Executive Board of O’Donovan Consulting AG effective June 30, 2026, and will leave the company on December 31, 2026. From 2027 onward, he will remain connected to O’Donovan as an independent network partner. Both sides are using this step as an opportunity to sharpen their respective profiles.

Heinze joined O’Donovan as a project manager in 2020, became a partner in 2022, and joined the Executive Board in 2025. Over these years, he contributed conceptual clarity, new formats, and direct engagement with decision-makers. At the same time, O’Donovan sharpened its own positioning, combining customer centricity with a consistent focus on change, refreshed its brand, and added professional development to its portfolio. Together, they built, achieved, and occasionally missed the mark quite impressively. Both look back on all of this with gratitude.

Good collaboration strengthens everyone involved and comes to an end when it has fulfilled its purpose. Both have evolved over these years, in positive directions, just not in the same one.

Two Dimensions, Two Profiles

Consulting has two sides: the organization and the people within it. Both require attention, but they require different approaches.

O’Donovan works at the organizational level. Structures, processes, customer centricity, change. The company is the partner to turn to when an organization wants to become more customer-centric, not as a one-off initiative, but as a competitive strategy. CRM selection and implementation support, process optimization, and customer service improvements are means to an end. The goal is to build native customer centricity into the organization and crack the Customer Code. It is a core expertise developed over decades, refined through hundreds of projects, and firmly established in the market.

Holger Heinze works at the individual level. As a sparring partner, trusted advisor, trainer, and coach for executives, entrepreneurs, and decision-makers. His principle is simple: work in the background so his clients can be effective in the foreground. An outside perspective, loyal and available.

He is the right person to turn to when decision-making feels lonely and a clear counterpart is missing. When a concept needs to take shape and you need someone who thinks alongside you rather than simply agreeing. When experts need to become managers and managers need to become leaders. When clarity and direction are needed in uncertain times. And, more recently, when someone has always felt a little different, out of place, or somehow not quite at home within the social system of work and suspects that this may be precisely where their strength lies.

What Remains

Heinze will remain connected to O’Donovan as a network partner, podcast host, and trusted dialogue partner, and as someone who knows the company well and recommends it because he knows what it can do. Where appropriate, he will also continue to contribute to projects as a consultant or project manager. Both sides will continue to recommend each other whenever there is a strong professional or personal fit.

Contact

Not sure who the right person to speak to is? No problem. Get in touch with either of us. We know each other’s strengths and will point you in the right direction when the other is better suited to help.

Holger Heinze · hh@holgerheinze.de · holgerheinze.de · LinkedIn: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/holgerheinze/

O’Donovan Consulting AG · Ingo Scheidweiler · ingo.scheidweiler@odonovan.de · LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ingo-scheidweiler-8474985/

Companies today invest more than ever in Customer Experience. Customer journeys are developed, customer feedback is analyzed, and modern technologies are introduced. Yet many initiatives still fall short of expectations.

Why?

The answer may be surprising.

The customer is not the problem.

Often, the organization is.

Companies Know Their Customers, Yet Still Fail to Act

Most companies today have access to an enormous amount of information.

They know:

• what customers expect,
• where processes are not working,
• which pain points exist,
• and where customers drop off.

Customer journeys create transparency.

NPS surveys provide metrics.

Feedback systems continuously generate insights.

And yet, many known problems persist for years.

The reason is rarely a lack of knowledge.

The real challenge is turning that knowledge into decisions.

So the key question is:

How can an organization consistently turn customer knowledge into action?

Customer Journeys Are Important – but They Don’t Change an Organization

Customer journeys are now a standard part of modern Customer Experience programs.

They help companies:

• understand their customers better,
• identify gaps and friction points,
• analyze processes,
• and uncover opportunities for improvement.

But a customer journey is, first and foremost, exactly that:

An analysis.

It does not change processes.

It does not change responsibilities.

And it does not make decisions.

Real change only begins when organizations act on the insights they have gained.

More Data Does Not Automatically Lead to a Better Customer Experience

Many companies respond to challenges by collecting even more data.

More customer feedback.

More dashboards.

More reports.

But this often makes the underlying problem even bigger.

Because there is already plenty of information available.

What is missing is a shared assessment.

Marketing looks at campaigns.

Sales focuses on conversions.

Customer service knows the complaints.

IT analyzes systems.

Every department has valuable information.

But no one has the complete picture.

Customer Centricity Is Therefore Not Created by More Data

It is created through better decisions.

Customers Do Not Experience Departments

For customers, there is no marketing.

No IT.

No sales.

And no customer service.

The customer experiences the company as a whole.

Every break between channels.

Every waiting time.

Every unclear responsibility.

Every handover.

All of these become part of the customer experience.

That is why Customer Experience is not determined by a single touchpoint.

What matters is how the entire organization works together.

Methods Help – Organizations Create Change

Customer Experience today has a wide range of established methods.

• Customer Journey Mapping
• Design Thinking
• Service Blueprinting
• Voice of the Customer
• Persona Development

All of them have value.

But no method can compensate for a lack of collaboration.

No method resolves conflicting objectives.

No method takes responsibility.

And no method makes decisions.

Methods provide direction.

Organizations turn insights into action.

Conclusion

Customer Experience rarely fails because of a lack of methods.

And even more rarely because of the customer.

It often fails because organizations do not consistently translate insights into decisions.

That is why sustainable customer centricity does not start with a new customer journey.

Not with another dashboard.

And not with the next software solution.

It starts with an organization that consistently acts from the customer’s perspective.

Because ultimately:

Organization Beats Method.

How well prepared is your organization to turn customer knowledge into effective decisions?

If you would like to answer this question for your organization, talk to us. Together, we will analyze which organizational levers can have the greatest impact on your Customer Experience.

“That’s not my ticket.”

Few sentences describe corporate culture as accurately as this one.

Not because it is rude.

But because it shows how people have learned to work.

When employees pass on responsibility as quickly as possible, when complaints are automatically escalated, or when no one wants to make decisions, the problem rarely lies with the people.

It almost always lies within the system.

That is an uncomfortable realization.

Because it contradicts a widespread assumption: that poor service quality is primarily caused by employees.

In our work, we see the exact opposite.

The vast majority of people want to do good work. They want to help customers. They want to solve problems.

So when they stop doing that, we should start by asking a different question:

What kind of culture created this behavior in the first place?

Because culture is not about what is written in the company’s mission statement.

It is about what actually happens at 8:15 on a Monday morning.

Customer Service Is the Most Honest Reflection of Corporate Culture

There are few areas of a company where culture becomes as visible as it does in customer service.

This is where processes meet emotions.

Metrics meet expectations.

Internal structures meet real people.

Every phone call, every email, and every complaint reveals how an organization really works. Not on PowerPoint slides, but in everyday practice. This is exactly why culture becomes immediately visible here. It determines whether employees take responsibility or look for someone else who is responsible. Whether they develop solutions or find excuses. Whether customers build trust or lose it.

That is why corporate culture is not a “soft skill.”

It is a competitive factor.

When Reasonable People Suddenly Behave Unreasonably

One of my favorite principles from organizational development is:

Conditions shape behavior.

We regularly underestimate just how strongly systems influence our everyday actions.

Here is one example.

A consulting firm discovered that one of its specialist departments was consistently ignoring internal requests.

The conclusion was quickly drawn.

“They simply don’t want to help their colleagues.”

But the analysis revealed something entirely different.

The department’s bonuses were based exclusively on external revenue. Every hour employees spent helping internal colleagues reduced their personal bonus. Their behavior was therefore not uncooperative at all. It was a logical response to a poorly designed incentive system.

Or consider another example.

A field sales team regularly reached its monthly targets just before the end of the month.

Any additional business that could have been completed after that was pushed into the following month.

At first glance, this looked like a lack of motivation.

The reason was surprisingly simple.

The data plans on the company tablets were so limited that employees had to pay for any additional usage themselves.

Again, the behavior was not the problem.

The conditions were.

Toxic Culture Rarely Starts with Toxic People

Today, people are quick to talk about “toxic employees” or “toxic leaders.”

But in practice, we encounter toxic patterns far more often.

Tickets are passed from one person to another.

Departments work against each other.

Complaints turn into a question of blame.

Conflicts are consistently escalated upwards.

And eventually, someone says:

“That’s just how things work around here.”

That is the point at which every leader should pay attention.

Because at that moment, an isolated behavior has become part of the culture.

Why Good Leadership Is Not About Creating Harmony

Many leaders believe their most important task is to avoid conflict.

The opposite is true.

Their job is to make conflict manageable.

Because when problems can no longer be addressed openly, you do not create harmonious teams.

You create silent teams.

And silent teams do not learn.

Amy Edmondson describes this principle as psychological safety. Teams develop particularly well when employees can openly raise problems without fearing negative personal consequences. In customer service, this is precisely what determines whether mistakes are covered up or used as opportunities to improve processes in the long term.

Culture Is Shaped by Decisions, Every Single Day

Many companies invest significant amounts of money in mission statements.

They define values.

They organize workshops.

They print posters.

All of that can be useful.

But it does not create culture.

Culture is created through repeated decisions.

• What does a manager respond to first?
• Who receives recognition?
• Who gets support?
• Which behaviors are tolerated?
• Which behaviors are consistently addressed?

That is where culture develops.

Not in the strategy meeting.

But in everyday work.

Six Questions Every Customer Service Leader Should Ask

If you really want to understand the culture within your customer service organization, ask yourself these questions regularly:

• Do employees take responsibility, or do they pass it on?
• Are mistakes used as opportunities to improve, or to find someone to blame?
• Do departments support one another, or do they focus exclusively on optimizing their own KPIs?
• Does every employee understand how their work contributes to the customer experience?
• Which behaviors are regularly rewarded within my team?
• Which patterns have we tolerated for years, even though we do not actually want them?

The answers often reveal more about your organization than any employee survey.

Culture Can Be Shaped, If We Have the Courage to Look at the System

The good news is:

Culture is not destiny.

It is shaped by structures.

And that is precisely why it can be changed.

Not through motivational speeches.

Not through new posters displaying company values.

But through better leadership.

Through smarter incentive systems.

Through clear responsibilities.

And through the willingness to ask not only:

“Who made the mistake?”

But:

“Why did this behavior make sense to this person in the first place?”

That is where real organizational development begins.

Conclusion: Customers Always Experience a Company’s Culture

Customers do not see organizational charts.

They do not know your KPI systems.

They know nothing about internal conflicts of objectives.

They only experience how people behave.

And that behavior is the most visible expression of your corporate culture.

So if you want to improve customer service, do not start by thinking about new processes.

Start by looking at the conditions under which people work every day.

Because culture determines whether a problem leads to someone being blamed.

Or to a solution.

Would You Like to Develop Your Service Culture?

Whether it is customer service, leadership development, or organizational design, we help companies create the conditions in which effective collaboration becomes the natural choice.

Schedule a no-obligation initial consultation with O’Donovan Consulting.

O’Donovan Consulting AG has been recognized as a TOP CONSULTANT 2026. This prestigious quality seal honors consulting firms that stand out for excellent consulting services and a strong, collaborative approach to working with SMEs. What makes the award particularly meaningful is that it is based on an independent, scientifically grounded client survey.

What Makes TOP CONSULTANT So Special?

TOP CONSULTANT puts client experience at the heart of its assessment. As part of a scientifically supported analysis, factors such as consulting quality, the professionalism of the collaboration, tangible value for clients, and willingness to recommend the consultancy are evaluated. This makes TOP CONSULTANT one of the most meaningful distinctions for consulting firms in the German-speaking market.

Client Feedback as the Most Important Recognition

For us, this award is a particularly valuable confirmation of our approach to consulting. Successful consulting is built on trust, collaborative partnerships, and solutions that help companies achieve sustainable progress.

For many years, we have supported companies in areas such as Customer Experience, leadership, change management, organizational development, and transformation. Our aim is not only to design change, but to work alongside our clients to implement it successfully.

O’Donovan Consulting AG has been recognized as TOP BERATER 2026 by the F.A.Z. Institut.

The award recognizes consulting firms that stand out for their expertise, performance, and high levels of client satisfaction. The results were determined by the F.A.Z. Institut in collaboration with QuantiQuest and published in the special publication “TOP BERATER 2026.”

For us, this award is a special confirmation of our consulting approach. For many years, we have supported companies in successfully connecting Customer Experience, sales, service, and digitalization. Our focus is not only on developing strategies, but above all on implementing them effectively.

Especially in times of digitalization, artificial intelligence, and rising customer expectations, companies need solutions that deliver sustainable impact and measurable results. This is exactly what we help our clients achieve every day.

We therefore see this award not only as recognition of our work to date, but also as motivation to continue pursuing our commitment to quality, innovation, and client value.

Our special thanks go to our clients, partners, and employees. Their trust and the successful collaboration we share are what make achievements like this possible.

Quellen und weiterführende Informationen

Weitere Informationen zur Auszeichnung finden Sie auf der offiziellen Website des F.A.Z. Instituts: https://topberater.faz.net/

Zusätzlich steht die vollständige Sonderveröffentlichung „TOP BERATER 2026“ als Download zur Verfügung.

 

Sources and Further Information

More information about the award is available on the official F.A.Z. Institut website: topberater.faz.net

The full special publication “TOP BERATER 2026” is also available to download.

“I remember when people were grateful just to get a job.”

I hear this sentence again and again. In leadership coaching sessions. In workshops. On LinkedIn. And it is usually followed immediately by another observation:

“Today, applicants want to work from home, have flexible working hours, modern hardware, and ideally even a professional espresso machine. And if they don’t get all that, they’re gone.”

Many leaders find this development irritating. Some even see it as a challenge to everything they experienced in their own careers. After all, many of them learned early on to adapt, make compromises, and accept their place in the hierarchy.

But this is exactly where it is worth taking a closer look.

Because the real question is not why young people today are no longer willing to be subordinate. The more interesting question is: Why do we still expect them to be?

The Myth of the Generational Conflict

When people talk about work, it usually does not take long before terms such as Generation Z, Millennials, or Boomers come up. It quickly creates the impression that entire generations simply think and behave differently.

Research, however, paints a much more nuanced picture. The year we were born explains only a small part of our behavior. Factors such as life stage, education, social environment, and financial security are far more important. A 25-year-old university graduate living in a major city often has different expectations from a 25-year-old skilled worker in a rural area. Not because of the year they were born, but because of the realities of their lives.

That is why the debate about generations often falls short. It offers simple explanations for a topic that is considerably more complex.

When leaders say that young people no longer want to be subordinate, they are usually not really talking about generations. They are talking about a fundamental shift in how we understand work.

What We Are Really Negotiating

Behind many discussions about working from home, working hours, or workplace equipment lies a deeper question.

Who actually gets to set the rules?

For a long time, the answer was clear. Companies defined the conditions, and applicants decided whether to accept them. That worked in a world of work characterized by clear power imbalances, less transparency, and significantly fewer alternatives.

Today, the situation is different.

People can compare employers within minutes. They research company culture, leadership, and working conditions. At the same time, many companies are struggling to find qualified employees.

The result: the balance of power has shifted.

Not completely. But noticeably.

And that is precisely why the old logic of subordination is becoming less and less effective.

Conclusion: The Problem Is Not the Generation

If we are honest, the debate about working from home, MacBooks, or flexible working hours is rarely about those things themselves.

It is about how we understand collaboration.

The idea that applicants or employees should fundamentally subordinate themselves comes from a different world of work. A world that no longer exists in the same way today.

In its place comes something more demanding.

Negotiation.

Transparency.

Meeting as equals.

This requires more effort than simple hierarchies. It demands stronger communication skills and greater clarity.

But ultimately, it also leads to better decisions.

And to working relationships that are not based on obedience, but on mutual understanding.

If you would like to explore in more depth why traditional models of subordination are increasingly failing today and what modern leadership requires instead, listen to the full episode of Veränderungsstabil.

Listen to the full podcast episode here

Do you want to strengthen modern leadership in your company, improve your recruiting processes, or create a culture of collaboration on equal terms?

Then let’s talk and explore together what conditions people really need to work successfully with one another.

Some events are much more than just an official occasion. They bring people together, create genuine connections, and spark conversations that stay with us long after the event. That is exactly what our book release event for “Der Customer Code” on May 26 at ORFEOS in Frankfurt was all about.

In a special atmosphere, we celebrated the release of the new book by Matias Musmacher and Holger Heinze together with clients, partners, long-time companions, and friends of O’Donovan Consulting AG. The historic cinema provided the perfect setting: personal, inspiring, and full of character.

But above all, it was the people who made the afternoon and evening so special. The engaging conversations, the strong interest in customer centricity, and the many personal encounters showed just how important it is to exchange ideas about the future of successful customer relationships.

For that, we would like to say thank you.

A big thank you also goes to all our colleagues whose dedication made this event possible. Behind every successful event is a great team.

With “Der Customer Code”, Matias Musmacher and Holger Heinze share their experience and perspectives on how companies can create customer experiences that are remembered. The book offers practical insights for everyone who sees customer centricity not just as a buzzword, but as a genuine driver of sustainable growth.

For us, the release event was therefore about much more than celebrating the publication of a book. It was an evening filled with inspiration, exchange, and new ideas. And it was another reminder of what can happen when people with different perspectives come together around a shared passion: enthusiasm for customers.

We look forward to continuing this journey together. Thank you to everyone who joined us.

Would you like to read “Der Customer Code” yourself?

Find out more about the book and order your copy here:

➡️ https://shop.haufe.de/prod/der-customer-code

Photos by © Olga Rybalko