More than half of the answering respondents, 430 of 798 (53.88%), rated their likelihood of leaving the current job within 12 months at 7 or above on the original 10-point scale. Distressed ratings formed a narrower group: 370 respondents (46.37%) rated that likelihood at 8–10. Conversion to the favorable direction subtracts each original rating from 11, so that higher converted ratings indicate lower intent to leave. Original ratings of 8–10 consequently become converted ratings of 1–3. The two thresholds identify different groups.
All 300 answers from respondents on canceled engagements were distressed. Those answers were collected after cancellation and do not establish the likelihood of departure before it occurred. Among respondents on active engagements, 130 of 498 (26.10%) rated intent to leave at 7 or above. Cancellation of an engagement does not itself establish termination of the respondent’s employment.
“Asking about two years from now is a joke, i do not know if i am here next month” -Individual Contributor, KPO, Corporate and back-office functions
“I have four analysts on this and two of them have asked me this month to be moved elsewhere. We chase their compliance side for a threshold decision, nothing comes back, and my people sit idle and then work late when it finally arrives.” -Engagement Manager, CXM, Financial crime and client onboarding
“the team was never staffed with anybody who has done this provisioning work before. i am the third person on this queue in three months. And that is the main thing.” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Technology engineering and operations
A stronger preference for employment directly by a financial institution was associated with less favorable results on the four core study measures. The preference questions have no designated favorable or unfavorable end. Their direction must therefore be interpreted in relation to the particular question.
Written answers described departures involving delivery team members who held undocumented operational knowledge. The study did not follow respondents prospectively to establish whether those who reported an intention to leave subsequently departed.
1 Intent to Leave of the Respondent and the Delivery Team
Distressed ratings were common for respondents’ own intent to leave and their perceptions of delivery team intent to leave, at 46.37% and 46.06% of answers, respectively. Both are presented in the favorable direction, with higher ratings indicating a lower likelihood of departure. Ratings of delivery team intentions describe the respondent’s perception and are not direct answers from every delivery team member.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Intent-to-leave ratings were least favorable on canceled engagements | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Group shareStudy set, 370 of 798 (46.37%) Exact chart data
|
Note: The groups are ordered categories. The connecting lines do not represent elapsed time.
Distressed intent-to-leave ratings were 8–10 on the original 10-point scale and 1–3 after conversion to the favorable direction. The counts were 19 of 166 respondents in active Build-Out, 39 of 237 in active Transition/Cut-Over, 12 of 95 in active Production, and 300 of 300 on canceled engagements. The overall reference is 370 of 798 answers (46.37%). Ratings on canceled engagements were collected after cancellation.
Shares refer to distressed intent-to-leave ratings. The study-set reference is repeated for comparison. Lifecycle stage and cancellation status are categories, not a time sequence.
Distressed intent-to-leave ratings differed across engagement status and lifecycle stage. The proportions were 19 of 166 respondents in active Build-Out (11.45%), 39 of 237 in active Transition/Cut-Over (16.46%), and 12 of 95 in active Production (12.63%). All 300 respondents on canceled engagements were distressed (100.00%). Overall, distressed ratings accounted for 370 of 798 answers (46.37%). These figures use the 8–10 threshold and should be distinguished from the broader group at 7 or above.
Both questions were associated with the other core study measures. For respondent intent to leave converted to the favorable direction, correlations were r = −0.80 with cancellation (n = 150 engagements), r = 0.73 with customer satisfaction among active engagements (n = 94 engagements), and r = 0.84 with the engagement indicator mean (n = 150 engagements). For perceived intent to leave among delivery team members, the cancellation correlation was r = −0.81 (n = 150 engagements).
1.1 Respondent Intent to Leave Within Twelve Months
Respondent intent to leave received distressed ratings in 370 of 798 answers (46.37%). In the favorable direction, the mean rating was 4.2 and the median was 4.0 (n = 798 respondents). On canceled engagements, the converted mean was 1.7 and every rating was distressed (n = 300 respondents).
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Respondent intent to leave received distressed ratings in 370 of 798 answers (46.37%). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 370 of 798 answers (46.37%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
This question is the study’s measure of respondent intent to leave, so no association with itself was computed. Higher converted ratings were associated with a lower cancellation rate (r = −0.80, n = 150 engagements) and a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.84, n = 150 engagements). The conclusions were retained under the applicable checks in the 16-check protocol. The mean rating was distressed on 64 of 150 engagements.
Ten written answers addressed respondent intent to leave. Four described an active search for other employment or an expectation of departure. Three identified pay as the reason for remaining in the job.
“My lead say escalate but escalate to who, nothing come back. Two people on my team already resign and honestly i am also looking.” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Corporate and back-office functions
“Pay is the main thing holding me here … Picked up real QA instincts … A few teammates worth keeping in touch with” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Corporate and back-office functions
1.2 Delivery Team Intent to Leave Within Twelve Months
Perceived delivery team intent to leave received distressed ratings in 368 of 799 answers (46.06%). In the favorable direction, the mean rating was 4.3 and the median was 4.0 (n = 799 respondents). The converted mean on canceled engagements was 1.8 (n = 308 respondents).
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete comparison.
| Comparison | Correlation r | Estimate and analysis base |
|---|---|---|
Cancellation | r = −0.81 | |
Indicator mean | r = 0.86 | |
Intent to leave | r = −0.76 | |
−10+1 |
Exact comparison data
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | -0.81131622520000002 | 1 |
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | 0.86176106159999999 | 1 |
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | -0.76231789390000004 | 1 |
Note: Distressed ratings: 368 of 799 answers (46.06%).
Group means and numeric-answer bases: Individual contributor (n = 616): 4.20. Engagement manager (n = 150): 4.49. Portfolio director (n = 31): 5.39. Build-Out (n = 158): 5.82. Transition/Cut-Over (n = 235): 5.70. Production (n = 98): 6.29. Canceled (n = 308): 1.81.
r is Pearson’s correlation coefficient, measuring signed linear association from −1 to +1. Whiskers show 95% confidence intervals where reported. Intent-to-leave intervals, where shown, use a cluster bootstrap. The bootstrap resamples engagements to preserve the grouping of respondent answers. Associations are observational.
The indicator is converted to the favorable direction as 11 minus the original rating before these comparisons.
The graphic includes the associations reproduced in the section. Additional results remain in the text.
Higher converted ratings were associated with a lower cancellation rate (r = −0.81, n = 150 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.86, n = 150 engagements), and lower respondent intent to leave (r = −0.76, n = 749 respondents). The cancellation coefficient was the second largest in absolute magnitude among the 172 numeric survey questions, a descriptive ordering rather than a tested ranking. The mean rating was distressed on 63 of 150 engagements.
Delivery team intent to leave was addressed in 55 written answers from 52 respondents on 45 engagements. All 50 answers outside the question about valued aspects of the job described delivery team members who had left, were seeking other employment, or had requested a move to another engagement. These are distinct events and intentions. Thirteen of those 50 answers described knowledge of manual corrections leaving with the people who performed them.
“My analysts came onto this thinking they will learn something and instead they spend six months rewriting research notes by hand while nobody above decides anything. Two of them are already asking me for a move.” -Engagement Manager, KPO, Corporate and back-office functions
“the effect on us is two extra hours most evenings checking what it produced, and one of our seniors left in may partly for this. i dont blame him.” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Technology engineering and operations
“my teammate left in march for the same reason exactly. the ones who stay are the ones who stopped caring and i can feel myself going that way, which is the part i actually mind.” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Technology engineering and operations
“Last Tuesday i sit two hours on one alert because nobody will say if i can close it myself. That is what wears you. i check dispositions in the evening on my phone now. Two of my team already ask to move off.” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Financial crime and client onboarding
“Two of my best analysts resigned since March. I spend my days on status calls where both firms agree there is a problem and neither will own it, then I go back and ask the same people to give up another weekend.” -Engagement Manager, BPO, Corporate and back-office functions
My team carries this personally… when a runner image or a plugin changes upstream, the pipeline fails at two in the morning and it is my engineers on the call, not the provider who changed it. There is a leave rotation on paper that never happens. I have lost two people from this engagement in three months and kindly understand, they did not leave over the client, they left over the nights.”
ENGAGEMENT MANAGER · ITO, Technology engineering and operations
2 Job Seeking Relative to Five Years Earlier
The retrospective questions on job seeking had lower proportions of distressed ratings than the questions on current intent to leave. As in the satisfaction comparisons, the median career experience of two years limits interpretation of a five-year reference period. The figures below retain the full answering sample and do not establish a change in job-seeking behavior over five years.
Both retrospective questions were associated with the four core study measures. Their cancellation correlations were r = −0.59 for the respondent and r = −0.57 for the delivery team (n = 150 engagements). Both were smaller in absolute magnitude than the corresponding correlations for current intent to leave. No written answer specifically addressed either retrospective comparison.
2.1 Respondent Job Seeking Relative to Five Years Earlier
Retrospective respondent job seeking received distressed ratings in 216 of 801 answers (26.97%). In the favorable direction, the mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 801 respondents). Higher converted ratings were associated with higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.74, n = 94 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.76, n = 754 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 28 of 150 engagements. The full answering base remains subject to the five-year reference-period limitation.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Retrospective respondent job seeking received distressed ratings in 216 of 801 answers (26.97%). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 216 of 801 answers (26.97%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
No written answer specifically addressed the respondent’s retrospective comparison of job seeking.
2.2 Delivery Team Job Seeking Relative to Five Years Earlier
Retrospective delivery team job seeking received distressed ratings in 221 of 799 answers (27.66%). In the favorable direction, the mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 799 respondents). Higher converted ratings were associated with a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.78, n = 150 engagements) and lower respondent intent to leave (r = −0.60, n = 754 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 30 of 150 engagements. The figures describe the full answering base and retain the five-year reference-period limitation.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Retrospective delivery team job seeking received distressed ratings in 221 of 799 answers (27.66%). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 221 of 799 answers (27.66%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
No written answer specifically addressed the retrospective comparison of delivery team job seeking.
3 Commitment to Financial-Industry Work and Preference for Financial Institution Employment
Stronger preferences for direct financial institution employment were associated with higher intent to leave the current job. Stronger commitment to financial-industry work was associated with lower intent to leave. These were separate indicators of employment preference and industry commitment. Dissatisfaction with employment by a vendor does not necessarily imply an intention to leave the financial industry.
No written answer specifically addressed either preference question. A separate account described delivery team members moving from the vendor to the financial institution. It illustrates a reported employment transition without establishing how frequently such transitions occurred or validating the preference ratings.
“The team that did the work left to work for the bank. I had no understanding of how much they did beyond their defined job to keep things running. A few days after they left, the FX agent failed. I had to call the bank and ask them to send the team back to us for a few days to fix it.” -Portfolio Director, BPO, Corporate and back-office functions
3.1 Commitment to Work in the Global Financial Industry
Commitment to financial-industry work received distressed ratings in 214 of 784 answers (27.30%). The mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 784 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with a lower cancellation rate (r = −0.57, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.75, n = 739 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 27 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Commitment to financial-industry work received distressed ratings in 214 of 784 answers (27.30%). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 214 of 784 answers (27.30%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
No written answer specifically addressed commitment to continued work in the global financial industry.
3.2 Preference for Employment in a Financial Institution Global Capability Center
Stronger preference for financial institution global capability center employment was associated with higher intent to leave (r = 0.79, n = 752 respondents). Preference for employment in a financial institution global capability center had a mean rating of 6.0 and a median of 6.0 (n = 799 respondents). A global capability center is an operation through which a financial institution employs people directly to perform work that may otherwise be assigned to a vendor. The question has no designated favorable or unfavorable end. Higher ratings indicate stronger agreement with the stated preference, using the survey wording quoted above.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete comparison.
| Comparison | Correlation r | Estimate and analysis base |
|---|---|---|
Cancellation | r = 0.61 | |
Customer satisfaction | r = −0.74 | |
Indicator mean | r = −0.78 | |
Intent to leave | r = 0.79 | |
−10+1 |
Exact comparison data
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | 0.61187988959999995 | 1 |
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | -0.73673093469999995 | 1 |
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | -0.77927822329999996 | 1 |
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | 0.78725807079999999 | 1 |
Note: Mean rating: 6.0 (n = 799 respondents).
Group means and numeric-answer bases: Individual contributor (n = 617): 6.13. Engagement manager (n = 150): 5.83. Portfolio director (n = 30): 4.77. Build-Out (n = 167): 4.96. Transition/Cut-Over (n = 240): 5.35. Production (n = 97): 5.05. Canceled (n = 295): 7.49.
r is Pearson’s correlation coefficient, measuring signed linear association from −1 to +1. Whiskers show 95% confidence intervals where reported. Intent-to-leave intervals, where shown, use a cluster bootstrap. The bootstrap resamples engagements to preserve the grouping of respondent answers. Associations are observational.
Stronger agreement was associated with a higher cancellation rate (r = 0.61, n = 150 engagements), lower customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = −0.74, n = 94 engagements), and a lower engagement indicator mean (r = −0.78, n = 150 engagements). The mean rating on canceled engagements was 7.5 (n = 295 respondents), above the means in the three active lifecycle stages.
No written answer specifically addressed preference for employment in a financial institution global capability center.
3.3 Preference for Direct Financial Institution Employment Over Vendor Employment
Stronger preference for direct financial institution employment over vendor employment was associated with a higher cancellation rate (r = 0.59, n = 150 engagements) and higher intent to leave (r = 0.75, n = 753 respondents). Preference for direct financial institution employment over vendor employment had a mean rating of 6.1 and a median of 6.0 (n = 802 respondents). The question has no designated favorable or unfavorable end. Higher ratings indicate stronger agreement with the comparison stated in the survey wording quoted above.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete comparison.
| Comparison | Correlation r | Estimate and analysis base |
|---|---|---|
Cancellation | r = 0.59 | |
Indicator mean | r = −0.79 | |
Intent to leave | r = 0.75 | |
−10+1 |
Exact comparison data
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | 0.59264452619999997 | 1 |
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | -0.78515624360000003 | 1 |
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | 0.75496353920000003 | 1 |
Note: Mean rating: 6.1 (n = 802 respondents).
Group means and numeric-answer bases: Individual contributor (n = 620): 6.23. Engagement manager (n = 150): 5.75. Portfolio director (n = 30): 4.77. Build-Out (n = 166): 5.07. Transition/Cut-Over (n = 236): 5.51. Production (n = 95): 5.00. Canceled (n = 305): 7.41.
r is Pearson’s correlation coefficient, measuring signed linear association from −1 to +1. Whiskers show 95% confidence intervals where reported. Intent-to-leave intervals, where shown, use a cluster bootstrap. The bootstrap resamples engagements to preserve the grouping of respondent answers. Associations are observational.
The graphic includes the associations reproduced in the section. Additional results remain in the text.
Its correlation with the engagement indicator mean was r = −0.79 (n = 150 engagements), the largest of its four observed absolute coefficients. The differing analytical units limit comparison of those magnitudes. The mean rating on canceled engagements was 7.4 (n = 305 respondents).
No written answer specifically addressed the comparison of direct financial institution employment with vendor employment.
4 Sentiment Toward Manual Alteration
Resignation, frustration, and tiredness were recurrent features of written accounts of manual alteration. Manual alteration comprises manual changes to financial-institution-provided data, financial institution processes, and AI outputs, reporting alteration, and third-party work done by hand. The six written-answer questions on manual alteration received 2,325 answers about respondents’ own engagements, from 641 respondents on 146 engagements. The accounts described both recurring manual intervention and workarounds incorporated into normal delivery. Part 5 examines the frequency and operational context of manual alteration.
Within those answers, qualitative coding identified resignation in 145 answers from 117 respondents on 76 engagements. Frustration appeared in 104 answers, tiredness in 87, a calm or neutral state in 82, and pride in six. These codes describe emotional states expressed in the written answers, rather than clinical measurements. The categories could overlap.
“i just fix it myself and move on… dont discuss about it with anyone, no need to, we all do same thing quietly and i think that is the real process now, works better than the version somebody wrote down anyway.” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Corporate and back-office functions
Some respondents described manual alteration as an application of skill. Competence or technical achievement was identified in 62 answers from 59 respondents.
“I don't make a big thing of it, I just fix it and send it through, quicker that way, I'm good at catching what's wrong before it moves on.” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Corporate and back-office functions
Other written answers described unsuccessful attempts to resolve the underlying difficulties. Part 5 considers these accounts alongside the methods and reasons for manual alteration and its reported disclosure.
“last sprint upstream Api moved and we are last to know, again. i just patch data myself, dont even ask anymore, whats the point.” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Technology engineering and operations