Customer experience (CX) has become one of the most frequently used terms in business strategy. Leaders pour resources into service design, satisfaction metrics, and loyalty programs. Frameworks promise that if organizations map journeys and reduce friction, customer satisfaction will follow. Yet despite decades of effort, global trust in institutions continues to decline, customer expectations rise faster than organizations can adapt, and many CX programs fail to show clear impact.

The problem lies not in execution but in assumptions. Much of CX thinking rests on narrow models of human behavior borrowed from marketing and management science. These models assume that people are rational choosers, that satisfaction is stable, and that organizations can manage experience like a process. Social and philosophical theories suggest something different: experience is constructed, relational, and deeply tied to meaning. What follows is an exploration of why the dominant paradigm misleads us and what a new, meaning-centric approach can offer.

The Myth of Control: Why Experiences Resist Engineering

Traditional CX assumes experiences can be designed like products. Map the journey, identify pain points, and smooth them out. This belief echoes Frederick Taylor’s scientific management, which treated workers as predictable cogs in a machine. Applied to customers, it assumes predictability in human behavior.

Yet experiences are not manufactured objects. They emerge in the interaction between individuals and contexts. Erving Goffman, in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, shows how people continually perform roles depending on the situation. A “customer” is not a fixed identity but a temporary role layered on top of being a parent, a professional, or a citizen. Any attempt to fully engineer experience collides with this fluidity.

Consider ride-hailing apps. Their journeys are carefully designed: tap, wait, ride, pay. The functional flow is seamless. Still, the rider’s actual experience may depend more on a driver’s small act of kindness during a stressful day than on app design. Experience resists engineering because meaning emerges in ways no blueprint can fully anticipate.

Beyond Utility: The Limits of Rational Choice

CX frameworks often assume customers are rational actors who maximize utility. This assumption draws on classical economics and, later, utility theory. Yet behavioral science has long demonstrated the limits of this model. Daniel Kahneman’s work in Thinking, Fast and Slow shows that choices are shaped by bias, framing, and memory as much as by calculation.

Satisfaction surveys reflect the same flaw. They measure what people say they value in the moment, not how meaning unfolds over time. A customer may report satisfaction with a meal delivery service today yet abandon it tomorrow because the brand failed to resonate with their sense of identity or community.

Research in sociology reinforces this. Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus highlights how preferences are shaped by social background, not just individual choice. A person’s experience of luxury, trust, or even convenience is mediated by culture. Treating customers as utility-maximizing individuals blinds organizations to these deeper dynamics.

Experience as Meaning: A Phenomenological Turn

If experiences cannot be reduced to flows or scores, how should they be understood? Phenomenology, a philosophical tradition associated with Edmund Husserl and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, argues that experience is always lived, embodied, and interpreted. We do not just interact with services; we make sense of them in relation to who we are.

Think of healthcare. A hospital visit is not simply about efficiency of check-in or accuracy of diagnosis. It is also about vulnerability, hope, and the search for reassurance. A patient does not measure the experience in units of satisfaction but in how it aligns with their fears, values, and sense of dignity.

Phenomenology helps explain why metrics alone fail. A five-minute reduction in wait time matters, but the way a nurse acknowledges a patient’s anxiety may transform the entire experience. Meaning outweighs utility.

Time, Memory, and the Fragility of Experience

Experiences unfold across time, not in isolated moments. Yet most CX programs measure touchpoints as if they were discrete. Cognitive psychology shows that memory plays a decisive role: people do not remember experiences as they happened but as stories reconstructed afterward. Kahneman’s “peak-end rule” illustrates this: what we recall is shaped by the most intense moment and the final moment, not the full duration.

This has practical implications. Airlines invest heavily in digital booking flows, but many customers define the experience by how they felt when their flight was delayed and how staff handled it. The memory of care or neglect at that peak moment overshadows hours of smooth interactions.

In other words, experience is fragile. It is built in retrospect, socially shared, and filtered through cultural expectations. A restaurant may provide flawless service, yet one dismissive comment from a waiter can redefine the story a customer tells friends for years.

Breaking the CX Paradigm: Toward Meaning-Centric Design

The dominant CX paradigm treats experience as a process that can be optimized. Faster service, cleaner interfaces, and higher satisfaction scores are taken as proof of success. These improvements matter, yet they overlook something deeper. Experience is not only about utility. It is also about meaning.

Shifting toward a meaning-centric approach requires a different mindset. Efficiency matters, but resonance matters more. Customers remember experiences that connect with their values and identities. Empathy is important, but shared identity creates stronger bonds. Metrics are useful, yet stories reveal what numbers cannot.

Some governments have already recognized this. Public services in Denmark and Estonia are being redesigned around life events such as childbirth, aging, or job loss rather than bureaucratic departments. These systems reflect the way people actually experience major transitions, not the way organizations structure their processes. The design principle is continuity of meaning, not just efficiency of service.

The same logic can guide private organizations. A bank that focuses less on transactions and more on moments of financial significance-buying a first home, supporting a child’s education, planning retirement-creates experiences that resonate with identity, not just need. A platform that invites customers to co-create product features builds participation, belonging, and shared ownership.

CX will evolve when organizations stop treating people as users moving through flows and start engaging them as humans constructing meaning. This shift requires new ways of listening, new measures of success, and a willingness to embrace complexity.

A New Philosophy of CX

If everything we know about CX is wrong, it is because we have mistaken the map for the territory. Satisfaction scores, journey maps, and process improvements are maps: useful, but partial. The territory is lived experience, shaped by identity, culture, and meaning.

Social theory teaches us that customers are not isolated individuals but members of communities with shared norms. Philosophy reminds us that experiences are embodied, temporal, and interpreted. Psychology shows that memory and narrative weigh more than raw utility. Together, these insights call for a new philosophy of CX.

Such a philosophy does not abandon efficiency but places it within a broader framework of meaning. It asks: How does this service align with who people are? How does it support their life projects? How will it be remembered?

Organizations that adopt this approach will not only deliver smoother interactions. They will cultivate trust, belonging, and resonance. In an age of rising expectations and eroding trust, those are the currencies that matter most.

---