The Real Elephant in the Room for GCCs: Trust and Empowerment
There is no shortage of discussion today about the potential of Global Capability Centers. They are spoken about as engines of innovation, custodians of critical talent, accelerators of digital transformation, and strategic extensions of the enterprise. Conference panels are full, reports are optimistic, and every enterprise presentation seems to include a slide on how the GCC will “move up the value chain.”
And yet, when we look closely, only a small fraction of GCCs have genuinely realized this ambition.
The gap is not caused by lack of talent, scale, investment, or even intent. The real constraint is far more uncomfortable to acknowledge. It is trust. Closely followed by empowerment.
Most enterprises are willing to talk about trust. Far fewer are willing to practice it.
In many GCCs, the work that is described as “strategic” is still tightly controlled, heavily reviewed, and fundamentally risk-managed from headquarters. Decision rights remain ambiguous. Accountability is diluted. Authority is often delegated, but ownership rarely is. The GCC is expected to think like an owner, but is still treated like a dependent. This creates a subtle but persistent contradiction. Enterprises ask their GCCs to innovate, yet restrict their ability to decide. They expect leadership depth, yet reserve critical calls for onshore teams. They want agility, yet impose multi-layered approvals that strip momentum from even the best ideas.
Over time, this contradiction erodes aspiration. Talented leaders in GCCs quickly learn where the invisible boundaries lie. Teams adapt by optimizing for execution excellence rather than outcome ownership. Risk-taking gives way to risk avoidance. What begins as a high-potential strategic asset slowly settles into being a very efficient delivery engine.
The irony is that this outcome is rarely deliberate. Most enterprise leaders genuinely want their GCCs to succeed. What often holds them back is an unspoken fear: fear of losing control, fear of inconsistency, fear of reputational risk, or fear that decisions made far from headquarters may not fully align with context. These fears are understandable, but if left unaddressed, they quietly cap the value a GCC can create.
Trust, in this context, is not about blind faith. It is about clarity. It means being explicit about decision rights rather than vague about empowerment. It means defining where the GCC can act independently, where it must align, and where it must escalate. It means accepting that some decisions will not be perfect, but that learning velocity matters more than flawless execution. Most importantly, it means holding GCC leaders accountable for outcomes, not just adherence to process.
Empowerment, similarly, is not about autonomy without guardrails. It is about authority that matches responsibility. When GCC leaders are responsible for outcomes but lack control over budgets, talent decisions, operating models, or vendor choices, empowerment becomes performative. True empowerment shows up when a GCC can shape how work is done, how teams are built, how capabilities are scaled, and how value is measured—within clearly articulated enterprise objectives.
The GCCs that have truly reached their potential share a common pattern. Their enterprises made a conscious shift from oversight to stewardship. They invested early in leadership capability. They accepted short-term ambiguity in exchange for long-term ownership. And they treated trust not as a sentiment, but as an operating principle.
The uncomfortable truth is this: a GCC can never outperform the level of trust it is given.
If your GCC is not delivering the strategic impact you expected, the first question may not be about talent, cost, or structure. It may be about whether you have genuinely trusted it to lead—and empowered it to act accordingly.
Until enterprises are willing to confront this elephant in the room, the promise of the GCC will remain just that: a promise, frequently discussed, occasionally glimpsed, but rarely fulfilled.