Trust and perceived care in relationships with the financial institution, manager, and vendor were associated with all four core study measures, while contact-frequency associations were small under the study’s equivalence criteria. Conclusions for all 12 trust and care questions were retained under the applicable robustness checks. Correlations with the engagement indicator mean ranged from r = 0.76 to r = 0.84 (n = 150 engagements).
The three contact questions distinguish reported frequency of contact from assessments of the relationship. Their results do not establish that contact has no operational value.
“Their integration team knows the product properly, when i ask about a webhook retry they come back the same day and they know what they are talking about. The gap is only on data.” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Technology engineering and operations
Whats hurting us is the HR policy data. Access itself is fine, they had our accounts up in two days and their SMEs will actually sit with us. But half the entitlement tables we read from are years out of date and nobody there owns them, so my team spends its mornings checking answers we should be able to trust. It grinds on you.”
INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTOR · CXM, Corporate and back-office functions
1 Trust in and Care from the Financial Institution
Approximately one quarter of answers were distressed across all four questions on trust in and care from the financial institution. Four questions addressed trust in the financial institution, its perceived care for the respondent, and the respondent’s knowledge of how it regarded the delivery team and the engagement. Each had a mean rating of 4.9 and a median of 5.0, on bases from 789 to 799 respondents.
Indicator | Distressed answers | Distressed ratings (%) | r, cancellation | r, customer satisfaction | r, Indicator mean | r, intent to leave |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trust in the financial institution | 204 of 799 | 25.53% | −0.60 | 0.74 | 0.77 | −0.78 |
Financial institution care for the respondent | 216 of 789 | 27.38% | −0.61 | 0.75 | 0.78 | −0.76 |
Knowledge of how the financial institution regards the delivery team | 212 of 798 | 26.57% | −0.59 | 0.72 | 0.76 | −0.77 |
Knowledge of how the financial institution regards the engagement | 219 of 791 | 27.69% | −0.60 | 0.74 | 0.78 | −0.76 |
Note: r denotes the correlation coefficient. Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean use 150 engagements. Customer satisfaction uses the 94 active engagements. Intent to leave uses the respondents with both answers, with bases from 742 to 751. Distressed ratings are 3 or below for these questions. The columns describe different analytical bases and do not establish a ranking of causal importance.
The four ratings were closely related. Their correlations with intent to leave ranged from r = −0.76 to r = −0.78, and their correlations with cancellation ranged from r = −0.59 to r = −0.61. The measures and analytical units differ, so these magnitudes do not establish relative causal importance. Written answers addressing these relationships were predominantly favorable, with many elicited by the question about valued aspects of the job.
1.1 Trust in the Financial Institution
Indicator C069 · I trust the customer · Full statistical analysis ›
Trust in the financial institution received distressed ratings in 204 of 799 answers (25.53%). The mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 799 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.74, n = 94 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.78, n = 750 respondents). The mean on canceled engagements was 3.5 (n = 296 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 26 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Trust in the financial institution received distressed ratings in 204 of 799 answers (25.53%). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 204 of 799 answers (25.53%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
Trust in the financial institution was addressed in 54 written answers from 54 respondents on 37 engagements. Fifty-one were positive. All but two came from the question about valued aspects of the job and identified the relationship with the financial institution among those aspects. The three negative answers described reduced trust or deterioration in that relationship.
“Client relationship here is stable enough to have honest conversations” -Portfolio Director, CXM, Technology engineering and operations
1.2 Financial Institution Care for the Respondent
Indicator C070 · The customer knows and cares about me · Full statistical analysis ›
The financial institution’s perceived care for the respondent received distressed ratings in 216 of 789 answers (27.38%). The mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 789 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with a lower cancellation rate (r = −0.61, n = 150 engagements) and a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.78, n = 150 engagements). The mean on canceled engagements was 3.5 (n = 301 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 27 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
The financial institution’s perceived care for the respondent received distressed ratings in 216 of 789 answers (27.38%). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 216 of 789 answers (27.38%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
No written answer specifically addressed whether the financial institution knew or cared about the respondent. The results for this question rest on the structured ratings.
1.3 Knowledge of How the Financial Institution Regards the Delivery Team
Indicator C074 · I know how the customer feels about my team · Full statistical analysis ›
Knowledge of how the financial institution regarded the delivery team received distressed ratings in 212 of 798 answers (26.57%). The mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 798 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with a lower cancellation rate (r = −0.59, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.77, n = 751 respondents). The mean on canceled engagements was 3.5 (n = 298 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 26 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Knowledge of how the financial institution regarded the delivery team received distressed ratings in 212 of 798 answers (26.57%). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 212 of 798 answers (26.57%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
Two positive written answers addressed how the financial institution regarded the delivery team. Both described trust expressed through discretion to design or revise the agentic AI processes. These accounts are illustrative.
“Client trusts the team enough to let us redesign as we go” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Trade, settlement and reconciliation
1.4 Knowledge of How the Financial Institution Regards the Engagement
Knowledge of how the financial institution regarded the engagement received distressed ratings in 219 of 791 answers (27.69%). The mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 791 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.74, n = 94 engagements) and a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.78, n = 150 engagements). The mean on canceled engagements was 3.6 (n = 305 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 27 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Knowledge of how the financial institution regarded the engagement received distressed ratings in 219 of 791 answers (27.69%). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 219 of 791 answers (27.69%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
No written answer specifically addressed how the financial institution regarded the engagement. The results for this question rest on the structured ratings.
2 Contact with the Financial Institution
Reported contact frequency had only small associations with the four core study measures under the study’s equivalence criteria, across peer, engagement-management, and leadership levels. The results and relevant written answers are examined separately for each question.
Some written answers described frequent contact alongside unresolved access, data, approval, or responsibility for decisions. Others described no contact. These accounts address the quality and reach of interaction as well as its frequency.
2.1 Regular Contact With Financial Institution Peers
Indicator C071 · I talk with peers inside the customer regularly · Full statistical analysis ›
Regular contact with financial institution peers had only small associations with all four core study measures under the equivalence criteria. Regular contact with peers in the financial institution had a mean rating of 5.5 and a median of 6.0 (n = 809 respondents). The rating was not statistically significantly associated with cancellation (r = 0.00, n = 150 engagements), customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = −0.06, n = 94 engagements), engagement indicator mean (r = −0.08, n = 150 engagements), or intent to leave (r = 0.01, n = 760 respondents). Distressed ratings accounted for 48 of 809 answers (5.93%). No engagement had a distressed mean rating.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete comparison.
| Comparison | Correlation r | Estimate and analysis base |
|---|---|---|
Cancellation | r = 0.00 | |
Customer satisfaction | r = −0.06 | |
Indicator mean | r = −0.08 | |
Intent to leave | r = 0.01 | |
−10+1 |
Exact comparison data
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | 4.4729562000000002E-3 | 1 |
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | -6.1154090199999997E-2 | 1 |
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | -7.6082782599999996E-2 | 1 |
Exact chart data
| Series | Point index | X | Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reported association | 0 | 7.6354874999999996E-3 | 1 |
Note: Distressed ratings: 48 of 809 answers (5.93%).
Group means and numeric-answer bases: Individual contributor (n = 631): 5.51. Engagement manager (n = 150): 5.51. Portfolio director (n = 27): 5.33. Build-Out (n = 165): 5.53. Transition/Cut-Over (n = 239): 5.59. Production (n = 100): 5.35. Canceled (n = 305): 5.49.
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.
Contact with peers in the financial institution was addressed in 48 written answers from 47 respondents on 37 engagements, mainly in comments on financial institution readiness. In 27 answers, respondents described financial institution staff responding promptly or working alongside the delivery team, while locating the difficulty in access, data, approval, or responsibility for decisions. The eight answers with the strongest negative sentiment score came from respondents who reported never meeting financial institution staff.
“I never speak to anyone from the client side, not once in eight months. So these questions are asking me to rate people I only know from the file names on a deal folder.” -Individual Contributor, KPO, Corporate and back-office functions
2.2 Regular Contact With Financial Institution Engagement Management
Regular contact with financial institution engagement management had only small associations with all four core study measures under the equivalence criteria. Regular contact with engagement management in the financial institution had a mean rating of 5.5 and a median of 6.0 (n = 790 respondents). The rating was not statistically significantly associated with cancellation (r = 0.01, n = 150 engagements) or intent to leave (r = 0.05, n = 743 respondents). Distressed ratings accounted for 41 of 790 answers (5.19%). No engagement had a distressed mean rating.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Regular contact with financial institution engagement management had only small associations with all four core study measures under the equivalence criteria. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 41 of 790 answers (5.19%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
The 26 written answers addressing contact with financial institution engagement management came mainly from comments on financial institution readiness and co-management. Seven described a recurring call or a shared list maintained with a manager in the financial institution. All nine negative answers received the strongest negative sentiment score and came from respondents who reported never meeting financial institution management.
The written-answer comparisons differed from the structured-rating results. Negative accounts were associated with a higher cancellation rate and higher intent to leave. With only nine negative written answers, these relationships are exploratory. The accounts described an absence of management contact, a more specific circumstance than variation in reported contact frequency.
“Their side has no single owner for this programme, so we run a standing Thursday call with the three compliance leads and take whatever we can get agreed in that hour as the decision of record.” -Engagement Manager, BPO, Financial crime and client onboarding
2.3 Regular Contact With Financial Institution Leadership
Indicator C073 · I talk with the customer’s leadership team regularly · Full statistical analysis ›
Only 333 of the 850 respondents supplied numeric ratings of contact with financial institution leadership. Their mean rating was 5.6 and their median 6.0. Another 274 answered “I do not know,” and 243 left the question blank. The mean and distressed proportion describe the 333 respondents who supplied numeric ratings. The rating was not statistically significantly associated with cancellation (r = 0.01, n = 150 engagements) or intent to leave (r = 0.07, n = 324 respondents). All four associations met the equivalence criteria. Distressed ratings accounted for 20 of 333 answers (6.01%). The mean rating was distressed on two of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Only 333 of the 850 respondents supplied numeric ratings of contact with financial institution leadership. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 20 of 333 answers (6.01%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
Twelve written answers addressed contact with financial institution leadership. Eight received the strongest negative sentiment score and described no contact with financial institution staff. Three described direct contact with a senior leader or committee after a problem arose. The limited number of accounts constrains generalization.
“half these questions assume somebody on both sides is managing this together. there was no joint anything here, we had a standup nobody from the bank joined.” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Payments, cards and disputes
3 Trust in and Care from the Manager
Manager care and trust received distressed ratings in approximately 30% of answers to each question, while positive written accounts described practical support and acceptance of responsibility. The three indicators covered care for the respondent, care for the larger delivery team, and trust in the manager.
…this platform work is new for everybody here… I would not say they know agents deeply yet, but when the agent posted a wrong instruction on an account my lead owned it and did not push it down to us. That counts.” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Corporate and back-office functions
“A manager who is actually fair given how tense the vendor talks get” -Individual Contributor, BPO, Corporate and back-office functions
3.1 Manager Care for the Respondent
Indicator C083 · My manager cares about me · Full statistical analysis ›
Perceived care from the immediate manager was associated with less cancellation and more favorable engagement indicator ratings. The manager’s perceived care for the respondent received distressed ratings in 243 of 804 answers (30.22%). The mean rating was 4.7 and the median was 5.0 (n = 804 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with a lower cancellation rate (r = −0.65, n = 150 engagements) and a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.82, n = 150 engagements). The mean on canceled engagements was 3.2 (n = 306 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 33 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Perceived care from the immediate manager was associated with less cancellation and more favorable engagement indicator ratings. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 243 of 804 answers (30.22%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
Seven written answers addressed the manager’s care for the respondent. All were positive and came from the question about valued aspects of the job. Five described a supportive manager. These illustrative accounts reflect the positive framing of that question.
“Manager genuinely has my back” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Corporate and back-office functions
3.2 Manager Care for the Larger Delivery Team
Indicator C084 · My manager cares about the larger team · Full statistical analysis ›
Perceived manager care for the larger delivery team was associated with higher customer satisfaction among active engagements and lower respondent intent to leave. The manager’s perceived care for the larger delivery team received distressed ratings in 247 of 797 answers (30.99%). The mean rating was 4.7 and the median was 5.0 (n = 797 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.73, n = 94 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.68, n = 748 respondents). The mean on canceled engagements was 3.1 (n = 304 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 33 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Perceived manager care for the larger delivery team was associated with higher customer satisfaction among active engagements and lower respondent intent to leave. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 247 of 797 answers (30.99%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
Care for the larger delivery team was addressed in 73 written answers from 71 respondents on 57 engagements. Seventy-two were positive. All 66 answers to the question about valued aspects of the job identified the manager. With only one negative answer, none of the tests relating written answers to outcomes was statistically significant. The reported associations therefore rest on the structured ratings.
“My employer has been decent with me personally, my lead backs us when a flag turns out to be wrong and that matters more than people think. We are short handed though, two people left and weren't replaced, so the rota is tight.” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Credit, underwriting and suitability
3.3 Trust in the Manager
Indicator C091 · I trust my manager · Full statistical analysis ›
Trust in the immediate manager was closely associated with the engagement indicator mean, although both reflect reported assessments from the study. Trust in the manager received distressed ratings in 245 of 807 answers (30.36%). The mean rating was 4.7 and the median was 5.0 (n = 807 respondents). Its correlation with the engagement indicator mean was r = 0.84 (n = 150 engagements), the largest observed coefficient among the three questions on managerial care and trust. This is a descriptive ordering. The mean on canceled engagements was 3.2 (n = 314 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 32 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Trust in the immediate manager was closely associated with the engagement indicator mean, although both reflect reported assessments from the study. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 245 of 807 answers (30.36%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
Two positive written answers associated trust with the manager’s honesty. These accounts provide illustrations rather than evidence of prevalence.
“very little on this engagement … the process knowledge I picked up … a manager who was at least honest” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Corporate and back-office functions
4 Trust in and Care from the Vendor
Approximately one quarter of answers were distressed across the five questions on the respondent’s relationship with the vendor, ranging from 192 of 786 answers (24.43%) to 218 of 799 (27.28%). They assessed perceived care for the respondent and the delivery team, the care of the vendor’s top leadership for the respondent’s well-being and development, trust in the vendor, and the vendor’s effective use of the respondent.
Indicator | Mean rating | Distressed answers | Distressed ratings (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
Vendor care for the respondent | 5.0 | 192 of 786 | 24.43% |
Vendor care for the delivery team | 4.9 | 214 of 802 | 26.68% |
Top leadership care for well-being and development | 4.9 | 214 of 812 | 26.35% |
Trust in the vendor | 4.9 | 218 of 799 | 27.28% |
Effective use of the respondent by the vendor | 4.9 | 212 of 808 | 26.24% |
Indicator | r, cancellation | r, customer satisfaction | r, Indicator mean | r, intent to leave |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Vendor care for the respondent | −0.56 | 0.73 | 0.76 | −0.77 |
Vendor care for the delivery team | −0.57 | 0.65 | 0.78 | −0.59 |
Top leadership care for well-being and development | −0.59 | 0.74 | 0.78 | −0.76 |
Trust in the vendor | −0.61 | 0.79 | 0.80 | −0.77 |
Effective use of the respondent by the vendor | −0.61 | 0.77 | 0.80 | −0.78 |
Note: r denotes the correlation coefficient. Cancellation rate and engagement indicator mean use 150 engagements. Customer satisfaction uses the 94 active engagements. Intent to leave uses the respondents with both answers, with bases from 740 to 762. Distressed ratings are 3 or below for these questions. The columns describe different analytical bases and do not establish a ranking of causal importance.
Written answers described perceived care from the vendor through attention, training, and support. Negative accounts described limited contact with management above the immediate manager and insufficient assistance with delivery difficulties.
“The problem is nobody above my lead knows my name… no career path was ever discussed about with me. I like the work, I like my team. But I have no idea what I am in two years.” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Technology engineering and operations
4.1 Vendor Care for the Respondent
Indicator C087 · My employer cares about me · Full statistical analysis ›
Perceived vendor care for the respondent had the lowest distressed proportion among the five vendor relationship indicators, at 192 of 786 answers (24.43%). The mean rating was 5.0 and the median was 5.0 (n = 786 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with a lower cancellation rate (r = −0.56, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.77, n = 740 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 25 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Perceived vendor care for the respondent had the lowest distressed proportion among the five vendor relationship indicators, at 192 of 786 answers (24.43%). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 192 of 786 answers (24.43%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
Six written answers addressed the vendor’s care for the respondent, all in comments about the vendor. Four were negative and described inadequate training, attention, or support. These accounts are illustrative.
“Two months of this and I stopped caring, which is not like me. Nobody checked in once” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Regulatory, audit, tax and legal
4.2 Vendor Care for the Delivery Team
Indicator C088 · My employer cares about the team · Full statistical analysis ›
Perceived vendor care for the delivery team was related to customer satisfaction and intent to leave, with smaller observed absolute coefficients than the other vendor relationship indicators. The vendor’s perceived care for the delivery team received distressed ratings in 214 of 802 answers (26.68%). The mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 802 respondents). Its correlations with customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.65, n = 94 engagements) and intent to leave (r = −0.59, n = 751 respondents) were the smallest observed absolute coefficients among the five questions about the vendor. This is a descriptive comparison. The mean rating was distressed on 29 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Ratings of vendor care for the delivery team differed by role and engagement status | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 214 of 802 answers (26.68%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
Four written answers addressed the vendor’s care for the delivery team. Two were positive and two negative. They concerned training and support when difficulties arose and provide illustrative accounts only.
“Am comfortable with how the firm has backed this team, training budget was approved without argument and two of my people sat the agent operations course in full.” -Engagement Manager, BPO, Corporate and back-office functions
“we are on our own here” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Corporate and back-office functions
4.3 Vendor Leadership Care for Well-Being and Development
Perceived vendor leadership care for well-being and development was associated with higher customer satisfaction and lower intent to leave. Vendor leadership care for the respondent’s well-being and development received distressed ratings in 214 of 812 answers (26.35%). The mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 812 respondents). Higher 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 = 762 respondents). The mean on canceled engagements was 3.6 (n = 303 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 22 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Perceived vendor leadership care for well-being and development was associated with higher customer satisfaction and lower intent to leave. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 214 of 812 answers (26.35%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
No written answer specifically addressed the care of the vendor’s top leadership for the respondent’s well-being and development. The results for this question rest on the structured ratings.
4.4 Trust in the Vendor
Indicator C090 · I trust my employer · Full statistical analysis ›
Trust in the vendor had the largest observed customer-satisfaction coefficient among the five vendor relationship indicators, a descriptive ordering of the estimates. Trust in the vendor received distressed ratings in 218 of 799 answers (27.28%). The mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 799 respondents). Its correlation with customer satisfaction among active engagements was r = 0.79 (n = 94 engagements), the largest observed coefficient among the five questions about the vendor. This is a descriptive ordering. The mean on canceled engagements was 3.5 (n = 300 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 24 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
Trust in the vendor had the largest observed customer-satisfaction coefficient among the five vendor relationship indicators, a descriptive ordering of the estimates. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 218 of 799 answers (27.28%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
No written answer specifically addressed trust in the vendor. The results for this question rest on the structured ratings.
4.5 Effective Use of the Respondent by the Vendor
Indicator C092 · I am being used effectively by my employer · Full statistical analysis ›
A more favorable assessment of how the vendor used the respondent was associated with less cancellation and lower intent to leave. The vendor’s effective use of the respondent received distressed ratings in 212 of 808 answers (26.24%). The mean rating was 4.9 and the median was 5.0 (n = 808 respondents). Higher ratings were associated with a lower cancellation rate (r = −0.61, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.78, n = 756 respondents). The mean on canceled engagements was 3.5 (n = 307 respondents). The mean rating was distressed on 24 of 150 engagements.
Scroll horizontally to view the complete figure.
A more favorable assessment of how the vendor used the respondent was associated with less cancellation and lower intent to leave. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondent role | Lifecycle stage / status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exact chart data
| Exact chart data
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Distressed ratings: 212 of 808 answers (26.24%).
n gives the numeric-answer base for each group. These are descriptive comparisons of reported answers.
Effective use of the respondent was addressed in 33 written answers from 33 respondents on 31 engagements. Twenty-one were negative. Eight described a delivery team too small for its assigned work or departures without replacement, and six described respondents spending their time on work for which they had not been hired. The 11 answers to the question about valued aspects of the job identified a steady pace or workload.
“What the ratings do not show is how alone we are on this account. Our own platform team is good on paper but they support ten accounts, so when routing breaks on a Friday I am the escalation and the fix both.” -Engagement Manager, CXM, Technology engineering and operations
“my whole afternoon is review now. two of us do nothing else some days, and it is not the work i was hired for” -Individual Contributor, ITO, Client servicing and communications
“it say job completed and half the composites are not built. so nobody on my team trust that summary now, we open the output and count accounts by hand. it add two hours to my evening, that is not what i was hired for.” -Individual Contributor, KPO, Trade, settlement and reconciliation
“Spent most of the month sitting in calls where neither side would decide anything. Three of us on this pod and two of us were doing nothing for days at a time. It wears you down more than being busy does” -Individual Contributor, CXM, Technology engineering and operations