The Manager

Respondents frequently identified their immediate manager as a valued aspect of the job. Their assessments of that manager are considered separately from accounts of knowledge and support at more senior levels of the vendor’s management.

“My lead is good, he pushes back where he can. But nobody above him has built one of these either, and thats the real gap.” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal

“A manager who pushed back on the vendor honestly, to the end” -Individual Contributor, KPO, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal

Each of the five management questions was associated with the four core study measures, with the conclusions retained under the applicable robustness checks. The close relationships among these ratings limit the extent to which outcomes can be attributed to a particular managerial capability.

last month i ask for someone senior who knows sanctions screening properly, there is nobody free, we get a person off a retail project instead. They say they will revert back on the staffing, nothing comes. That part has not changed at all. But training did improve, the new course on agent monitoring is actually useful and i finish it in two weeks. And my own lead is fine, he shields us where he can. It is the people above him i cannot say anything good about.”

INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTOR · ITO, Financial crime and client onboarding

1 Manager Effectiveness and Knowledge

Ratings of manager effectiveness, knowledge, and capability were below the scale’s midpoint, and approximately 30% of answers to each of the five questions were distressed. The questions covered financial-industry knowledge, agentic AI knowledge, and capability to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements, including engagements for financial institutions. Mean ratings were 4.7 or 4.8, with medians of 5.0 and bases of 791 to 803 respondents. Distressed ratings ranged from 241 of 800 answers (30.13%) to 253 of 800 answers (31.63%).

The five management ratings were closely related. Their correlations with the engagement indicator mean ranged from r = 0.82 to r = 0.84 (n = 150 engagements), although none of the questions is included in that mean. Differences of this magnitude do not establish a ranking of managerial capabilities. On canceled engagements, the mean ratings ranged from 3.2 to 3.3 (n = 296–304 respondents).

1.1 Effectiveness of the Immediate Manager

Indicator C080 · My manager is effective · Full statistical analysis ›

Manager effectiveness received distressed ratings in 242 of 802 answers (30.17%). The mean rating was 4.8 and the median was 5.0 (n = 802 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with a lower cancellation rate (r = −0.67, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.68, n = 753 respondents). Ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage. The mean on canceled engagements was 3.2 (n = 304 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 28 of 150 engagements.

Manager effectiveness was addressed in 248 written answers from 226 respondents on 112 engagements. Of those answers, 213 were positive and 30 negative. The question about valued aspects of the job supplied 169 answers. These counts are specific to manager effectiveness and differ from the overlapping theme counts for skills, colleagues, and pay reported in section 5 of “Job Satisfaction.”

“strong manager support / meaningful compliance work / steady client trust” -Engagement Manager, ITO, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal

“My team lead is doing what she can with what she got, she stay late same as us. Nobody trained anybody for this, they just put HR cases in front of us and said use the tool. Thats not her fault.” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Corporate and back-office functions

Negative accounts of managers described absence or unresolved escalation. Active engagements with a negative written answer had lower customer satisfaction. Respondents whose written answers were more negative also reported higher intent to leave.

“my manager is on another account most of the time so there's nobody to ask.” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Corporate and back-office functions

1.2 Manager Knowledge of the Financial Industry

Indicator C081 · My manager knows the financial industry well · Full statistical analysis ›

The manager’s financial-industry knowledge received distressed ratings in 253 of 800 answers (31.63%), the highest proportion among the five management questions. The mean rating was 4.8 and the median was 5.0 (n = 800 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with a lower cancellation rate (r = −0.62, n = 150 engagements) and higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.70, n = 94 engagements). The mean on canceled engagements was 3.2 (n = 302 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 29 of 150 engagements.

One written answer addressed the manager’s knowledge of the financial industry. It described managers learning the financial-industry work at the same time as the people they managed. The account is illustrative.

“Where they are behind is insurence itself, most of our leads never touched policy admin before this, they are learning it same time we are. Can't blame them for that really.” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Client servicing and communications

1.3 Manager Knowledge of Agentic AI

Indicator C082 · My manager knows agentic AI well · Full statistical analysis ›

The manager’s agentic AI knowledge received distressed ratings in 242 of 803 answers (30.14%). The mean rating was 4.7 and the median was 5.0 (n = 803 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.72, n = 94 engagements) and a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.82, n = 150 engagements). Individual contributors rated this knowledge lower than engagement managers and portfolio directors. The mean rating was distressed on 29 of 150 engagements.

All 10 written answers addressing the manager’s knowledge of agentic AI were negative. Eight described limited knowledge or experience in production among people in more senior roles, and four described unanswered escalations. These descriptions could occur in the same answer. The limited number of accounts does not support generalization to all managers.

“When I ask about how tool decide, my Lead also dont know, he ask someone in other city and no answer come back… Nobody from company sat with us even one day since account start.” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Trade, settlement and reconciliation

“Nobody in my line management has used one of these tools for a day — that is the honest position, and it lands on me.” -Engagement Manager, CXM, Client servicing and communications

“My management chain struggles to understand basic AI realities. I bounce between meetings with executives that either think AI is overpromised or vastly under-respected.” -Engagement Manager, ITO, Client servicing and communications

1.4 Manager Capability to Manage Agentic AI Outsourcing Engagements

Indicator C085 · My manager knows how to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements · Full statistical analysis ›

Capability to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements received distressed ratings in 241 of 800 answers (30.13%). The mean rating was 4.8 and the median was 5.0 (n = 800 respondents). Its correlation with the engagement indicator mean was r = 0.84 (n = 150 engagements), equal to the largest observed coefficient among the five management questions. This is a descriptive comparison. Higher ratings were also associated with lower intent to leave (r = −0.67, n = 752 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 28 of 150 engagements.

One written answer addressed this capability and received the strongest negative sentiment score. It contrasted the current manager with a previous manager whose experience performing the work had enabled informed judgments about it.

“On the old account my manager had done the job himself for years, so he knew when I said a batch was bad. Here they dont know, so they just push.” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Corporate and back-office functions

1.5 Manager Capability to Manage Agentic AI Outsourcing Engagements for Financial Institutions

Indicator C086 · My manager knows how to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements for global banks · Full statistical analysis ›

Capability to manage agentic AI outsourcing engagements for financial institutions received distressed ratings in 242 of 791 answers (30.59%). The mean rating was 4.8 and the median was 5.0 (n = 791 respondents). The survey question used the wording “global banks,” retained above. Ratings were associated with all four core study measures, including cancellation (r = −0.64, n = 150 engagements) and the engagement indicator mean (r = 0.84, n = 150 engagements). The mean on canceled engagements was 3.2 (n = 296 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 32 of 150 engagements.

No written answer specifically addressed managerial capability for engagements serving financial institutions. This question’s results therefore rest on the structured ratings alone.