My manager cares about the larger team

The mean rating was 4.7 and the median 5.0 (n = 797 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, made up 30.99% of the answers. The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.64, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.54, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.68, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.73 to −0.61, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 748 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 43.91, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.407), respondent role (Welch F 7.88, Holm p = 0.005, omega squared 0.014) and vendor type (Welch F 3.63, Holm p = 0.018, omega squared 0.018).

72 of the 73 written responses were positive. Every one of the 66 responses to C030, on what the respondent loves most about the job, named the manager, and 41 described a manager who backed the team. The single negative response named a manager who never had the team's back. No written outcome test reached significance.

Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, accounted for 247 of the 797 answers (30.99%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 33 of 150 engagements.

All 73 responses were secondary. Each answered a question outside the indicator's survey section and addressed the indicator in its content. They came from 4 questions. That secondary share ranked 1st from the highest among the 11 Part 4 indicators with 30 or more written responses, tied with seven other indicators, against a median of 100.00%.

Every one of the 66 responses to C030 named the manager among the three things listed. 41 described a manager who backed the team, consistently, publicly, through rework, or when the vendor pushed back, and 13 described a manager who shielded, protected or tried to help the team. Five named such a manager on an engagement that failed, ended or ran through a difficult stretch.

The six responses outside C030 came from C135, on the employer, and C156, on joint management. Each said the respondent's own lead or manager looked after the team, shielded it or took responsibility when the tool went wrong, and several placed the difficulty above that lead: no one said who answered for an agent's error, senior staff with the right knowledge were not available, or the team was short of people. The single negative response, to C029, on the challenges that reduce job satisfaction, named a manager who never had the team's back.

Of the 73 responses, 1 (1.37%, 95% CI 0.00% to 4.48%) were negative and 1 (1.37%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 72 (98.63%), and no response was neutral. The mean written score was 5.1 (95% CI 4.6 to 5.6, n = 73 responses), and the median was 5.0.

Of the 73 responses, 67 came from respondents who also rated the indicator. Among them, the written score rose with the rating (Spearman rho 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52, p = 0.001, n = 67 responses). The written responses corroborated the rating. Of the 1 negative responses with a rating, 1 came from respondents whose rating was in the distressed range.

Respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating numbered 65, with a mean rating of 6.2. The 732 respondents who rated the indicator without writing about it had a mean of 4.6. The difference, 1.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.1), excluded zero. Ratings in the distressed range made up 10.77% of the ratings from respondents who wrote (7 of 65) and 32.79% of the ratings from respondents who did not (240 of 732).

Every figure in the segment tables is at respondent level. Segments with fewer than 30 respondents carry no interval. Segments with fewer than 10 report counts only.

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagement means. Respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. Where an expected count fell below 5, the test of the distressed share used Fisher's exact test for a two-by-two table, marked exact, or a Monte Carlo test, marked simulated. After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 43.91, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.407). Active engagements in Production rated highest (mean 6.0, n = 97 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 3.1, n = 304 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 7.88, Holm p = 0.005, omega squared 0.014). Portfolio directors rated highest (mean 5.8, n = 30 respondents) and individual contributors lowest (mean 4.6, n = 615 respondents). Ratings also differed by vendor type (Welch F 3.63, Holm p = 0.018, omega squared 0.018). Boutique or specialist providers rated highest (mean 5.1, n = 84 respondents) and BPO specialists lowest (mean 4.2, n = 185 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family and class of work showed no difference.

Written sentiment did not differ by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 57 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 0.69, df 3, p = 0.876). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from canceled engagements were the most negative (mean 4.4, 16 responses) and responses from active engagements in Production the least negative (mean 5.4, 13 responses).

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 66, engagement managers wrote 6 and portfolio directors wrote 1 responses.

Cancellation rate is the share of engagements canceled by the study date, measured at engagement level (150 engagements, 56 canceled). Canceled engagements were rated after cancellation. The association is therefore a descriptive contrast and not a forecast of cancellation.

Across the study set, higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.64, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.54, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in fourteen of the 20 segment levels tested.

Customer satisfaction is the percentage recorded against each engagement. The primary estimate uses the 94 active engagements. A descriptive contrast uses all 150 engagements.

Across the active engagements, higher ratings came with higher customer satisfaction (r = 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in thirteen of the 16 segment levels tested.

The engagement indicator mean is the mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators, measured at engagement level (150 engagements). The indicator does not enter the mean.

Higher ratings came with a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twenty-four of the 24 segment levels tested.

Intent to leave is the answer to C019, “How likely are you to leave your current job in the next 12 months?”, rated 1 to 10. It is measured at respondent level on up to 798 respondents, with the engagement-level form reported alongside.

Respondents who gave higher ratings reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.68, 95% CI −0.71 to −0.64, Holm p < 0.001, n = 748 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-six of the 37 segment levels tested.

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 149 other engagements, 93 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 1 engagements with a negative response, 1 were canceled, against 55 of the 149 other engagements (36.91%). The difference did not reach significance (Fisher exact p = 0.373). The comparison of customer satisfaction was not computed, because one of the two groups held too few active engagements.

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 57 engagements with a written response, the engagement mean written score was not associated with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.19, p = 0.166). Across 65 respondents, the respondent mean written score was not associated with intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.16, p = 0.196). Of the three comparisons, none reached significance at 0.05.

The four associations were compared in pairs on their engagement-level forms, each oriented so that a higher value is the better outcome, across the 150 engagements with all four measures. After Holm correction, five of the six pairs differed. The association with the engagement indicator mean was the strongest and the association with cancellation the weakest. The associations with customer satisfaction and intent to leave did not differ (Holm p = 0.735).

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.67). Clustering reduced the 797 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 204 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap. Respondent-level tests of intent to leave used standard errors that allow for clustering by engagement.

No association was equivalent to zero. Each of the four differed from zero. The detection floor shown is the study floor at 150 engagements. Intent to leave was tested on its effective sample size.

Each change was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

All 22 checks held. A check holds when its test falls on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test. Where the primary test falls below 0.05, the check must also keep the sign of the primary correlation. The thin-base check removes the engagements in any level of outsourcing model or process family with fewer than 30 engagements. Institution type is not used for that check, because every one of its levels has fewer than 30 engagements.

Each of the four measures was computed from data the indicator does not contain. Each result is therefore a finding and not an arithmetic consequence.

Each deviation was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

The comparison covered 150 engagements. The indicator followed the study's typical pattern on all four measures, and no deviation held after Holm correction.

Among the 11 Part 4 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 1.37%, ranked 11th from the highest, against a median of 33.33%. Its mean written score, 5.1, ranked 11th from the most negative, against a median of 0.8.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C018, “How happy are you with your current job?”, in 10 of the 73 responses (13.70%). C069, “I trust the customer.” (10 responses), C012, “How well do you know the financial industry?” (4 responses), C080, “My manager is effective.” (4 responses) and C014, “Rate your overall agentic AI expertise.” (3 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Skills learned”, in 36 responses (49.32%). The second was “Positive with an embedded negative”, in 11 responses.

About three in ten of all ratings of whether the manager cares about the larger team fell in the distressed range (247 of 797 answers, 30.99%). The rating was associated with all four study measures, and every association held under each of the 22 robustness checks. Canceled engagements rated far below the three active stages (mean 3.1, n = 304 respondents).

The written evidence comes almost entirely from respondents who valued their manager, and it describes care for the team as backing it and shielding it, including on engagements that failed. With a single negative response, the written outcome tests had almost no negative evidence to work with, and none reached significance. The associations rest on the ratings.

The evidence is the reported experience of the vendor's delivery teams, collected in a single cross-section. The associations reported here are not causal.

Tests by respondent role and by vendor type treated respondents as independent. The section on clustering reports how far clustering within engagements reduced the information in respondent-level figures.

Customer management executives gave 2 answers, a base of anecdote strength.

Shares of written sentiment are shares of responses and not of the study set of respondents. The written score takes five fixed values, so its mean and median are coarse. Responses clustered within engagements (73 responses on 57 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.