Q: Where is the gap between the story India is telling about its GCC moment and the reality on the ground?
The headline story is impressive, but the lived reality is more complicated. If you walk into most GCCs today, you will still find large teams running critical operations with remarkable discipline. Processes close on time. Platforms run. Systems do not fail. These are done extremely well.
But sit in a global strategy meeting, and India is often not in the room where the direction is shaped. So the gap is not about capability. It is about where the center of gravity sits. India is deeply embedded in execution. It is still earning its place in ownership.
In simple terms, India is trusted to run the machine. It is still being invited, selectively, to redesign it.
Q: How many organizations have genuinely moved from cost arbitrage to strategic value creation — and how many are still describing the destination without having started the journey?
If you look at how GCCs have evolved over time, the shift is quite stark.Most organizations are still somewhere between shared services and scaled global business services. They have moved beyond cost arbitrage. They run end-to-end processes, support decision-making, and are seen as partners to the business.
But very few have crossed into what we at HFS call the Generative Enterprise stage.
In that stage, the GCC is not defined by the work it executes. It is defined by the outcomes it creates. Data is treated as an asset. Talent is built around scarce, high-impact skills. Technology shapes products and experiences. And the operating model shifts from being a partner to orchestrating across an ecosystem.
If you map GCCs to that curve, only a small fraction have reached that level. Most are still in the middle. They have improved the engine but not redesigned the vehicle.
So the narrative you hear today is about where organizations want to go. The reality is that the last leg of the journey, from value enabler to growth engine, is the hardest and the least complete.
Q: What exactly is the leadership gap at the heart of India’s GCC ecosystem — and why is it the constraint most GCC conversations avoid?
The gap today is about whether leaders can break down existing ways of working and rebuild them into something fundamentally different.
Most GCC leaders today are excellent at running scaled operations. They know how to deliver, optimize, and manage complexity. That capability has powered the GCC story so far.
But the next phase is not about running work better. It is about redesigning work using AI and converting services into software-led systems.
It requires leaders who can look at a process and ask, “If we were building this today with AI and data, would it look like this at all?”
In many cases, the answer is no.
The gap is that many leaders are not yet comfortable making that leap. They are used to optimizing what exists, not rebuilding it.
This is rarely discussed openly because the system still rewards delivery. Many GCCs are measured on cost, efficiency, and execution metrics. Within that frame, existing leadership looks successful.
But as expectations shift toward outcome ownership and growth, the limitation is becoming harder to ignore.
Q: What does the next generation of GCC leader actually look like — and why is India’s talent pipeline not yet producing enough of them?
The leaders who stand out today are the ones who do not wait for clarity. They go looking for it, and when they do not find it, they create it.
They understand the business beyond their function — how the company makes money, where it is under pressure, and where it is trying to go. They are willing to question and take positions.
What sets them apart now is their ability to rethink work itself.
They see AI not just as automation, but as a way to redesign decisions and workflows. They understand how to build services-as-software-first organizations, where work is embedded into platforms rather than scaled through people.
Most current leaders have grown up in delivery environments, so they are strong at execution. But many are not yet comfortable rethinking operations from first principles or engaging global stakeholders to do so. That is where the gap shows up.
The leaders who are breaking through are building smaller, empowered teams, encouraging experimentation, and engaging with headquarters as peers rather than just as reporting lines.
At the core, they think in terms of products, customers, and outcomes, and they take accountability for what gets built, not just how it gets delivered.
Q: How does the structural tension of being accountable to global headquarters while also building local culture, talent, and innovation shape leadership in India’s GCCs?
The role is inherently stretched.
You are on a call with headquarters being asked about delivery, cost, and timelines. In the next conversation, you are asking your team to innovate and rethink how work is done.
Both expectations are real, but they are not aligned.
Leaders are being asked to behave like growth engines while being measured like execution centers.
Those who manage this well focus on sequencing. They deliver consistently enough to build trust, and then use that trust to create space.
What they do with that space is what matters. Some scale more of the same. Others carve out areas where India can own outcomes end-to-end.
That balancing act is not taught anywhere. You learn it by navigating it.
Q: What is the single most common mistake global organizations make when they think about their India GCC — and what does it reveal about how headquarters still misunderstands India’s capabilities?
They assume evolution will happen without redesign.
Most global organizations believe their GCC will naturally evolve from a cost center to a value enabler to a growth engine. In reality, they are still operating somewhere in the middle.
They expand scope, take on more work, and set expectations for innovation. But the underlying model remains unchanged.
The shift to a true growth engine requires deliberate moves. Work has to move from transactions to outcomes, data has to be treated as an asset, talent has to shift toward new and scarce capabilities, and the GCC has to move from responding to requests to orchestrating across the enterprise.
Most organizations do not intentionally make these shifts. They keep scaling what already exists, sometimes to tens of thousands of people.
That is the mistake. They are improving the current model when the moment actually demands a different one.
Q: What does the services-to-software transition demand from GCCs — not just technically, but in culture, leadership mindset, and talent development?
It changes how work is done within the organization.
Instead of large teams executing defined tasks, work gets embedded into platforms, workflows, and products. Decisions are built into systems. Outcomes become the unit of measurement.
Take finance operations as an example. In a traditional model, you might have 1,000 people handling invoice processing, reconciliations, and exception management. Work flows through queues. Performance is measured by volume and turnaround time.
In a services-as-software model, much of that work is redesigned. Invoices are automatically ingested, matched using AI, and exceptions are handled via rules and models. Only edge cases require human intervention.
The team becomes smaller, but more critical. They are no longer processing transactions. They are designing workflows, training models, and improving the system.
The same pattern is playing out in customer service, supply chain, and HR.
For GCCs, this is a fundamental shift. It moves them from executing processes to designing how the business runs.
It also changes careers. Progression is no longer about managing larger teams. It is about owning better systems and delivering stronger outcomes.
Q: Is AI a threat to India’s GCC story or its greatest opportunity — and what separates the organizations that will use this moment well from those that will miss it?
It is both, and it is immediate.
AI is already reducing the volume of work that many GCCs were built to handle. In some cases, organizations are seeing productivity improvements of 20 to 30 percent in areas like customer support, coding, and analytics.
That directly impacts the need for large teams.
At the same time, AI creates new possibilities. It allows organizations to build smarter products, make faster decisions, and personalize experiences at scale.
In a Generative Enterprise, AI becomes part of the continuous creation of value.
The organizations that respond well will use AI to redesign work and move toward outcome ownership. Those who struggle will try to protect existing structures.
The window to act is not very long. Over the next few years, this shift will become unavoidable.
Q: Why do many of the most capable professionals in India’s GCC ecosystem still feel the ceiling is lower than their ambition — and what would it take to change that?
Because most GCCs are still positioned as value enablers rather than growth engines.
Even when the work is complex, ownership of products, decisions, and outcomes often sits elsewhere. Over time, that becomes visible.
You see this among mid-career professionals who are ready to own something end-to-end but are still operating within defined scopes.
When they move to product companies or startups, the contrast is clear: smaller teams, more ownership, faster decisions.
If GCCs want to retain this talent, they have to create roles where ownership is real, not implied.
Q: How much of the GCC leadership gap is really a reflection of India’s broader professional culture — and how honestly is the industry willing to confront that?
A lot of what we call culture is shaped by the system.
If work is defined as transactions, and success is measured through efficiency and control, people will behave accordingly. They will avoid risk and wait for direction.
India’s professional culture reflects the system in which it has grown: strong on execution, disciplined, adaptable.
But when organizations shift toward outcomes and ownership, behavior changes. You see more initiative, more questioning, and more willingness to experiment.
Culture follows what is expected and rewarded.
Q: What does a GCC that has genuinely made the shift to an innovation hub look like in practice — and are there examples that prove India can get there at scale?
It looks like a growth engine.
Teams in India own outcomes, not just processes. They build and run products and platforms. In some cases, they are responsible for global systems used across markets.
You might see a GCC owning a data platform that drives global revenue decisions, or leading the development of a customer-facing application.
Data is central. AI is embedded. Work flows across teams and systems rather than being handed off.
Team structures are different. Fewer large hierarchies, more focused teams working at speed.
There are examples of this today, but often in pockets — a product line, a platform, or a specific function.
The real challenge is scaling it across the enterprise.
Q: What should senior professionals in India’s GCC ecosystem be building in themselves right now if they want to close this leadership gap rather than be defined by it?
They need to prepare for a role where they are accountable for outcomes, not just execution.
That means understanding the business deeply — how revenue is generated, where costs sit, and where the company is investing.
It means getting comfortable with AI and data enough to engage in redesigning work.
It is also about learning how to frame problems. Not just solve what is given, but question whether the problem itself is the right one.
And importantly, get comfortable operating without complete answers.
Most current roles do not yet require this. But those who build these capabilities early will be in a very different position when the model shifts.
--Ends --
Achyuta Ghosh is a strategist, researcher, and industry voice for enterprises navigating the defining shifts of our time. As an Executive Research Leader at HFS Research, he partners with CXOs and transformation leaders across the world’s largest organizations to develop global capability center (GCC) strategies that maximize value, talent, and innovation outcomes. He also guides their transition into the services-to-software business, enabling them to build productized, digital-first operating models.
With over two decades of experience, Achyuta has been decoding the future of technology for leaders, investors, and policymakers. His work across digital transformation, AI adoption, Future of Work, deep tech, and GCC ecosystems has guided boardroom strategies, shaped government agendas, and energized startup ecosystems. Previously at Nasscom, he built and led the thought leadership function into a powerhouse of influence, setting their growth trajectories, delivering strategic insights, advising global enterprises, and developing national policy frameworks.
Earlier in his career, Achyuta held leadership roles at Ford Motor Company, where he launched the India Smart Mobility business. He also served at WNS, Genpact, and Frost & Sullivan, where he built and scaled consulting, research, and analytics practices across industries.
Achyuta holds a bachelor’s in electrical engineering and an MBA from the University of Mumbai. Off the clock, he can be found on his motorcycle, immersing himself in history and biographies, and exploring new cultures and ideas.
