How likely are you to leave your current job in the next 12 months?

Every rating is read on the goodness view, the reversed scale on which a higher figure is the better outcome. The mean rating was 4.2 and the median 4.0 (n = 798 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below on the goodness view, the distressed range, made up 46.37% of the answers. The rating was associated with each of the other three study measures. The indicator is itself the measure of intent to leave, so no association with intent to leave was computed. Higher ratings on the goodness view came with less cancellation (r = −0.80, 95% CI −0.85 to −0.74, 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) and a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 139.97, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.641).

Ten written responses addressed the indicator. Four said the respondent was already looking for another job or did not expect to stay, and three responses to C030, on what the respondent loves most about the job, named the pay as what kept the respondent in it. The one written outcome test computed did not reach significance.

Ratings of 3 or below on the goodness view, the distressed range, accounted for 370 of the 798 answers (46.37%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 64 of 150 engagements.

The primary responses numbered 6, all written in answer to C030, “What are the top 3 things that you love most about your job?” The remaining 4 responses, 40.00% of the total, were secondary and came from 2 other questions. Respondents who wrote both a primary and a secondary response numbered 0. Negative responses made up 1 of the 6 primary responses and 4 of the 4 secondary responses.

The six responses to C030 named what held the respondent in the job: the pay, in three responses, often with the words “for now”, and one or two teammates worth staying for. One said low intent to leave reflected a job the respondent liked, and one, with a negative score, said the job was barely worth staying for.

The four responses outside C030 came from C135, on the employer, and C156, on joint management, and each said the respondent was looking for another job or did not know whether they would be there next month. They described two days of training on the wrong tool, errors from the agents that the respondent fixed after the shift with no one to escalate to, and teammates who had already resigned or left. One respondent on a canceled engagement said three of a team of four were looking and one had already left.

Of the 10 responses, 5 (50.00%, 95% CI 22.22% to 77.78%) were negative and 0 (0.00%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 5 (50.00%), and no response was neutral. The mean written score was 0.0 (95% CI −2.8 to 2.8, n = 10 responses), and the median was 0.0.

Of the 10 responses, 10 came from respondents who also rated the indicator. Among them, the written score did not track the rating (Spearman rho 0.61, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94, p = 0.059, n = 10 responses). Of the 5 negative responses with a rating, 5 came from respondents whose rating was in the distressed range.

Respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating numbered 10, with a mean rating of 2.8. The 788 respondents who rated the indicator without writing about it had a mean of 4.2. The difference, −1.4 (95% CI −2.7 to 0.6), included zero. Ratings in the distressed range made up 90.00% of the ratings from respondents who wrote (9 of 10) and 45.81% of the ratings from respondents who did not (361 of 788).

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 139.97, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.641). Active engagements in Production rated highest (mean 5.9, n = 95 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 1.7, n = 300 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work, respondent role and vendor type showed no difference.

Written sentiment did not differ by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 7 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 3.38, df 1, p = 0.066). Fewer than two groups held 10 or more responses, so the groups are reported as counts only: active engagements in Build-Out (2), active engagements in Transition/Cut-Over (4), active engagements in Production (1) and canceled engagements (3).

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 10 responses, reported as counts only.

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 on the goodness view came with less cancellation (r = −0.80, 95% CI −0.85 to −0.74, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twenty 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 on the goodness view 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 fourteen 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 on the goodness view came with a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twenty-three 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.

The indicator is itself the measure of intent to leave. Its association with intent to leave is an identity and was not computed. The exhibits report the indicator by segment only.

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 145 other engagements, 141 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 5 engagements with a negative response, 3 were canceled, against 53 of the 145 other engagements (36.55%). The difference did not reach significance (Fisher exact p = 0.362). 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. The correlation of the engagement mean written score with cancellation was not computed, because fewer than ten engagements (9) held a written response. The correlation with intent to leave was not computed, because the indicator is itself the measure of intent to leave. The one comparison computed did not reach significance at 0.05.

The three associations computed 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, two of the three pairs differed. The association with the engagement indicator mean was the strongest and the association with customer satisfaction the weakest. The associations with cancellation and the engagement indicator mean did not differ (Holm p = 0.257).

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.84). Clustering reduced the 798 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 172 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap.

No association was equivalent to zero. Each of the three computed differed from zero, and the association with intent to leave, an identity, was not tested. The detection floor shown is the study floor at 150 engagements.

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

All 16 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.

The indicator is itself the measure of intent to leave, so no association with intent to leave was computed. Each of the other three measures was computed from data the indicator does not contain, and each of those results 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 departed from the study's typical pattern on cancellation and customer satisfaction. Its association was stronger than the norm on cancellation and customer satisfaction.

Among the 11 Part 4 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 50.00%, ranked 6th from the highest, against a median of 33.33%. Its mean written score, 0.0, ranked 6th 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 2 of the 10 responses (20.00%). C021, “How likely are members of your current team to leave their jobs in the next 12 months?” (2 responses), C080, “My manager is effective.” (2 responses), C157, “Rate the factual reliability of the AI tools' outputs on this engagement before any human review.” (2 responses) and C171, “Rate the overall production readiness of the AI tools for bank-grade work as experienced on this engagement.” (2 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Skills learned”, in 4 responses (40.00%). The second was “Pay”, in 3 responses.

Nearly half of all ratings of the likelihood of leaving the job fell in the distressed range, the answers nearest certain departure (370 of 798 answers, 46.37%). Every rating from a respondent on a canceled engagement fell in that range (n = 300 respondents, mean 1.7 on the goodness view). On the goodness view, the rating was associated with each of the other three study measures, and every association held under each of the 16 robustness checks.

The written evidence is thin. It shows respondents held by pay and by colleagues, and respondents already looking for work when training, support and colleagues fell away. With five engagements holding a negative response, the cancellation contrast did not reach significance.

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 1 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 (10 responses on 9 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.

The written responses number fewer than 30, so their shares and the written-sentiment tests rest on a small base.

The indicator is the study's measure of intent to leave. Its association with intent to leave is an identity and is not reported, and the comparisons across measures cover the other three.