My manager cares about me

The mean rating was 4.7 and the median 5.0 (n = 804 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, made up 30.22% of the answers. The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.65, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.55, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.78, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.87, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.67, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.73 to −0.61, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 755 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 46.66, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.421) and respondent role (Welch F 8.03, Holm p = 0.004, omega squared 0.012).

Seven written responses addressed the indicator, all from C030, on what the respondent loves most about the job, and all positive. Five named a manager who had the respondent's back or backed the respondent up.

Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, accounted for 243 of the 804 answers (30.22%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 33 of 150 engagements.

Every response was secondary. Each answered C030, “What are the top 3 things that you love most about your job?”, and named the manager among its answers. Five said the manager had the respondent's back or backed the respondent up, every time in one case and when it counted in others. One called the manager excellent and supportive. One, from an engagement the respondent called rough, named a manager who tried to help.

Two responses carried the strongest positive score and five the next. With fewer than 10 responses, the distribution is reported as counts only.

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 46.66, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.421). Active engagements in Production rated highest (mean 6.1, n = 91 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 3.2, n = 306 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 8.03, Holm p = 0.004, omega squared 0.012). Portfolio directors rated highest (mean 5.7, n = 30 respondents) and individual contributors lowest (mean 4.6, n = 622 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type showed no difference.

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 = −0.65, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.55, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in seventeen 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 = 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.78, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twelve 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 = 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 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 = −0.67, 95% CI −0.71 to −0.63, Holm p < 0.001, n = 755 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-six of the 37 segment levels tested.

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, three of the six pairs differed. The association with the engagement indicator mean was the strongest and the association with cancellation the weakest.

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.66). Clustering reduced the 804 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 208 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.

Five other indicators appeared once each: C014, on the respondent's own agentic AI expertise, C018, on job happiness, C080, on whether the manager is effective, C094, on the quality of the financial institution's data, and C137, on whether the two firms have settled who decides what agents may do. The most frequent theme was “Skills learned”.

About three in ten of all ratings of whether the manager cares about the respondent fell in the distressed range (243 of 804 answers, 30.22%). 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 3.2, n = 306 respondents).

The written responses are anecdotes from respondents who valued their manager. They describe care as backing: a manager who stood behind the respondent's decisions.

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.

Counts of written responses describe the respondents who wrote and not the study set of respondents. With seven responses, the written evidence supports counts only and no statistic.