|
|
There was an idea to bring together a group of remarkable people, to see if they could become something more.
Nick Fury, The Avengers
That’s the promise of every Global Capability Center (GCC) talent strategy. Bring together India’s best engineers, analysts, and product thinkers and build something greater than the sum of its parts.
It’s a good promise. And the talent market can deliver on it. India’s engineering depth is real, the pipeline is deep, and the capability is proven across 1,700+ Global Capability Centers (GCCs).
But assembling remarkable people is only half the equation. The other half, the part that determines whether those people stay, grow, and deliver at their potential, is the organizational structure you build around them. And that’s where the real lessons of Global Capability Center (GCC) talent live. Not in who you hire, but in what you build for them to thrive in.
Ask most companies planning a Global Capability Center (GCC) what their hiring priority is and they’ll talk about headcount targets. Fifty by quarter two. Two hundred by end of year one. The number becomes the milestone.
But the first three hiring decisions shape the center more than the next ninety-seven combined.
The right Global Capability Center (GCC) head is a talent magnet. They set the culture. They become the bridge between India and headquarters. They attract a caliber of people that job descriptions alone never will.
What nobody tells you upfront: you often can’t get the right center head on day one. The search takes longer than planned. The best candidates are employed and need convincing. The pressure to move fast can create a temptation to settle for someone available rather than wait for someone right.
We’ve seen GCCs operate without a permanent center head for their first 100 people. In one case, the leader didn’t join until the center was past 200. That’s far more common than anyone admits publicly. The center head search is always the first requisition opened. When they actually join is a very different story. Some companies insist the center head joins on launch day and plan their hiring accordingly. Others bring in an interim leader to bridge the gap and give the search the time it needs. Both approaches work well.
The principle is straightforward: start the search the moment the Global Capability Center (GCC) decision is made. Getting the right leader matters more than getting a leader first. Starting early is what gives you the option of having both.
This is one of the most important early decisions, and it’s easy to get the sequencing backwards without realizing it.
The natural instinct is to hire individual contributors first: engineers, architects, data scientists. The people who do the work. Leadership hiring happens later, once there’s a team to lead.
The pattern we’ve seen across multiple GCCs tells a different story. When you hire ICs without a management layer in parallel, you end up with a bulging pyramid. Talented people at the middle, very little leadership on top, and no one on the ground who serves as the bridge between India and the global organization.
The ICs are technically strong, but they lack a local connection point, someone who knows the organization, who can translate between how things work globally and how they need to work in India.
The companies that build the strongest early cultures hire across the pyramid from the start. Not sequentially, ICs first, managers later, but in parallel. If you’re building a data architecture team, getting the manager in place alongside the first ICs makes a measurable difference. That manager sets the tone, provides context, and becomes the culture carrier long before any formal program does. The result is a team that feels connected to the larger organization from week one, not week twenty.
Setting up in a new country means navigating unfamiliar employment law, compensation benchmarks, hiring channels, and market expectations. The companies that invest in the right advisory partner from the start consistently move faster and build stronger foundations. It’s one of the highest-ROI decisions in the early phase, and one of the most frequently deferred.
Most companies plan for a clean sequence: hire the leader, then the leader builds the team. Leader first, team second. It’s a logical plan.
The reality is that this sequence rarely plays out exactly as designed, and that’s okay, as long as the organization is prepared for it. Sometimes the business need is too urgent to wait for the perfect leader. Sometimes the leader search takes longer than expected. And sometimes the leader you hired moves on sooner than planned.
We’ve seen this at a European Retail Global Capability Center (GCC). They hired a strong leader with a clear mandate. The leader departed within 18 months. A replacement followed and also moved on. Meanwhile, the team was growing, but productive output wasn’t keeping pace with headcount. The company found itself paying for the GCC and still paying their outsourcing partners for the same work.
The lesson isn’t that sequencing is impossible. It’s that resilience matters more than sequence. The companies that handle leadership transitions well are the ones that built depth across the pyramid from day one. They have strong managers on the ground. They have institutional knowledge distributed across people, not concentrated in one leader. When a transition happens, the center has its own gravity. It doesn’t stall.
Starting the leader search early is critical. Building an organization that can absorb change is what makes the difference between a disruption and a setback.
Every Global Capability Center (GCC) celebrates headcount milestones, and they should. Getting to 100, 500, or 1,000 people is a genuine achievement that reflects real organizational commitment.
But experienced GCC leaders know that headcount and productive capacity are two different curves, and there’s always a gap between them. Every new hire has a ramp period. In a GCC that’s still building its infrastructure, where knowledge transfer from headquarters is still ongoing, where processes are being documented in real time, that ramp naturally stretches longer.
The companies that close this gap fastest share a common discipline: they invest as much energy in their first-90-days experience as they do in their talent acquisition pipeline. Structured onboarding. Clear 30-60-90 plans. Dedicated knowledge transfer sprints with global teams. A deliberate plan for how each new hire becomes productive, not just employed.
When this is done well, the headcount curve and the productivity curve converge quickly, and the GCC starts demonstrating value that compounds. When it’s left to organic absorption, the gap persists longer than anyone expects, and the pressure from executive sponsors builds before the center has had a chance to show what it can do.
Here’s a practical challenge that catches every GCC off guard in the first year: the sheer volume of interviewing.
When you’re hiring 50 to 100 people in the first six months, and every senior hire needs multiple rounds with stakeholders across time zones, the interview burden on leadership is significant. It’s not unusual for a center head to spend 30 to 40% of their first 6 months in interviews. That’s time not available for operating model design, stakeholder alignment, or building relationships with headquarters.
The companies that plan for this, by building interview panels early, training local hiring managers, and creating structured evaluation frameworks, protect their leadership’s bandwidth for the work that only leadership can do.
And there’s a subtlety around market expectations that creates real friction if it isn’t addressed early. India’s hiring market operates at a fundamentally different scale than the US or Europe. In the US, a role might attract 10 to 20 applicants. A hiring manager interviews two or three, makes an offer. In India, a single application can draw thousands of resumes. The industry-standard conversion ratio is 7:1 or 8:1. A GCC tracking at 4:1 is performing exceptionally well by Indian standards. But to a US-based leader who’s used to a much lower ratio, those numbers can feel like something is off.
We’ve seen this firsthand, an India hiring leader presenting a 4:1 ratio as an achievement, and the global counterpart asking what they could do to improve. The market complexity wasn’t understood. It wasn’t a performance issue; it was a context gap.
The companies that navigate this well invest early in educating their global stakeholders on how India’s Global Capability Center (GCC) talent market works. Not as an excuse, but as a foundation for aligned expectations. When both sides understand the market, the hiring partnership becomes dramatically more effective.
The strongest insight we’ve gathered on Global Capability Center (GCC) talent isn’t about sourcing or compensation. It’s about continuity of experience.
Most GCCs invest heavily in the first 90 days. Onboarding, welcome programs, introductions, maybe a town hall with global leadership. That investment matters, and it sets the right tone. But the companies that retain their best people are the ones that treat employee experience as a continuous effort, not a point-in-time event.
The first 90 days get someone oriented. Months 4-12 are when people decide if this is where they want to build their career. That’s when they’re asking themselves: does this organization match what I was told? Is the work growing with me? Do I see a path forward? Is there leadership here that I trust and want to work alongside?
The GCCs that answer those questions well, through strong local leadership, visible growth paths, and an authentic connection to the global organization, find that retention takes care of itself. The ones that treat the first 90 days as the finish line rather than the starting point find themselves re-hiring for the same roles twelve months later.
The difference is intentionality. And it starts with recognizing that the remarkable people you hired made a bet on your organization. Honoring that bet consistently is what turns a talent strategy into a talent advantage.
India’s Global Capability Center (GCC) talent market is deep, capable, and competitive. The people are there. The question is whether the organization you’re building is ready to make the most of them.
Nick Fury’s idea worked because the remarkable people he assembled were given a mission worthy of their talent and a structure that brought out their best. The same principle holds for GCCs. The talent will come. The question is: are you building something that brings out their best? Is the pyramid shaped right? Is there leadership on the ground? Is the experience after day 90 as intentional as the experience before it?
The companies that answer yes don’t just hire well. They build organizations where each good hire makes the next one easier, where the center’s reputation becomes its own recruiting engine, and where the promise of “something more” actually comes to life.
Next edition: What No One Tells You About Picking the Right Location
Previous Edition: What No One Tells You About: Why GCCS Are Set Up
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR RESPONSE
