Welcome to this issue of The Contingent Compass. Each week, I send two essays to help you navigate the complex world of the Contingent Workforce. If you need support on your journey, upgrade to a paid subscription where you’ll instantly be able to interact with the community through group chat, live Q&A’s, gain access practical program tools and useful how-to guides.
The question of who “owns” the contingent workforce has been debated for decades. HR says, “It’s about people, so it’s ours.” Procurement replies, “It’s about spend, so it’s ours.”
It sounds like an internal turf war - but the cost of this divide is far bigger than bruised egos. When ownership is unclear, companies overspend, lose visibility, expose themselves to compliance risks, and fail to attract the talent they need to grow. At scale, that makes this a boardroom issue, not a functional one.
The Real Cost of the Divide
Here’s what the ownership battle looks like in practice.
A global tech company let Procurement run its contingent program. Rates were squeezed hard, suppliers rotated frequently, and on paper the savings looked impressive. But quality cratered. The best contractors stopped showing up, frustrated by rate caps that undervalued their skills. Project timelines slipped, customer satisfaction dropped, and the company quietly spent millions more on emergency staffing to fill the gaps.
At another firm, HR took the reins. They built elaborate onboarding programs, invested in culture-building for contingent staff, and proudly waved the DE&I flag 🌍. But they missed the basics: supplier performance went unmeasured, contracts went unreviewed, and spend ballooned. By the time Procurement was called back in, the company had overspent by 20% - with little to show for it.
💡 Reflection time: Which side of this coin does your company resemble more - Procurement’s short-term savings obsession or HR’s over-investment in “experience” without commercial discipline?
HR’s Lens: Strategy Without Rigor
HR sees contingent workers as an extension of the workforce. They focus on culture, DE&I, onboarding, and compliance. They worry about the worker experience and believe talent strategy must cover all workers, not just employees.
That perspective is crucial. But HR often lacks the commercial skills to manage suppliers, negotiate rates, or enforce cost discipline. They know how to shape the workforce - but not always how to run the machinery behind it.
💡 Reflection time: If HR is running your program, are they delivering strategic alignment - or just layering more process onto hiring managers?
Procurement’s Lens: Rigor Without Strategy
Procurement sees contingent labor as spend 💰 - one of the largest categories in many companies. They know contracts, supplier scorecards, and rate benchmarking. They bring rigor and accountability.
But Procurement often treats talent like a commodity. They win rate negotiations but lose the bigger battle for quality, agility, and engagement. They’re masters of the deal, but sometimes blind to the fact that real work is delivered by people, not line items.
💡 Reflection time: If Procurement is in charge, are they reducing costs - or accidentally reducing your ability to deliver outcomes?
The Human Fallout
This divide isn’t abstract. It has real consequences for managers, workers, and suppliers.
Hiring managers feel stuck in limbo. One quarter they’re told HR owns the program, with a heavy focus on onboarding and inclusion. The next, Procurement is in charge, and suddenly it’s all about rates and vendor rotation. By the time approvals are complete, the best candidate has already taken another offer ⚡.
Workers notice too. Some receive a warm, inclusive welcome; others feel like they’re being processed through a procurement system. Inconsistency erodes trust. Over time, the best talent avoids clients with disjointed programs.
Suppliers, meanwhile, exploit the gap. They play HR and Procurement against each other, charging more, cutting corners, or using confusion to slip under the radar. The result? Higher costs, lower quality, and frayed relationships.
💡 Reflection time: What message does your current model send to workers and suppliers - that you value their contribution, or that you can’t even agree on who should run the show?
The CEO and CFO Blindspot
From the boardroom, the HR vs Procurement battle looks trivial. CEOs and CFOs don’t care who runs the program. They care about outcomes:
Is contingent spend under control?
Are compliance risks managed?
Can we demonstrate clear ROI?
Is the company getting the right talent quickly enough to compete?
Does the workforce strategy support growth 📈?
If HR and Procurement give different answers to “who owns it,” leadership hears one thing: we don’t have control of a major workforce cost center.
💡 Reflection time: If your CEO asked tomorrow, “Who owns contingent labor?” would your HR and Procurement leaders give the same answer - or expose a blindspot in plain sight?
The Financial Fallout
The numbers tell the story:
Companies with unclear ownership models often overspend by 10–20% annually due to shadow hiring and unmanaged supplier costs.
Compliance fines for worker misclassification can easily reach six or seven figures 🚨.
Project delays caused by poor talent quality can cost millions in lost revenue or customer churn.
Ownership debates aren’t harmless. They directly impact EBITDA.
Why the Future Raises the Stakes
The divide is already costly today, but tomorrow it will be catastrophic.
Work is shifting rapidly. More is delivered through freelancers, gig platforms, and SOW providers. AI-augmented labor is entering the picture 🤖. Cross-border hiring is exploding. The old HR vs Procurement categories of “headcount” vs “spend” simply don’t fit the workforce of the future.
💡 Reflection time: If your ownership model can’t handle today’s categories, how will it cope when tomorrow’s workforce doesn’t fit any of them?
A Playbook for Resolution
The answer isn’t HR or Procurement. It’s both - with executive sponsorship.
Here’s what works:
A steering committee chaired by the COO or CFO.
Shared KPIs that balance cost, quality, compliance, and adoption.
Clear swim lanes: Procurement owns supplier contracts and commercial discipline; HR owns workforce alignment, compliance, and DE&I. Both are accountable for outcomes.
Transparent reporting that links workforce performance directly to business performance.
💡 Reflection time: If you measured Procurement and HR against the same KPIs - not just their own - how different would your program look?
Breaking the Divide
The HR vs Procurement divide has gone on long enough. The organizations that solve it will outpace those that don’t.
So ask yourself: If your CEO walked into a meeting tomorrow and asked, “Who owns contingent labor?” would your HR and Procurement leaders give the same answer? Or would they expose a divide that signals lost control of a strategic workforce lever?
Because in the end, ownership doesn’t matter. Outcomes do 🚀. And until HR and Procurement stop fighting for turf and start building a shared model, contingent workforce strategy will remain what it is in too many organizations today: a missed opportunity.
If you enjoyed this read, the best compliment I could receive would be if you shared it with one person or restacked it.
If you need support on your journey, upgrade to a paid subscription where you’ll instantly be able to interact with the community through group chat, live Q&A’s, gain access practical program tools and useful how-to guides.