Let’s start with a simple truth.

When people talk about contingent labor programs in the US, they usually talk in labels. Vendor neutral. Master vendor. MSP. VOP. Hybrid. In practice, none of those labels tell you much about how the program actually works. They mostly tell you what someone wanted it to sound like in a slide deck.

What matters is not what the program is called. What matters is how demand flows, who gets access, how decisions are made, and what behavior the system quietly rewards. The quiet part is doing a lot of work here.

So instead of debating ideology, here is what we actually see.

The Spectrum Nobody Likes to Admit Exists

Contingent labor programs in the US do not live in neat boxes. They live on a spectrum. Most of the friction in these programs comes from pretending that spectrum does not exist.

Some programs are tightly controlled and optimized for speed and concentration. Some are broadly distributed and optimized for choice and coverage. Most sit somewhere in the middle and quietly slide back and forth depending on volume, urgency, leadership changes, or the last thing that went wrong.

That shifting is not a failure. It is a feature of scale. Anyone who has ever said “this will always be vendor neutral” has simply not been around long enough.

Master Vendor and Vendor On Premise Models

Let’s start with the most straightforward model.

In master vendor or vendor on premise programs, one supplier is clearly in front. They see demand first. They carry primary accountability. Other suppliers exist, but they are secondary by design, not by accident.

The upside is obvious. Speed. Clarity. Fewer handoffs. Strong ownership. When something breaks, everyone knows exactly who is getting the call.

The tradeoffs are also real. Reduced supplier diversity. Less competitive tension. Innovation tends to come from the inside, not the ecosystem.

When these programs work well, they work very well. When they do not, they tend to fail loudly, publicly, (and usually right before a contract renewal).

Commercial MSPs With Staffing Arms

Mostly Neutral, With an Asterisk*

This is the most common model we see in the US. Large commercial MSPs that also have staffing businesses often describe themselves as vendor neutral. Structurally, that is mostly true.

Their staffing affiliates typically have to compete to get onto the program. Once suppliers are live, requisitions are generally released at the same time. Distribution is intended to be equal. On paper, it usually is.

That said, there are a few realities everyone in the ecosystem understands but rarely says out loud.

Internal familiarity can help with early positioning. The staffing arm knows the rules, the people, and the unspoken expectations. That does not make the program unfair. It makes it human.

Once the program is running, however, most of these MSPs work hard to enforce fairness. For many suppliers, this model is workable, predictable, and commercially viable.

It is not perfectly neutral. It is also not secretly a master vendor model hiding in neutral clothing. It lives in the middle, like most things that actually scale.

And this is where labels start to get dangerous.

“Simply calling a program vendor neutral doesn’t make it neutral.”

Suppliers respond to what actually happens, not what the program is called. Access, timing, escalation paths, and decision rights shape behavior far more than any marketing language ever will.

Truly Vendor Neutral Programs

Rare, Clean, and Very Clear

A small number of MSPs operate without any staffing arm at all.

In these programs, there is no internal competition with suppliers. No perceived conflict of interest. No side-eye about who might be competing with whom.

Distribution of demand is structurally neutral by design.

For suppliers, this is the cleanest model. Expectations are clear. Behavior is predictable. Trust comes easier. Everyone sleeps a little better.

The tradeoff is that these programs sometimes have fewer levers to pull when clients want speed, consolidation, or aggressive cost control. It also doesn’t promote creative solutions to client problems. Neutrality buys clarity. It does not magically make everything easier.

Internally Managed Contingent Programs

Not every contingent labor program starts with an MSP.

Many organizations manage suppliers directly, especially at smaller scale or earlier stages of growth. These programs offer flexibility and direct relationships, which everyone loves right up until the spreadsheet gets out of control.

As volume increases, these programs often evolve. Some move toward MSPs. Some adopt hybrid models. Some quietly centralize without formally changing structure and hope no one notices.

The Real Issue Is Not the Model

Here is the part that gets lost in most discussions.

None of these models are inherently wrong. Yes, really.

Problems arise when programs say they are one thing and behave like another. When suppliers do not understand how access actually works. When incentives are misaligned. When the system quietly teaches people to disengage while everyone wonders why performance is “slipping.”

This is also where fairness can quietly backfire.

“Treating all suppliers the same feels fair. What it often does instead is train your strongest partners to behave like your weakest ones.”

Wow. Take a minute to reflect on that. When systems flatten differences, effort follows. Not out of spite. Out of logic.

Why This Matters

Because systems shape behavior. Always. If access is unclear, effort becomes selective. If contribution beyond fulfillment is neither invited nor rewarded, it disappears. If the rules favor compliance over commitment, suppliers will comply. They just will not lean in.

And when that happens, the signal is often misread.

“Strong suppliers rarely disengage loudly. They disengage quietly, and the system often mistakes that for a performance problem.”

Understanding contingent labor models is not an academic exercise. It is the foundation for understanding why supplier performance plateaus, why optimization cycles repeat, and why the strongest partners sometimes quietly pull back instead of making a scene.