In an ever-changing professional world, the question of the optimal organizational model arises regularly. As an interim CIO, I frequently find myself confronted with this issue when it comes to rapidly structuring high-performance teams. Whether it’s building a data team from scratch, strengthening a product team or setting up development teams, the question of using freelancers versus recruiting employees is always on the table. It’s a question that deserves a closer look: can a company operate exclusively with freelancers? Must it necessarily have employees?

The company: a machine for transformation

To answer this question, let’s go back to basics. A company is first and foremost an entity that transforms inputs into outputs. For example, a baker transforms flour, water, etc. into bread. In my day-to-day work, I see this regularly: a data team transforms raw data into actionable insights, a product team transforms user needs into functional specifications, and a development team transforms these specifications into technical solutions. This transformation is not magic: it relies on well-defined, reproducible and optimizable processes.

The essential components of a company

To achieve this transformation, the company relies on two fundamental pillars. On the one hand, the tools: in my missions, this translates into cloud infrastructures, development tools, data visualization platforms and test environments. On the other hand, the people who use these tools and bring the processes to life. The question is not so much the status of these people (salaried or freelance) as their ability to effectively serve the transformation process.

Talent motivation: let’s talk straight

My experience as CIO has taught me one thing: what motivates people to participate in this transformation process is, above all, compensation. All the talk about corporate culture, belonging and benefits in kind is secondary. When I set up a data or product team, freelancers are generally more open about it: they exchange their expertise for financial compensation. This transparency is even refreshing compared to the artifices sometimes deployed in traditional employer-employee relations.

Legal limits: between theory and practice

There is, however, an important nuance from a legal point of view, which I pay particular attention to in my assignments. In theory, freelancers are there for specific missions – for example, to set up a data architecture, develop a new product feature, train a team in agile methodologies – but they must not occupy a disguised permanent job. The reality I observe is more nuanced: many companies rely on freelancers for long-term assignments, particularly in the IT sector. The risk of requalification does exist, but it’s often considered an acceptable risk in the face of the advantages of flexibility.

IT: the forerunner of a new model?

The IT sector, in which I work, is particularly revealing of this evolution. In my various transition assignments, I see that critical projects rely heavily on freelancers: data architects, lead developers, product owners… This situation is no coincidence: our sector values advanced technical expertise and flexibility more than seniority or stability. Tech companies have long understood that value lies in competence, not status.

Legal status: a potential brake on excellence

In my role as interim CIO, I am regularly confronted with a paradoxical situation: some companies are so focused on the legal status of candidates that they miss out on exceptional profiles. I’ve seen data projects delayed by several months because an organization categorically refused to work with freelancers, preferring to wait – sometimes in vain – to find the equivalent talent on a permanent contract. This obsession with status can be costly: while the company is looking for the five-legged sheep on permanent contracts, the best freelance profiles are snapped up by the competition.

I particularly remember one critical project where we identified the perfect data expert for the job. His technical expertise, industry experience and immediate availability were exactly what we needed. But his freelance status was a stumbling block for the client. Six months later, the position was still vacant, and the project had fallen considerably behind schedule. This situation is a perfect illustration of how an excessive fixation on legal status can undermine a company’s operational efficiency.

An increasingly artificial distinction

In conclusion, particularly in my areas of intervention – data, product, development – the distinction between employees and freelancers is becoming largely artificial. In my missions as interim CIO, what really counts is the ability of individuals to contribute effectively to the company’s transformation process. When I put together a team, the real issue is not the legal status of the employees, but their skills and commitment to the success of the projects.

This development in the IT sector could foreshadow a wider transformation of the world of work. In an environment where flexibility and expertise are becoming crucial, the traditional salaried model could gradually give way to more fluid forms of organization. What remains essential is the company’s ability to effectively orchestrate its transformation processes, regardless of the status of those who contribute to them. What’s more, let’s not forget that today, it’s not (any longer) unusual for a freelancer or employee to stay with a company for no more than 2 or 3 years.

The only real constraint remains legal, but this is increasingly seen as a vestige of a bygone era, particularly in high-expertise sectors such as IT. Perhaps the future belongs to those organizations that can best combine different statuses to maximize their efficiency, while guaranteeing fair remuneration for all their contributors. In any case, this is what I strive to achieve in each of my transition assignments when I’m called upon to build teams.