Hi {{firstname|everyone}},
Most accounting leaders with a GCC say the same thing in private.
“The team is good. Work gets done. But everything still seems to come back to us.”
What usually frustrates leaders is not the quality of the offshore team. It is the fact that nothing really moves unless someone onshore nudges it forward. Managers stay involved in decisions that should never reach them. Partners still act as safety nets for routine delivery. Month end closes, but it does not feel owned.
That is the quiet cost. You invest in a GCC expecting leverage, yet you end up with a larger coordination problem. Gradually, the GCC becomes efficient at following steps, but incapable of running a process without constant oversight.
I believe, it is less of a people problem and more of a design flaw.
Firms that get real value from their GCCs make a simple shift. They move offshore teams from executing tasks to owning the full process.
Below are 3 shifts I consistently see in high performing GCCs that actually move the needle.
1. Process ownership replaces instruction dependency
Most GCCs start life as support engines. Work is broken down onshore, passed offshore, reviewed back onshore, and corrected if needed. On paper this feels safe.
In practice, it creates a constant instruction loop. Offshore teams wait to be told what comes next. Onshore teams stay mentally involved in work they thought they had delegated.
This matters because accounting work is not a fixed checklist. Timelines slip. Data arrives late. Exceptions appear without warning. When no one offshore owns the full process, every deviation triggers escalation.
High performing GCCs break this loop by assigning ownership, not tasks.
In fact, Deloitte Shared Services surveys consistently show that GCCs with end-to-end process ownership reduce cycle times by 30 to 50% compared to task-based offshore models.
The offshore team owns the outcome, the timeline, and the quality. Onshore teams step back from directing and move into oversight. That shift is uncomfortable at first, but it is the only way capability actually builds.
Here’s how you can get a handle on this:
Assign end to end ownership of specific processes like month end close or management reporting to named GCC leads
Push deadline management and exception resolution into the GCC instead of solving it onshore
Measure success on outcomes delivered, not steps completed
2. Quality improves when accountability moves offshore
In instruction-led models, quality control lives onshore. Over time, this creates learned dependency. Mistakes are fixed, but the thinking behind them is never fully owned by the team that made them.
Case in point: PwC finance transformation studies show that over 60% of recurring accounting errors come from handoff points between teams, not from lack of technical skill.
This is key because quality issues scale faster than volume. As transaction counts grow, small inconsistencies multiply. Onshore reviewers end up firefighting rather than improving the system.
When GCCs own quality, behaviour changes quickly. Teams start spotting issues earlier. Patterns get documented. Fixes get embedded into the process rather than patched at review. Quality stops being a checkpoint and starts becoming a capability.
To improve quality and accountability:
Move first level quality review fully into the GCC for defined processes
Track error types and root causes at the GCC level, not just corrections made onshore
Reward teams for error reduction and consistency, not just speed
3. Process ownership is how judgement gets built
Judgement does not come from training sessions or SOP documents. It comes from seeing the same problems repeatedly and being responsible for resolving them. Most offshore models deny teams that opportunity by design.
Reality is, judgement is where real leverage sits. Firms do not struggle with routine work. They struggle with exceptions, timing conflicts, and client behaviour that does not follow the script. If judgement stays onshore, growth always hits a ceiling.
GCCs that own processes see judgement compound naturally. Teams encounter edge cases, discuss them internally, document responses, and apply those lessons the next time. Over the course, decision quality improves without constant supervision.
BCG research shows that knowledge retention in shared services increases by more than 2x when teams are responsible for outcomes rather than isolated tasks.
When that happens, GCCs stop feeling like support and start feeling like part of the firm.
Here are a few imperatives to get started:
Let GCC teams resolve defined categories of exceptions before escalating
Create shared decision logs so judgement builds collectively, not individually
Involve GCC leads in post close reviews to discuss what changed and why
How Samera Gets It Right
At Samera, this is exactly how we help firms design their GCCs. Not as offshore task factories, but as process owning extensions of the leadership team. We focus on structure, accountability, and capability from day one, so value shows up quietly and consistently over time.
If you are rethinking how your GCC should really work, this is where the conversation needs to start.
Cheers,
Arun