Let customers have a say

Trust is tested when decisions go against the customer—a rejected complaint, a price increase, a denied application. The key questions are: Can acceptance of such decisions be influenced? Does the process matter independently of the outcome? And what does the evidence tell us?

Studies

The Voice Experiment

In 1977, Robert Folger conducted a groundbreaking experiment on procedural justice. He deliberately distributed bonus points unfairly among 120 psychology students—some received many, others almost none. He allowed half the students to voice their opinion about the planned distribution beforehand, with a clear warning: "This won't change the outcome." The other half had to remain silent. Although everyone received the same poor scores, the students who were heard rated the situation as twice as fair (6.2 versus 3.8 points). Remarkably, merely being allowed to speak—without any actual influence—halved the perception of injustice.

The Meta-Analysis

In 2001, Jason Colquitt analyzed the largest dataset on procedural justice: 183 studies involving over 50,000 employees from 15 countries. The pattern was strikingly clear: When employees could voice their perspective in decisions—even those with negative outcomes such as pay cuts or layoffs—their acceptance was 40% higher than when they had no opportunity for voice. The effect was equally evident across factories, offices, and hospitals. The surprising finding: The perceived fairness of the process had a stronger impact on satisfaction than the actual outcome itself.

Courtroom studies

John Thibaut and Laurens Walker conducted a groundbreaking study in 1975 in which 156 citizens participated in simulated court proceedings. Half were allowed to actively present evidence and argue as "defendants," while the other half were only passively tried. All received identical monetary fines of $200. Yet the active participants rated the proceedings as three times fairer and paid more willingly. Despite having no influence on the verdict, the right to be heard transformed resistance into acceptance. This is precisely why legal systems worldwide include the right to a hearing.

The Ox Competition of 1906

In 1906, Francis Galton discovered a fascinating phenomenon at a fair in Plymouth. When 787 visitors were asked to estimate the weight of a slaughtered ox—which actually weighed 1,198 pounds—individual guesses varied wildly, ranging from 400 to 2,000 pounds. Yet the average of all estimates was an astonishing 1,197 pounds, just one pound off. James Surowiecki later demonstrated that participants who learned their group had been so accurate trusted the collective result three times more than they had previously. The paradox: people accept imperfect solutions more readily when they have participated in creating them.

Principle

Which principle for Customer Experience Design can be derived from this? The opportunity to present one's perspective increases acceptance of decisions—even when that perspective has no influence on the outcome. This principle is particularly valuable in critical customer situations such as complaints, rejections, or price adjustments, where the company has little room for concessions. However, the voice effect only works with authentic listening; superficial or manipulative questioning can backfire and cause lasting damage to trust. What matters is that customers feel their opinion is taken seriously, even when it cannot be implemented. The following guidelines show how to apply this principle in practice.

Guidelines

Listening before deciding

When dealing with complaints, claims, or cancellations: First obtain the customer's complete perspective before communicating a decision. The act of listening itself is part of the solution. The following examples illustrate this guideline:

• Zappos: Support staff have no time limits for conversations. The longest documented call: over 10 hours. Listening is more important than efficiency.
• Ritz-Carlton: When handling complaints: Employees listen completely, repeat the complaint in their own words, and ask: 'Have I understood that correctly?' – before offering a solution.

Explaining decisions

When a request is declined, explain the reasons transparently. Not 'Unfortunately, that's not possible,' but rather 'That's not possible because of X, Y, Z – and here's how we weighed the decision.' The following examples illustrate this guideline:

• Kreditkartenunternehmen: In case of credit rejection: A detailed explanation of the factors (score, income, existing loans) increases acceptance and reduces complaints – even though the outcome remains the same.
• Versicherungen: In case of claim denial: 'Your claim is not covered by the insurance because...' with a precise explanation leads to fewer escalations than 'Unfortunately, we cannot pay.'

Set up feedback channels

Establish structured feedback channels and actively involve customers in decision-making processes through voting systems, co-creation initiatives, or direct requests for their opinions. The simple act of asking for feedback transforms customers into co-creators and strengthens their loyalty. Communicate transparently about how their input is being used. The following examples illustrate this guideline:

• UserVoice/Canny: Product feedback tools that show: 'This feature was requested by customers and has now been implemented.' Closing the loop amplifies the voice effect.
• Slack: Public roadmap and 'What's New' announcements that explicitly reference customer feedback: 'You asked, we delivered.'

Offer shared links

Provide features that enable customers to easily share their current product selections with others via link, email, or messaging apps. For significant decisions—such as travel plans, expensive purchases, or B2B transactions—people typically consult partners, family members, or colleagues. Without a sharing function, customers must resort to cumbersome workarounds like taking screenshots or verbally describing their selections. A simple shareable link allows all stakeholders to view and comment on the same selection seamlessly. The following examples illustrate this guideline:

• Airbnb: Save & Share allows group trips to be planned together. Everyone sees the same accommodations and can mark favorites.
• Auto-Konfiguratoren: BMW, Mercedes & Co. allow you to save the configuration and share it via link - important for family or company cars.

Enable shared sessions

Enable true multi-user sessions where multiple people can work simultaneously on a single configuration. For B2B decisions involving multiple stakeholders or families planning together, synchronous sessions offer more value than asynchronous sharing. Participants see changes in real-time and can discuss options directly. The following examples illustrate this guideline:

• Figma-Prinzip: Like Figma for design: Multiple cursors, real-time changes, integrated chat - for product configuration instead of graphics.
• Miro für Entscheidungen: Collaborative whiteboards demonstrate how shared decision-making processes can work digitally.

Comment function upon selection

Enable comments and notes directly on individual options or configuration steps. In shared decisions, participants need a way to express their opinions—"I prefer the blue version" or "Do we really need the extended warranty?" This discussion should occur directly on the object itself, not in separate emails. The following examples illustrate this guideline:

• Google Docs für Produkte: Like comments in Google Docs, but for product options: Highlight, ask questions, collect responses.
• Wunschlisten-Kommentare: Amazon allows comments on wish lists - a simple form of communication for shared purchase decisions.