The Pragmatic Edge: Global Impact

The next chapter of Everest Group Engage is coming to London, March 31 – April 1, 2025. Building on the momentum of the 2024 event, Everest Group Engage 2025 — London will dive deeper into The Pragmatic Edge: Global Impact—exploring how practical strategies can drive sustainable growth in a complex, interconnected world.

This 1.5-day event will connect executives from GBS, sourcing, vendor management, IT services, global locations, and next-gen technology with top experts and thought leaders to co-create solutions for future challenges. With hands-on workshops, solution-focused discussions, and immersive networking, attendees will leave equipped to make confident, data-driven decisions and transform their organizations.

Mark your calendars now! London awaits—offering you the opportunity to sharpen your pragmatic edge and achieve global impact.

LEARN MORE AND RESERVE MY SEAT

Year Two of Engage Dallas – Bigger, Better, Brighter

We’re back in Dallas from September 8 to 10, 2025, for the newest chapter of Everest Group Engage. Building on the momentum of the inaugural event, Everest Group Engage 2025 — Dallas will help attendees uncover specific areas for business performance improvement contextualized to their specific needs – uncovering how practical strategies can drive sustainable growth in today’s constantly changing, interconnected world.

This 2.5-day event will connect executives from GBS, sourcing, vendor management, IT services, global locations, and next-gen technology with top experts and thought leaders to innovate their people, processes, technology, and operations with confidence and clear sightlines on impact. With hands-on workshops, solution-focused discussions, and immersive networking, attendees will leave equipped to make confident, data-driven decisions and transform their organizations.

Mark your calendars now! Dallas awaits—offering you the opportunity to sharpen your pragmatic edge and achieve global impact.

The event website and registration will launch soon. Sign up for the mailing list to stay informed.

I once woke up to an announcement on the radio that the bank whose business services operations I was leading was being sold to a mega-banking major. Notwithstanding the fact that I reported to one of the vice chairs, and he left me off his call list, I should have recognized the signs. That day was an emotional rollercoaster, but it was nothing compared to the ups and downs I experienced over the next year.

Is a merger or acquisition (M&A) in your GBS future? Or has been in the past? Likely so. But don’t take it from me, take it from ChatGPT. According to that font of all knowledge, 40-50% of the current F1000 company list have been formed through mergers and acquisitions to increase market share, diversify products, or enter new markets. ​With GBS ground zero for integration—and expected to deliver much of the justification for combination, its team members bear more than their share of change and angst.

With the average time from an announcement of a merger or acquisition to the completion of the transaction at 6-12 months for mid-sized to larger deals, with the duration of post-merger integration taking another 1.5 years or more, M&A activity wreaks special havoc on the global business services model, its leaders, and its people.

Why is that? Finance and others are functions that are policy- or rules-driven, fairly cut-and-dried that face the challenges or scale or streamlining in merger and acquisition activity. However, GBS is an ecosystem that delivers work; certainly, there are some rules but a varied range of levers to pull. Each is different. So, at an event, combination sets a series of reactions, depending on the integration scenario, of which there are four:

• The acquirer’s GBS has all the answers, and the acquired are subsumed into their model. In this scenario—which occurs most often—the delivery model and often the leadership chairs are fully occupied. Because the acquired organization has some level of certainty as to its fate, its roadmap is shut down, investment stops, and the acquired or merged team members become disaffected and start to tune off and look elsewhere.
• The acquired have a more evolved GBS, so it drives transformation. This scenario is challenging if the management team slots remain with the acquirer, less so when there is a “merger of equals.” In the former case, the GBS model can feel like a graft that may or may not take, forcing the powers that be to think and work differently; tables are turned when it comes to which GBS team is feeling the pain.
• Management believes that the event is a catalyst to design and implement a new GBS model. Under the banner of integration, management may take the opportunity to rethink the model, perhaps repatriating scope to the business, realigning work into CoEs, consolidating locations, or pushing an automation agenda. This scenario creates both uncertainty and opportunity for both organizations.
• Neither has a mature GBS, so integration drives the design and implementation of a new model. Nothing like a merger or acquisition focuses the mind on the benefits of the model; in this scenario, trusted leaders from the business, usually supported by a consultant, cook up a new business services platform.

But there’s potentially a silver lining for GBS organizations. With the typical integration budget as much or more than 5% of the transaction’s value, GBS is likely to benefit. Here are a just a few.

• Heightened importance GBS organizations almost always have a seat at the table when it comes to strategy for integration and resultant implementation. If the model delivers, there may be an afterglow that results in GBS becoming more integral to enterprise strategy and operations (note that I did not say seat at the table).
• Ability to transform Under the aegis of an integration budget, GBS may finally be able to justify and grab some funding for resources that it and the enterprise believe necessary to drive transformation.
• New investment in infrastructure and technology The event should drive system standardization and investment to get at those critical synergies. It could be a perfect catalyst for the expansion of delivery locations or the implementation of technology that’s been on the wish list but out of reach.

Regardless of the approach the enterprise takes, the greatest challenge is not model design or whether to close down Costa Rica in favor of Bogota—it’s down to people. Helping them cope and modeling the right behaviors is paramount to getting through this most trying of periods. Based on my experience, here are some tips to ensure productivity and engagement

• Don’t panic The team will take their cue from its leaders. Be stoic.
• Don’t play your hand If you are ready to retire or move on, keep it to yourself.
• Keep momentum going and make it obvious to the team Decide which initiatives are likely to be unaffected by the event, and which will not survive. The teams need to understand it’s business as usual until it isn’t (there’s always a risk that the deal won’t proceed) but also not feel that they are responsible for busy work that doesn’t have a prayer of surviving Day 1. A thoughtful “stop-start-continue” exercise is very useful and should be conducted at the announcement and during key points during integration planning.
• Maintain routines Nothing says all is lost more than truncating or stopping embedded management routines.
• Be respectful of the other party GBS is highly contextual. No GBS is “best” or has all the answers. We can be a very catty bunch when it comes to talking about our peers. When the organizations come to the table, superior or dismissive behavior is out of place. Help your teams keep an open mind.
• Take the opportunity to learn M&A is fascinating; it allows the opportunity to have a window into another enterprise’s operations since rats and mice come out during the planning for and execution of integration. Ultimately, knowing how to foster an integration is a resume booster.
• Keep everyone informed Not knowing facts such as events, timelines, and packages is harder than not knowing. Be as forthcoming as you can and admit when you don’t know or can’t yet share an answer. And be careful about sharing appropriately with your inner circle; it creates an “us and them.”
• Create opportunities to come together frequently I ran weekly brown bag lunches as therapy for my team. Knowing that they were not alone was a great help in keeping them focused on their work.
• Administer hyper care to your team when possible There will be situations that will send a message to the team. For example, I had to pull strings to bridge one month of service to obtain retirement status for one of my employees. The team will be acutely aware of what their leaders will do to ease their concerns and keep chugging on.
• Read Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’s Five Stages of Grief Especially if you are acquired, it’s a must-read to keep your sanity. After all, M&A represents the loss of an institution and potentially of a work family and the creation of something new and unknown. For example, I experienced an acute sense of loss with a fixation on what I could have achieved without that “bloody acquisition.” Elizabeth helped.

And remember, GBS models are never static even without M&A activity. This too shall pass. GBS has evolved to be exceptionally resilient.

The global business services (GBS) landscape is evolving rapidly, and the industry is asking critical questions, including: How are peers structuring their GBS organizations? Is the landlord model gaining momentum? What role do Global Process Owners (GPOs) play? What enabling capabilities are GBS organizations investing in? How is business relationship management integrated within GBS?

Watch an insightful LinkedIn Live session where we’ll unveil findings from a first-of-its-kind, comprehensive study based on interviews with over 50 GBS leaders.

Our GBS experts explored the research findings and share insights on how GBS organizations are planning for success. Participants will learn about key patterns and factors shaping GBS operating structures and better understand how GBS organization’s architectures address challenges.

Don’t miss the chance to watch us discover the trends and shifts driving GBS evolution.

During this collaborative LinkedIn Live session, we discussed:

How are other GBS organizations structured, and is the landlord model becoming more prevalent?
What is the role and placement of GPOs?
Which enabling capabilities are GBS investing in?
How is business relationship management organized within GBS

 GBS Leaders

VIEW THE FULL REPORT 

GBS 

VIEW THE FULL REPORT 

I recently took one of those unplug-and-unwind holidays but made it only eight days before I craved a serious conversation. So I rang my good friend, the always-wise Fred Simoes of Cargill, for some food for thought. When we got to talking about enterprise GBS strategy, he popped a quote I’d somehow missed attributed to US Representative Shirley Chisholm, “If you don’t have a seat at the table, you are probably on the menu.”  It got me thinking about how a GBS seat at the table actually manifests itself. (By the way, thanks, Fred, for giving me a new topic to obsess about).

Seat at the table, seat at the table. Most industry reports and surveys proudly proclaim that global business services organizations increasingly have been invited to rub shoulders with the C-suite, influencing strategy, yucking it up with the enterprise’s CXOs, and ensuring that GBS is embedded in the operating model.

But if I take sitting at the top table literally, looking around me, I see only a handful (ok, maybe two hands on a good day) of GBS leaders who are badged as CXOs. If so few actually have a physical seat at the table, do we have an aspiration that is inaccurate, misleading, and frankly, not usually within a GBS leader’s reach?

Given the paucity of leaders on the same reporting line as the CFO or part of the EXCO,  what does the phrase “seat at the table” actually mean for GBS and their leaders? And how important is it?

According to the Free Dictionary, the font of much knowledge, it means an “active role in some group or activity in which one’s opinions are heard, and one has influence in how decisions are made.”

So I did a bit of thinking about the term and came to the conclusion we have it all wrong. There are many tables in an enterprise—think transformation table, efficiency table, cost-cutting table, even growth table—and at any given time, it’s critical that GBS sit at some or all of them.

Perhaps it’s more important that GBS is always in the room, moving between tables. Comfortably seated at one table is a risk when corporate priorities and personnel are constantly changing, just like tables in a restaurant.

Given this definition, how do you know your GBS is in the room? Looking around, I see these markers:

• Documented as a vital pillar of corporate strategy
• Pervasive in the transformation agenda
• Considered in all pertinent enterprise decisions
• Actively sought out by CXOs and the business for advice and counsel
• Has the agility and flexibility to pivot the model quickly as business conditions change
• Career paths in and out of GBS

How do you know your GBS is standing in the hallway, knocking at a door that just won’t open?

• Relegated to focusing exclusively on cost
• Reporting line is continually tossed around between stakeholders
• Ebbing and flowing scope
• Can’t get a conversation with the CEO for love or money
• Not perceived as a source of capability
• Continually “rebooting”

The obvious question is—how does GBS get into the room? Here’s how I see it.

• Create tangible, quantifiable value, not vaporware
• Move the enterprise to the model at the speed it can absorb but at a pace that creates impact
• Be seen as a partner problem solver, not a blocker
• Able to work effectively with a number of enterprise constituencies

Knows when to retreat to advance

So, Fred, I certainly get what the quote originally inferred…not being at the table can mean that you become someone’s delicious dinner. But, perhaps GBS organizations need to rethink their ambition, and make sure they are always in the room.

Earlier this month I had two of those eleventh-hour conversations with leaders who were about to sign onto gigs reviving GBS models. I was familiar with each company’s revolving door of leaders, the quality of the team, GBS’s historic inability to scale, and the downward trajectory of the share performance. So, I asked each of them, “How do you know you’ll be successful? Will you have the backing and the budget to make a difference? Are there triggers in the business context that say the time is ripe for change? What’s the probability that you’ll be on the street in 30 months?”

And neither of them could answer.

I’m surprised at the number of GBS leader candidates, so flattered by the attentions of internal talent acquisition or a big search firm—or honestly somewhat desperate to nag a new role—don’t ask the right questions or do any homework. Far too many assume that the enterprise’s brand and scale are synonymous with career opportunity and growth.

To quote Shakespeare, what’s past is prologue. Whether the new gig is a greenfield build, reviving a moribund organization, or taking the helm of a well-run operation, not taking the time to do due diligence is a mistake of gargantuan proportions. And to be blunt, too many of our friends throw caution to the wind and blindly sign on.

What must savvy GBS leaders do before signing a new employment contract?

Do some desktop research

.A bit of skunkworks is in order before the seduction goes too far. Find out:

1. How many CXOs has the company had in the last five years, or even the last 10? Likely CXO revolving doors 1) say the company is a laggard, not a leader, and can’t quite crack a successful formula; 2) suggest that the fortunes of the company aren’t necessarily looking up; or 3) if the past is prologue, the current mob won’t last very long, all connoting a lack of support for a GBS model.
2. How has the share price performed, and why? It amazes me that folks don’t study historical stock performance. At the very minimum, one would think that the leader would do a bit of forecasting as share performance directly impacts long-term incentive value. Is the industry low growth? Low margin? Has the enterprise placed some wrong bets? While GBS can positively impact share value, it’s not a knight in shining armor.
3. Who is on the board? Nothing focuses the CEO’s mind like an activist investor. And, if one of the members comes from a services company or an enterprise that has either aggressively gone GBS or outsourced, the new GBS leader should know what’s being whispered in the ears of the CEO.
4. Where did key leadership come from? Do occupants of the C-suite come from enterprises that have embraced or rejected a GBS model, positioning them as endorsers or guerillas? Chances are their attitudes are ingrained.
5. How many public announcements relative to reorganization, restructuring, or missing earnings have been made? It should be a red flag if every quarter there’s a difficult press release or a painful earnings call. Likely GBS will be put under pressure to cut, cut, cut, or, when the line of sight to transformation becomes blurred, taken apart under the banner of failure to perform.
6. What is the company’s acquisition/divestiture history, and what has happened to its GBS leadership? This could suggest that management is subject to a serial game of musical chairs, with constant competition for the top role. While the party with the most mature GBS will likely maintain primacy, in other cases, the GBS role becomes a giveaway to the acquired to keep the numbers sweet.
7. Is the company ripe for acquisition? The marketplace constantly speculates about combinations. Empirically, executives in an acquired company are likely to lose any “best athlete” contest (trust me, I’ve been there).
8. Is the GBS organization on a most-admired list? While there’s a lot of subjectivity in these lists, and it’s best to take inclusion with a pinch of salt, a list does say something about GBS’s industry’s reputation. After all, the brand of a GBS is usually conflated with the brand of the leader.
9. If there was a previous incumbent, what have they been saying on industry podiums? While a predecessor’s public statements may be a bit of a hype, their comments will likely give the prospective leader a sense for the historic GBS state of play.
10. What are the consultants saying? Advisors are a chatty bunch. They are usually comfortable dishing about their (former) or (prospective) clients, hoping upon hope that giving the straight skinny to a prospective leader will position them for future engagement. You never know what you’ll learn.

And ask the uncomfortable questions

It’s your career; why wouldn’t you ask critical questions? Whether it’s to the hiring officer or the search consultant, if you can’t get clear answers to key GBS-related questions, be suspicious.

Don’t just read the tea leaves. They won’t give you the full picture.

Is the enterprise serious about transformation?

1. Does the enterprise have a plan for GBS? If the enterprise does have a plan, it may be a consultant’s PPT, not necessarily the plan the new leader can actually implement. Or perhaps the candidate has another vision, causing dissonance. On the other hand, if the enterprise is waiting for a new leader to tell them what to do, it may take a year or more to design, plan, syndicate, and get buy-in, further delaying value delivery and creating a class of enterprise non-believers.
2. Who is the enterprise’s consulting firm drug of choice, and, if applicable, who developed the GBS strategy? Not only can we all recognize a specific consulting firm’s PPT slide, but we all know what they are advising. Some firms frankly don’t understand the model, others cooky-cutter their GBS approach, while some partners really understand how culture and context shape the solution and give a new leader something to build on. No position is more difficult than disputing the expensive consultant’s solution on Day 1.
3. Does GBS strategy align with corporate strategy? All too often, GBS is a thing in and of itself. If the enterprise hasn’t aligned its GBS strategy’s mission and goals directly, the two will move in parallel, unaligned universes.
4. To what extent is the GBS program funded? One of the most dangerous sentences muttered in the heat of GBS leader recruitment is, “We will do whatever it takes.” Discount that declaration by half. None of us fell off a turnip truck yesterday; transformation programs are high-investment, complicated, multi-year endeavors. Funding won’t magically appear.
5. What’s the role of the Chief Transformation Officer? Increasingly, CTransOs are showing up on the org chart? What is their mandate? Will they see GBS levers as “theirs” and go to battle with the model? Or will they work collaboratively?
6. What’s the time frame for change? Are expectations unreasonable?
7. How many major transformation programs have been attempted in the past 10 years? It’s important to know whether the enterprise is suffering from change fatigue, and if GBS is considered just another program destined for failure.
8. What’s the company’s experience implementing ERP? There is a correlation between successful ERP implementation and the success and sustainability of a GBS; after all, they are intertwined.
9. Are all transformation levers on the table? Most enterprises have sacred cows. Is outsourcing deemed counter-culture? Is legal off-limits? Is self-serve a no-no? Can regions or business units opt out?
10. What has the business historically thought of GBS? Does the enterprise believe in the concept? The answer to this question will shape the new leader’s approach to stakeholder management—educate and start from scratch, build upon existing strengths, or spend time re-directing and re-educating.

Are people, the organization, and culture supportive or stacked against you?

1. What’s the power structure? Is the enterprise center-led, giving the GBS model sufficient support, or distributed amongst regional or segment leadership requiring the GBS leader to manage a complex matrix in order to get anything done?
2. Why did the last leader leave? Of their own volition? Exited because they were too aggressive/too slow/not a good cultural fit? Moved elsewhere in the business? Retire? Each one of these situations has different implications for the new leader and may foreshadow their own enterprise career trajectory.
3. Does the enterprise take well to outsiders? When a corporate denizen introduces themselves, is the second statement, “I’ve been with x company for y years?” it suggests the enterprise may have a not-invented-here approach to problem solving and becoming “one of us” will take a very long time.
4. Was an internal leader considered for the role? Beware of the passed over leader. At times, they can sabotage the new leader’s agenda. Ask why they were not appointed—the reason will likely be very telling.
5. Does the company believe in internal rotations? Has a leader rotated out of GBS? Does the enterprise look at GBS as a talent hub? Or the graveyard of ambition?
6. Who has GBS reported to previously? Heard the stories about GBS leaders with four bosses over five years? GBS reporting can be a management hot potato—and it’s difficult to execute a complex program without consistent direction.
7. How competent is the team? Wholesale replacement is not only not likely in the cards, it won’t respect the DNA (Respect the DNA – Sourcing Change). But a base understanding of capability before joining is critical.
8. Who is out to torch the model? Not all stakeholders are created equal or have the same impact on GBS program success and sustainability. Ask about the CHRO. Believe it or not, the CHRO can be GBS’s (and its leaders’) biggest endorser or enemy. Do any of the enterprise’s key leaders actively or quietly oppose the concept?
9. What are the enterprise’s career-limiting moves? Every enterprise has unwritten codes. As an external, the GBS leader must get up to speed quickly.

What’s the upshot? Be discerning, folks. One short stint in the wrong role may not derail a GBS career, but serial missteps ring alarm bells for hiring officers. Make sure you are forearmed when you take up a new role. It will pay off for your career in the long run.

Lest you think I’m channeling Jean-Paul Sartre’s 1944 play Huis Clos (No Exit for those of us English speakers), rest assured I’m not reliving my school French classes. But the title’s been swirling around in my head as I see global business services (GBS) ponder the next steps in their careers. Some are GBS careerists, happy to leap to a role in another enterprise, with (hopefully) more prestige, scope, and pay, while others simply want to do something else. With mobility relatively high, jumping from job to job seems to be within our leaders’ gift; however, moving into a non-GBS business or functional role, not so much. Are there enterprise career paths for GBS leaders who move from job to job, or is it a case of No Exit?

“I’m fully qualified to take on the role of (COO) (CTO) (Chief Transformation Officer) (Chief Digital Officer) (Head of X business). Why is my company passing me over? I’m a perfect match for the role.

Amongst us chickens, we’d like to assume that a GBS leadership role is the pinnacle of enterprise purview. We see across functions and processes. We know how to work globally. We transform. Relative to the rest of the enterprise, we are early adopters of technology tools. We own the data and can derive insights (like no one else likely can if only we’d focus on it). We can juggle the interests of a myriad of stakeholders. We have our CXOs’ attention. Capabilities such as these allow me to perform well in a range of roles. What’s there not to like?

Despite these impressive credentials, empirically, a relatively few GBS leaders brought in from the outside move into progressively responsible roles elsewhere in the enterprises they serve, as opposed to those leaders that come from the inside. The former are branded GBS; the latter group are seen as loyalists who live and breathe the company.

Now, it’s not impossible to stay, but there are barriers as well as conditions that foster mobility. Based upon what I see, an internal move is less likely when the leader:

• Is pegged as a GBS expert. This is the primary hazard for external hires. The justification for hiring is to scratch the enterprise’s GBS itch, but branding as the GBS tsar or tsarina is not a good look when seeking enterprise mobility. Continuing to set oneself as special and apart can be hazardous; most enterprises ascribe to a standard leadership template when placing internal candidates in other roles. If a leader can help the enterprise see that GBS capabilities are much the same as those of any other good leader, internal mobility is a lot easier.
• Joins a company where long tenure is valued. Any senior executive brought in from the outside is on probation for a longish period of time, whether it’s written down or not. Will they be a cultural fit? Are their capabilities adaptable to our culture? Will they drink the corporate Kool-Aid? Will they actually deliver tangible value, or will they prove to be an empty suit? When introduced to an employee, and the first thing they tell you about themselves is the length of time they’ve spent in the company, it’s obvious that the enterprise tends first to take care of those they perceive as their own. It takes time to build the trust that says you are one of the boys or girls.
• Has a reputation as a bolter. GBS leaders, because of the nature of the role, more often than not have careers comprised of short stints. Enterprises are institutions; they are often suspicious of these short-timers.
• Hasn’t met CXO expectations. Despite the rhetoric, many CXOs have no rational idea of how long it takes to deliver sustainable value from a GBS model, nor how many bumps in the road will materialize. Despite green dashboards, there may be a nagging feeling that GBS is not delivering as expected, especially when the functions or the business constantly carp about (the lack of) GBS performance. So they see red, and blame that outsider for a multitude of sins, usually down to “they don’t understand our culture.”
• Has no relevant experience in the core business or function. Few enterprises take bets when it comes to appointing what they deem as a neophyte to run their core business. We can argue all we want that GBS is an operational role, but for many, connecting the dots between operating a service and a business is difficult. Without career experience in pretty much the same job, it’s an uphill battle.
• Demonstrates poor political nous. If learning about corporate politics doesn’t start on day one of employment, bought-in GBS leaders can face an uphill battle when it comes to corporate mobility. Sure, delivery had better be stellar, but GBS success is down to mastering the matrix of interests. Those leaders who are tone deaf when it comes to politics usually have no internal exit ramp.
• Walks in day one looking for the next move. Some GBS leaders think it’s wise to show versatility and value by pitching for the next role before their name is on the proverbial office door. The message usually doesn’t land well; it signals that the external isn’t focused on the job at hand.
• Works in a virtual company. Working from anywhere has its downside, especially for companies that haven’t settled into a virtual workforce. At executive levels, the strength of relationships can play an outsized role in consideration for other roles. Sure, there’s that excuse that the GBS leader is always on the road running a distributed empire, but out of sight can be out of mind.
• Doesn’t have visible, consistent support for the model. If the enterprise’s endorsement of the model is lukewarm at best, or CXOs consistently flip-flop on sponsorship, not only isn’t the model sustainable, but the leader will be tarred by association. Internal opportunities will likely be foreclosed.

But moves into other enterprise positions are possible for bought-in GBS leadership. What needs to be true for those seeking internal mobility?

• Functional pedigree: GBS lifers, take note. A track record of success in a function such as finance or a strong functional pedigree prior to a GBS career—think finance or IT—is accretive to the leader’s chances of mobility. When the enterprise is evaluating internal placements, it’s easier for them to see a candidate’s GBS stint as building upon capabilities they know and success in roles they understand. There’s an off-ramp into lateral or larger functional roles.
• Analogous business experience: Career trajectory moving from sales management into GBS? Managing a region? Even plant operations early on in a GBS leader’s career? The subliminal message is that the GBS leader understands the business and is a good bet to take on another internal role.
• Proximity to stakeholders: Not only does proximity to business leaders support the sustainability of a GBS model, but it also boosts the mobility of the GBS head—that undefinable concept of being viewed as a known quantity when considered for a new role
• Rotation obsession: Employment in an enterprise committed to moving executives around after a specified period of time as a developmental strategy increases the chance of internal mobility for qualified GBS leaders.
• Reputation as a good manager, not just a GBS operative: When the enterprise views GBS and its leader’s value in broad business terms, it sees it as a fully aligned backbone rather than a management trend.
• Someone’s protégé: Nothing much to say on this topic; having a trusted, ascendent internal CXO as godfather or godmother can boost internal mobility.

Now, you are probably thinking these barriers and conditions aren’t specific to the mobility challenges of GBS hires—and you’d be absolutely right. However, because we still have difficulty defining GBS capabilities and aligning them to those in other enterprise roles, the GBS leader fetched in from the outside, more often than not, has to move to a new company in the quest for career growth.

Are moves possible? Of course. Parting words for those leaders who have bought into their enterprises’ culture, align with the mission, and admire the leadership and want to stay put?

• Don’t make GBS leadership a “thing” —define it as just another enterprise transformative operational role that aligns with the business.
• Constantly connect the dots in corporate speak. Use business terms, not GBS terms.
• Send the message that you are all in!

Good luck!

Global Business Services (GBS) must evolve and, as the iconic Queen song references, “break free,” from outdated practices. This blog explores how GBS organizations should move beyond their comfort zones when it comes to managing hybrid models, finding a balance for in-house and outsourced resources.

Since the inception of Global Business Services (GBS) almost two decades ago, enterprises have been experimenting with its resourcing model—whether to perform the work with their own resources, outsource the work, or create a hybrid resourcing model that is a strategic blend of both in-house and outsourced resources. In the early days of the model, enterprises leaned on business process outsourcers to get transactional delivery up and running. But, over time, as they mastered the art of location, hiring, and delivering processes, in-house delivery has increasingly become the option of choice when it comes to the delivery of work that is highly contextual and requires proximity to the stakeholder. As a result, GBS is often relegating third-party delivery for activities with standardized workloads, variable volume, and those that require specialized expertise and/or technology. Today, the norm is a hybrid of both resourcing models.

During the last six months, Everest Group interviewed eight GBS leaders across industries and asked them to shine a light on how they manage their GBS hybrid resourcing models. All aspire to put science and discipline into their operations, with some semblance of guiding principles and criteria that guide what is delivered in-house and what is delivered by third parties. However, in reality, GBS leaders’ biases—as opposed to data-driven decision criteria—have governed who does what, when, and how. No surprise—the leaders’ resourcing strategy is driven by a comfort factor and received industry wisdom. It’s usual to weigh past experience and beliefs about the value of contextual understanding, proximity, and the same name on the paycheck to stakeholders. As one of our study participants stated, “Proximity dictates the game—be it language, culture, or time zone,” while another said, “We find comfort in leveraging proven methods from our past successes because it minimizes risk.”

However, as scope increases, technology advances, and the level of partnership with the business changes, managing and governing hybrid models must evolve, ensuring that the right work is delivered by the right source in the right location, and that as conditions change, the model can flex to deliver to new business exigencies.

Why do GBS organizations fail to optimize their hybrid models?

There are inherent, real challenges in the way we manage our hybrid GBS models today.

• Rigid contracts: One big obstacle is that GBS organizations usually enter inflexible outsourcing supplier contracts. These contracts are usually easy to ramp up, but when it’s time to scale down, it’s like pulling the vendor’s teeth
• Management handoff: Often, the task of managing suppliers gets passed off to procurement or vendor management groups. But managing a hybrid resourcing model goes way beyond just keeping tabs on SLA performance. Currently, we don’t govern how we resource; we only govern contract compliance
• Neglecting supply and demand planning: For hybrid management to be effective, GBS leaders must be able to forecast demand, evaluate it against current and potential supply and capability, and be able to extend their talent pools. The GBS model lacks the kind of focus on workforce management principles—such as making the optimum decision about the right source and shore—that their IT brethren have mastered
• Master-servant dynamics: Most GBS get it wrong—looking at outsource providers as servants rather than another resource source or part of an ecosystem of capability. The best outsourcing arrangement is not a master-servant relationship. Yes, someone is always a client, but the model is about building a mutually beneficial partnership where both sides bring something valuable to the table
• Resistant to change: Unfortunately, many GBS organizations are reluctant to upset the leadership team’s apple cart. Defining new roles and changing the way the team works is often uncomfortable. Often, the budget is used as an excuse to preserve the organizational status quo

The current chaos and the proposed unified model

As Everest Group has found, currently very few organizations have a focused hybrid management function with processes aligned to optimize operations. The function in and of itself is “hybrid;” it must connect the dots between a number of decisions that GBS organizations commonly make in a vacuum. Today, procurement or a dedicated GBS vendor management team manages compliance to a contract while GBS’s management team looks at other metrics, perhaps only those of in-house delivery. The strategy function is focused on locations and perhaps the business case for one source of labor or another in which location. HR has been taking a stab at workforce planning but failing in execution. And service delivery leaders usually focus only on in-house delivery without regard to how the outsourcer is performing. If we only took one step back, we would realize that each decision is connected to each other, and only when they are joined up can a GBS make optimum resourcing decisions. This disconnected approach means that important decisions are not well-coordinated, leading to suboptimal outcomes.

Now, consider a power trio working together seamlessly. At the top, the central strategy team guides where and how work should be done—onshore, offshore, nearshore, in-house, or outsourced—to balance cost, efficiency, and quality. On one side, HR handles workforce planning and talent management, ensuring the right skills are in place. On the other side, the unified service delivery team, an evolved form of the current GBS vendor management team, monitors performance, manages contracts, and ensures compliance to desired service levels.

To make this trio effective, two things become critical: investments in efficient tools and technology, and clear governance mechanisms to ensure all teams are on the same page. This interconnected approach is how GBS leaders can make hybrid resourcing not just functional but exceptional.

Why make the change now?

Let’s unpack the imperative and potential advantages of taking hybrid model management to the next level:

• Business agility and capacity flexibility: The evolving business landscape demands constant adjustments in GBS capacity and capability. By designing, implementing, and governing a resourcing model that can quickly accommodate additional capability, by accommodating peak loads and reassigning work between both methods, GBS organizations can quickly flex
• Virtualization of work: The concept of performing more work remotely, exacerbated by COVID, has opened up new possibilities for work placement. Hybrid working models now can more easily tap into new pools of global talent
• Advancements in technology: Improving automation and AI tools that are focused on frictionless workflow and service experience, such as ServiceNow and Remedyforce, are now enabling the operation of hybrid models, creating one service experience regardless of the resourcing model, and supporting workforce deployment capabilities.
• Expanding GBS scope: As GBS organizations take on more—and often more complex work—the capabilities to deliver become more critical and varied. Integrating third-party expertise into the resourcing mix allows GBS organizations to tap into specialized skills and knowledge not necessarily found in house
• Optimal business investments: By tapping into both in-house and outsourced resources, companies can both optimize and avoid investments in technology and facilities, optimizing GBS’s business case and creating an optimal cost-benefit equation
• Business Continuity Planning (BCP): In a hybrid model, GBS can enhance resilience by diversifying delivery risk across multiple resourcing channels, avoiding operational disruption operations even in the face of disruptions
• Preserving business intimacy: GBS organizations can enhance the relationship with stakeholders in the make-or-buy decision by acknowledging where business context is critical in performing work, and where it does not matter

As the Queen song says, “I’ve got to break free.. I want to break free,” it hits home for GBS organizations, right? Most of them have recognized the need for change but are struggling to nail down the perfect formula for the trinity of right place, right work, right time. The fact is, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution here. GBS leaders are in for some trial and error, tinkering until they find that perfect mix. So, don’t fret if you’re still figuring it out. Keep experimenting, keep tweaking, and who knows, you might just stumble upon that magical hybrid balance that’s tailor-made for your tribe. Reach out to us to explore this topic further.