When contingent labor programs struggle, the first instinct is almost always the same.

We need better suppliers.
We need to manage them more closely.
We need tighter controls.
We need stronger enforcement.

In other words, the assumption is that the problem lives with the suppliers.

Most of the time, it doesn’t.

Supplier Behavior Is a Lagging Indicator

Here is the uncomfortable truth.

Supplier behavior is rarely the root cause of performance issues. It is the outcome.

“Supplier behavior is rarely the root cause of performance issues. It is the outcome.”

Suppliers respond to the systems they operate in. They learn what matters. They learn what does not. And they adjust accordingly.

If a program consistently rewards speed over quality, suppliers get faster.
If it rewards compliance over creativity, suppliers comply.
If it treats all effort the same, suppliers stop differentiating their effort.

This is not emotional. It is adaptive.

Control Is a Response to Risk, Not a Growth Strategy

Most contingent labor programs are designed defensively. That is understandable. These programs manage risk. Compliance matters. Cost matters. Consistency matters.

So controls get layered in.

• More rules
• More scorecards
• More checkpoints
• More oversight

Each control solves a real problem. In isolation.

“Control is a response to risk. It is not a growth strategy.”

Over time, the system becomes optimized for not failing rather than for improving.

Control keeps programs stable. It does not automatically make them better.

Why Performance Plateaus in Mature Programs

This is where many programs get stuck.

Early on, structure drives improvement. Order creates results. Performance climbs quickly. Then something subtle happens.The gains slow. Engagement fades. Innovation disappears. And the explanation is usually some version of: “Our suppliers just aren’t what they used to be.”

What is actually happening is simpler.

Once a program no longer differentiates between effort levels, rational behavior takes over.

“And so the strongest suppliers begin to behave like average ones. Not because they can’t do better, but because the program no longer differentiates between the two.”

That is not a supplier failure. That is a design outcome.

Capacity vs Capability

Many contingent labor programs treat suppliers as capacity.

How many resumes can you submit?
How fast can you respond?
How many reqs can you handle?

Those questions matter. But they are incomplete.

“Most programs measure capacity. The best suppliers deliver capability.”

The strongest suppliers bring market insight, pattern recognition, and early warning signals. They know when a role is mis-scoped before it fails. They see risk before it shows up in a dashboard.

When programs only measure activity, that capability goes unused.

Eventually, it goes quiet.

What Orchestrating Contribution Actually Means

Designing for contribution does not mean abandoning control. It does not mean chaos. It does not mean letting suppliers run the program.  It means being intentional about where insight is welcome and how it is used.

It means:

• Creating space for suppliers to solve problems, not just fulfill orders
• Allowing differentiated effort to produce differentiated outcomes
• Making it clear when input is valued and when execution is the priority

“Managing suppliers keeps programs stable. Orchestrating contribution is what allows them to grow.”

That is orchestration. Not enforcement.

The Question Programs Rarely Ask

Most programs ask:
“How do we control suppliers more effectively?”

The better question is:
“How do we design a system where our best suppliers want to help us win?”

“The most important design question isn’t how to control suppliers. It’s how to invite the right ones to contribute.”

That shift changes everything.

---

Why This Matters

Growth requires more than stability. Programs optimized purely for control eventually plateau. Programs designed to harness contribution evolve.

The strongest contingent labor programs are not the ones with the tightest rules. They are the ones where suppliers understand the system, believe effort matters, and choose to invest.

That’s the design choice.