Google defines irony as “Whenever a person says or does something that departs from what they (or we) expect.” It is often delivered with a witty twist, like a fire station burning down or a police station being robbed. My new favorite example is a company that claims “World-class” customer service while its toll-free number only directs one to send an email.
I recently dialed a support line to dispute a fraudulent charge only to be greeted with, “Thanks for calling our World-class customer support team. Please email us at [xxx.com] and someone will get back to you.” If I wanted to email, I wouldn’t have called! This ironic mismatch between the claim of “World-class” service and the actual experience left me frustrated and questioning the company’s vision. Did it even have one? Perhaps it is having something more akin to a hallucination!
“Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.” —Bill Gates
The disconnect between CX brand objectives and Contact Center realities undermines consumer trust and creates chaos. How can companies make grandiose Customer Experience promises yet deliver such subpar interactions? Who decides what access customers get when they need help? Are there conflicts between CX brand objectives and operational realities? Has self-service become more self-serving?
Let’s explore the irony and the gaps between vision and execution.
The Budget Conflict: Promising More, Funding Less
Executive mandates often demand higher service levels and improved efficiencies without increasing budgets—a formula that sets the Contact Center up for failure. Take for instance, the credit union that decided (seemingly on a whim) the Contact Center would handle loan status calls. No additional staff were allocated because (as they claimed) “it’s only temporary.” Sixteen months later, this “temporary” arrangement continues and the Contact Center grapples with the fallout— plummeting service levels, agents stretched to their limits, rampant burnout, accelerated turnover, and customers facing unacceptably long wait times.
When other departments launch new programs without considering Contact Center capacity to support them, operational chaos and cross-functional friction occur. Staffing models built during “budget season” are rendered useless when onboarding processes are nonexistent or ignored. The result is a Contact Center left with no way to adjust its budget to handle additional interactions or to recalibrate enterprise expectations for the Customer Experience.
Proper onboarding of new programs into the Contact Center requires thoughtful planning and the budget to properly execute them. A clear Operations Guide—detailing everything from onboarding procedures and staffing needs to training plans, reporting requirements, and special requests—helps ensure cross-functional alignment and protects both the Customer and Agent Experience.
The disconnect between CX brand objectives and Contact Center realities undermines consumer trust and creates chaos.
Contact Center leaders must routinely advocate for the link between brand promises and budget realities. To deliver “World-class” or “Best-in-class” service often promised by Marketing, the operational side requires adequate funding. The alternative is predictable— overburdened, burnt-out employees and disappointed consumers.
The Bottom Line: Poor planning leads to inaccurate forecasts, insufficient staffing, and untenable expectations. The budget must align with the promises; otherwise, the disconnect will continue to erode both employee morale and customer satisfaction.
Training Deficits: Underinvestment Means Underdevelopment
Cuts to training budgets are often made with little regard for the critical role that training plays in building a proficient and resilient workforce. These cuts are painfully shortsighted. While new-hire training remains a given, the focus on ongoing training development—once a standard practice measured in hours per agent per year—has drastically diminished in many organizations. Shockingly, some Contact Centers operate with no budget allocation at all for continuous training.
The Bottom Line: Poor planning leads to inaccurate forecasts, insufficient staffing, and untenable expectations.
Many Contact Centers struggle to develop and deliver effective training for new products, systems, or services due to limited resources. Instructional designers—experts in conceiving and crafting engaging and impactful training—are increasingly rare. Instead, there is a heavy reliance on tools such as knowledge bases, guided conversation scripts, and AI-generated suggestions. These are often poorly designed and difficult and complicated to navigate for an agent with a real-time need for quick access to accurate/up-to-date information.
The absence of meaningful training leads to poor performance, frustrated agents, and ultimately high turnover. This creates a cycle of instability that undermines the Contact Center’s effectiveness and tarnishes the brand’s reputation.
Technology Management: Who Owns the Tools?
Technology is the backbone of modern Contact Center operations. Tools like Workforce Management (WFM) systems, Quality Monitoring platforms, and ACD (Automatic Call Distributor) features are essential for accurate forecasting, efficient staffing, and delivery of seamless customer interactions. These systems are vital not only for operational efficiency but also for fulfilling the “World-class” experience that executives promise to customers.
Yet, Contact Centers often lack ownership of these critical tools. IT departments, already stretched thin with competing priorities, are typically tasked with managing systems they neither use daily nor fully understand in the context of Contact Center workflows. This misalignment results in delayed updates, underutilized features, and generic configurations that fail to meet the Contact Center’s specific needs.
The disconnect between technology governance and operational use manifests in several ways.
Missed Opportunities for Optimization – Outdated ACD configurations can unnecessarily prolong wait times, limit reassignment of skills and priorities in real time, while underutilized WFM systems may overlook real-time staffing needs and process issues.
Inefficiency in Issue Resolution – When system changes require opening IT tickets and waiting for responses, Contact Centers lose the agility needed to adapt to fluctuating conditions.
CX Conflicts in Digital Self-service – In many cases, customers are treated as “digital hostages.” Callers seeking human assistance are forced to endure recordings suggesting alternative channels (e.g., websites, chatbots, or email) without acknowledging prior failed attempts. Rarely is there an option such as, “If you’ve already tried other channels and need assistance, press one now.” This option could route insights about broken digital experiences back to the digital team for improvement.
These CX conflicts extend beyond technology mismanagement. Consider the case of phone queues, where promotional marketing messages designed by one team are repeatedly interrupted by generic hold messages from another department. For example, listening to a five-minute loop about a company’s excellence—interrupted every 20 seconds with a robotic announcement of “your call is important to us”—is an infuriating experience. Such poorly designed systems not only irritate customers but also contradict the brand’s CX promises and are painfully easy to correct! You can’t fix what you don’t see.
To address these issues, Contact Center leaders must demand greater control over their tools and processes.
Ownership of Technology – WFM systems, ACD features, and Quality Recording tools should be managed by the Contact Center itself, with IT providing technical support but not governance.
Real-time Adaptability – Empowering Contact Center leaders to make real-time adjustments to technology configurations ensures agility in responding to evolving operational needs.
Seamless CX Alignment – Digital and voice channels must work together to enhance, not hinder, the customer journey. Allowing customers to self-report channel failures and routing feedback to the appropriate teams can close the loop on recurring issues.
The irony is glaring. While executives push for better technology to elevate the Customer Experience, they often deny Contact Centers the autonomy to manage these investments effectively. This disconnect perpetuates inefficiencies, frustrates employees, and disappoints customers. The Contact Center is the domain expert on technologies designed and developed for their specific use, it’s time they have a seat at the decision making, design, and implementation table with ongoing control of these tools.
The Path Forward
When Contact Center leaders have control, they can unlock the full potential of their tools to create a smoother Customer Experience and better employee workflows. Without this shift, organizations risk underdelivering on their CX promises and squandering the potential of the resources they already have.
The road to a truly exceptional Customer Experience requires more than aspirational branding. It demands alignment between vision and reality. Contact Center leaders hold the key to closing this gap by advocating for control over their operations, aligning resources with goals, and taking ownership of technology management. Only then can the promise of “World-class” service become reality rather than hallucination!
