On a recent call with a major banking client, someone said, “People have already seen these pages.” The context? We were reviewing a freshly launched section of the website and noticing issues with content accuracy, accessibility, and layout consistency. The site had only been live for a week, and yet the feedback implied that user-centered improvements were no longer necessary—because leadership had already signed off.
It raised an important question: Who are we designing for, and whose opinion matters most?
In large organizations—especially those in regulated industries like banking—internal politics, departmental silos, and hierarchical approvals often overrule the needs of the end user. And the result? Poor user experiences, broken layouts, and accessibility failures that contradict the very standards these organizations claim to uphold.
The Problem: Content Governance Without UX Accountability
In theory, leadership approval ensures that messaging is aligned with business goals. But in practice, it often sidelines user needs, design consistency, and accessibility standards. Here’s what typically happens:
- Content is altered at the last minute by non-designers using powerful CMS tools.
- Layouts break because content is jammed into containers that weren’t designed for it.
- Visual hierarchy suffers as text size, padding, and structure are disregarded.
- Accessibility is compromised, despite the organization’s stated commitment to inclusive design.
These issues aren’t caused by bad intentions—they’re the result of a broken process that gives too much freedom to individuals who are not trained in UX or front-end design but hold decision-making power.
“They know enough to be dangerous,” is how many designers describe this dynamic. The CMS gives flexibility, but without guardrails or guidance, that flexibility often leads to chaos.
The Disconnect: Internal Approval ≠ User Validation
When leadership signs off on content, it’s often seen as the final step. But internal approval doesn’t mean the page is effective, usable, or even correct for the audience. It just means it passed through the organizational gatekeepers.
Too often, the needs of the business are prioritized over the needs of the user, and the result is a website that satisfies no one:
- Users can’t find the information they need.
- Pages look broken or inconsistent.
- Conversion paths are unclear or poorly prioritized.
- Accessibility fails silently.
A Real-World Example: Competing CTAs and Siloed Priorities
Take one common example: a webpage about opening a new bank account. One department wants to promote online applications, another wants to drive branch visits. Instead of reaching a consensus based on user behavior, both CTAs are forced onto the page—often in a way that disrupts the layout, confuses the user journey, and reflects internal conflict instead of clarity.
This is a clear symptom of a business structured for dysfunction when it comes to digital content. Each group fights for visibility, but no one advocates for the user.
The Cost: Design Debt, Poor UX, and Lost Trust
When visual consistency is sacrificed, and accessibility is treated as a checkbox rather than a practice, the cost is more than aesthetic. Users lose trust. They get frustrated. They abandon tasks. And in industries like banking, where trust is paramount, that’s a risk no business can afford.
How to Fix It: Strategies for UX-Centered Governance
- Design with Guardrails
- Implement CMS templates with locked-down styling rules.
- Offer pre-approved content blocks that support flexibility without breaking design.
- Educate Content Stakeholders
- Train internal teams on accessibility, content hierarchy, and UX best practices.
- Provide guidelines and examples of what good content design looks like.
- Use Data to Drive Decisions
- Leverage analytics, heatmaps, and user testing to validate content effectiveness.
- Show leadership how user behavior supports (or contradicts) content priorities.
- Frame Iteration as Continuous Improvement
- Reiterate that going live is not the finish line—it’s the beginning of optimization.
- Encourage leadership to see iteration as a sign of maturity, not failure.
- Advocate for the User—Always
- Remind stakeholders that successful digital experiences are user-first, not org-chart-first.
- Say it often: “When you create a better experience for the user, you cannot go wrong.”
In large organizations, internal approval is necessary—but it should never be the only checkpoint. Users aren’t part of the org chart, but they’re the ones who matter most. Until leadership begins to value user validation as much as internal sign-off, the digital experience will remain fragmented, inaccessible, and ineffective.
Let’s move beyond “who approved it” and start asking, “who’s it working for?”