Page Articles 

Reverse Chronological Order:

  • Where does employee experience sit within an organisation? Who owns it?
  • Hybrid work: Trends and insights from business leaders
  • Why 2025 Is the Hardest Year for Hiring COOs in a Decade
  • Who Should Own Data?
  • “The problem isn’t the tech – it’s the people”

“The problem isn’t the tech – it’s the people”

The same can be said about many unsuccessful transformation initiatives – people ultimately are the enablers – however there is an added complexity here…

AI… seems to be sometimes perceived as a bit of a ‘dark’ world of the unknown…

During a recent interview Databricks CEO Ali Ghodsi recently told Fortune Brainstorm AI that businesses are frustrated with the whole AI evolution.

During the interview Ali Ghodsi covers three of the main barriers, and they are here below with my wider thoughts:

🔄️ Businesses do not have a robust overarching change strategy/ methodology in general:

If a business does not have experienced/ trained transformation experts on board, who are given the right tools to be able to execute (including them having the right positioning within the business), then large scale change is seldom successful.

🏢 On premise technology:

Businesses that haven’t invested in digital technology over the last 10 years, and there are many, are now really feeling the pain. Before AI can even be considered properly, or before even data management can be suitably refined as the precursor, the very basics of getting technology to the cloud has to be the first priority.

👊🏾 People scrambling for ownership:

What I’m seeing is businesses are unsure of where to put ownership for data and AI, and even when a specific AI role is created it’s sitting in a weird place, lacks accountability for deliverables, has really loose role requirements, and/ or isn’t set up for success within the wider organisational structure.

Here’s the irony with this… again, it’s AI itself (or rather how it’s being used)!

Businesses need a belt and braces approach to attracting the right transformation talent, because ‘cultural fit’ and personality absolutely do matter with a role like this. Ultimately, we are looking at a ‘future skillset’ here and the most successful change agents are inherent problem solvers, charming, empathetic, approachable, action orientated, delivery focused – all of the skills that you cannot screen for with AI.

You can read the full LinkedIn article here

Who Should Own Data?

Over the past decade or so, two questions have fundamentally reshaped organisational design:

  • “Who owns Customer Experience?” Creating the rise of the Chief Customer Officer
  • “Who owns Digital?” Creating the rise of the Chief Digital Officer

Now organisations face the next big inflection point:

  • Who should own Data, and, by extension, AI?

Now that businesses and consumers have realised how precious data is, this is no longer a theoretical debate. It is a strategic design decision that determines whether companies unlock value for business and consumers, or create fragmentation, duplication, and shadow capabilities with lack of ownership and focus, that can dilute meaningful impact.

Data Under the Chief Customer Officer

There is a strong logic for this in customer-led organisations.

For many organisations, the most value-rich use cases for data sit close to customer, commercial, and marketing functions:

  • Personalisation & lifecycle management
  • Loyalty & retention programmes
  • Media and monetisation initiatives
  • Product, service, and experience optimisation
  • Demand, usage or behavioural insights

If the strategic agenda is centred on customer value creation, then placing data under the CCO can be a powerful model.

It ensures analytics teams are embedded where commercial decisions are made, increases responsiveness, and keeps the data agenda grounded in customer and business outcomes.

But this comes with a caveat:

If other functions (operations, finance, HR, procurement, product, etc.) feel underserved, they may build shadow data/AI teams, creating duplication and fragmentation.

Other Emerging Models:

  • Reporting to the COO

Data is part of a data-first business wide and people culture strategy.

Under this model, data becomes a horizontal capability that enables the entire business. Either the COO controls product build and operational excellence, or the COO acts as the enterprise integrator, enabling all functions to consume data effectively.

  • Reporting to the CIO or CTO

A technology-led integration approach, which can be linked to business wide digital transformation.

When the organisational priority is modernising cloud platforms, building cross-company data pipelines, or ensuring technology coherence, data is often placed under the CIO/CTO.

Pros:

> Strong alignment with data engineering and technical change

> Improved prioritisation for platform investment

Risks:

> Analytics teams become more distant from the business

> Business context can weaken

This sort of structure often represents a shift from business-embedded priorities to technology-centric transformation.

  • Reporting to the CDO

Where the monetisation of digital and data is a strategic priority. This is increasingly common where e-commerce and digital trade is central.

A Chief Digital Officer owning data creates alignment across digital channels, digital product, transformation initiatives, and emerging AI use cases, especially when ‘technology’ is centralised elsewhere.

  • Split Ownership Models

Technical enablement to leverage actionable business insight.

Some organisations place data enablement (platforms, pipelines, governance) under the CIO or CTO, while insights and analytics sit under the COO or CCO (or other commercial leadership functions).

Care needs to be taken here so that priorities and ownership do not become misaligned, and teams then struggle to join-up towards a single agenda and business outcome.

  • CFO Ownership

Can be effective in heavily regulated industries.

Under the CFO, data benefits from strong governance, investment discipline, and a single, often more statistically driven, version of the truth.

However, many CFOs can lack ‘deep data’ or AI experience, which can potentially limit strategic ambition, business effectiveness and value creation, unless balanced by strong technical leadership beneath them, and strong alliances with the business cross functionally.

Key Questions to Determine the Right Model:

You can read the full LinkedIn article here 

Why 2025 Is the Hardest Year for Hiring COOs in a Decade

If you’re struggling to hire a COO right now, you’re not alone. Businesses, quite simply, are not getting to the right talent. Or worse, are repelling the right talent into the hands of their competitors.

Across most industries, 2025 is shaping up to be the toughest year for operational leadership hiring since 2015 – and arguably since 2009.

The dynamics driving this are mostly structural, not temporary. And they’re reshaping what companies need to do differently to secure transformative operational talent this coming year.

👀 Here are the reasons behind the bottleneck:

The post-Covid leadership gap has finally hit the COO role

Through 2021-2023, organisations replaced CEOs, CFOs and Chief Product/Technology leaders at a rapid pace. COO transitions, however, were often delayed because:

  • They held the organisation together during Covid
  • They stabilised supply chains, operations and customer experience
  • They carried responsibility for remote/hybrid change
  • Boards prioritised other leadership changes first

Now in 2025, this deferral has created a backlog:

“We need a new COO… yesterday.”

But the talent market hasn’t caught up.

The job has expanded faster than the talent pool

The 2025 COO remit is bigger than ever:

  • Core operations
  • Digital transformation (often including AI)
  • Automation & AI integration
  • Data
  • Driving cost efficiencies & strong commercial management
  • Regulatory compliance & risk (including regulatory reporting)
  • ‘Customer Experience’, which often incorporates digital and marketing
  • Business, culture & operating model transformation
  • Supplier performance
  • Customer service & fulfilment (including supply chain and logistics)

This is no longer a single role. This is a wide variety of disciplines previously split across 3-5 functions.

Yet few COOs have been able to grow through all these domains simultaneously.

Companies want a unicorn: “Strategic, digital and operational”

2025 COOs are expected to:

  • Lead large scale transformation
  • Fix underperforming operations
  • Deliver automation and AI integration
  • Improve end to end Customer Experience
  • Run ‘day-to-day’ BAU operations
  • Partner with CFOs on cost reduction and deliver against aggressive targets
  • Partner with CTOs on delivery
  • Partner with CEOs on strategy

This is an unrealistic blend in one person. Especially in a market where the COO has been neglected.

Budgets are tight and expectations are high

Most COOs won’t move right now unless:

  • The equity story is compelling and realistic
  • The transformation prospect is real
  • The CEO is credible
  • Compensation is competitive
  • Technical capability can enable innovation and digital delivery
  • The board is aligned on a clear mission and values

2025 leaders are more cautious because of:

  • Ever changing global political agendas and drama
  • High interest rates and cost of living crisis
  • Uncertain economic growth
  • Regulatory pressure
  • High cost of capital
  • Continued layoff cycles, particularly in tech and FS
  • Instability in start-up/ scale-ups

They want more certainty than what’s on offer in the current climate.

Time-to-hire has doubled

In 2019, COO appointments typically concluded in 8–12 weeks.

In 2025, the average is now 18–28 weeks; if at all!

Why?

  • Poor Candidate Experience and process management
  • Top talent being screened out without even a conversation with a real person
  • More stakeholder involvement
  • More assessment layers
  • Slower CFO/CEO sign-off
  • Boards wanting “one more candidate”
  • Leaders counteroffered aggressively or ‘nicked’ at last minute by a ‘surprise’ organisation who just so happens to move quicker

Even when the right candidate appears, organisations move too slowly to secure them.

Internal promotions are increasingly competing with external talent

Post-Covid, many organisations:

  • Upskilled other operational ‘heads’
  • Hired strong transformation leads and looped in BAU with their role responsibilities
  • Created ‘Operational Excellence’ roles
  • Added Chief of Staff or other COO-minus-1 roles

Now boards are asking:

“Why hire externally when we can promote internally on the cheap?”

This does not create a level playing field for COOs who are invited into a process to ‘race to the bottom’ on salary expectation. Again, creating stagnation, slow decision making, and a poor candidate experience.

AI and automation have changed the COO profile

A 2025 COO must understand:

  • Intelligent Automation
  • Machine learning impacts on processes
  • Digital operations
  • AI policy and ethics
  • Regulatory implications of automation
  • Most effective vendor ecosystems
  • Data governance
  • Employee Engagement & Customer Experience technology

A lot of these skills are ‘future-skillsets’ and so this excludes a large portion of otherwise strong operations leaders.

This ‘over-specification’ is creating gridlock.

🤔 What can organisations do differently in 2026?

You can read the full LinkedIn article here 

Hybrid work: Trends and insights from business leaders

Written by Hannah Cox for Customer Experience Magazine (CXM). 

A recent survey by Gallop Executive of over 50 engaged business leaders at director level in the customer space has provided valuable insights into current workplace models.
The results indicate that only 12% of businesses operate on a fully remote basis, 24% are now almost fully office-based (4 days per week in the office or more), with the preference being a hybrid approach at 64% (2-3 days in the office).

It has been widely publicised that global corporations such as Amazon, Citibank, IBM, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have mandated a companywide, fully office-based presence, reflecting a shift in broader industry trends both in the UK and globally.

Almost two-thirds of organisations prefer a flexible hybrid model, typically requiring employees to work in the office two to three days per week. However, there are recruitment challenges when competing for talent with organisations that offer fully remote roles because, overall, a fully flexible approach to work is preferable.

This is particularly evident in lower-paid positions, such as entry-level roles, or supporting a customer contact centre, where employees prioritise eliminating commuting costs.
In financial services, technology and public sector roles, workers are being encouraged to return to offices, even though this may impact their ability to attract and retain talent.

Hybrid trends around the world

Regional differences also play a significant role in workplace policies. More companies are mandating five days in the office in the United States. American workers ‘love working from home’ according to a chief revenue officer of a global fintech firm. The organisation mandates two days in the office if the commute is less than 30 minutes, one day a week if the commute is under one hour. If the employee is further than an hour’s commute, office work is on an as required basis.

In the UK, many businesses enforce two to three office days per week. Hybrid working is now the norm for over 25% of the country’s workforce. Some offer fully remote options based on the type of role and distance from an office.

Nuances around hybrid roles

Read the full article in Customer Experience Magazine here 

Where does employee experience sit within an organisation? Who owns it?

Written by Hannah Cox for Customer Experience Magazine (CXM). 

Employee experience (EX) has become a central focus in today’s fluid business world, not just as a concept, but as a continuous, evolving commitment to the people who bring businesses to life. But as organisations strive to embed EX into their core strategies, one key question keeps surfacing — where does employee experience sit? Who actually owns it?
The simple answer? It depends.

The reality? Everywhere, and nowhere exclusively. Many business leaders agree that HR (or people teams) are the natural home for employee experience. HR brings the frameworks, policies, tools, and structure — owning the strategy and often coordinating the action.

HR can’t carry the load alone

In many organisations, HR chairs cross-functional groups — like the aptly named ‘culture carriers’ — that bring together key influencers to shape and drive employee experience forward.
But HR alone can’t carry the weight. As one leader that I have recently spoken to put it, “HR can own the survey and write the policies, but employee experience is inseparable from culture, and no one function can own that.”
Senior executives, operational leads, marketing and communications, finance, and even corporate social responsibility (CSR) functions all play vital roles. One business leader that I know well, with responsibility for over 2,500 staff described how their team includes a colleague experience manager and an engagement manager, with strong dotted-line collaboration into HR and communications. This structure allows them to align with the business’s strategic goals while retaining the agility to drive their own initiatives.

Employee experience as a mindset

This approach reflects a growing recognition that EX is not just a program or department — it’s a mindset. It’s embedded in leadership behaviour, communication style, recognition culture, learning opportunities, and how work-life balance is supported.
Here are five pillars that have the greatest impact on how employees feel at work: leadership and communication, recognition and rewards, personal and professional growth, the work environment, and flexibility.

Culture drives employee experience

Read the full article in Customer Experience Magazine here