The Case for Gig-Style Contact Center Employees

The contact center industry has become increasingly fascinated with the idea of “gig” work. You may have even had vendors try to pitch themselves as the “Uber of contact centers.”

The appeal of “Uber for contact centers” is obvious. Only paying for the exact amount of labor you need; when you need it. A flexible, on-demand workforce that scales up and down in real-time to match volatile demands. But that’s the wrong way to frame it, and if that’s your expectation, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.

But if we ask the right questions, we might get the right answers. We shouldn’t be asking if we can build a contractor-based gig model that matches demand exactly. Instead, we might ask if even part of our workforce can be developed into an employee-based, gig-style model that delivers a level of elasticity without sacrificing control.

Flexibility doesn’t require contractors

The idea of a gig-model that uses independent contractors raises a lot of concern for most U.S.-based contact center leaders.

Common concerns:

• Misclassification risk
• Limited ability to direct or schedule work
• Reduced control over training, quality, and compliance
• Increased legal and operational exposure

I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t offer you advice on the gig worker legal landscape. But for many, those potential risks make the model a non-starter.

Perhaps there is a way to reap the benefits without the risk. A gig-style model built entirely with employees; not contractors. This approach allows you to offer agents flexibility while preserving a level of structure leaders need to run a reliable operation.

Volatility, not headcount

Most contact centers don’t struggle with average demand. They struggle with variance.

Many environments experience:

• Significant seasonal swings
• Unpredictable demand spikes
• Short-notice volume surges that traditional schedules can’t absorb

In these environments, rigid staffing models force leaders into difficult tradeoffs:

• Overstaff during slow periods
• Burn out agents during peak periods
• Hire and train aggressively, only to downsize later

None of those outcomes are particularly effective or sustainable.

What’s needed is a more elastic workforce design that allows leaders to match labor to demand in a way that works for both agents and the business. Remote work has removed physical constraints that once made this impossible. When agents are no longer tied to a building, many of the historical constraints disappear, and the only limit becomes our own imagination.

That shift opens the door to new workforce layers that complement traditional staffing designs; not replace them.

Mixing gig-style roles into the workforce

Rather than asking whether all agents should be scheduled or unscheduled, full-time or part-time, the more useful question is:

What combination of labor types allows us to solve most of the problems most of the time and then flex intelligently around the edges?

This may mean:

• Maintaining a stable core of scheduled full-time employees
• Leveraging scheduled part-time staff for baseline flexibility
• Introducing a small, intentional layer of highly flexible, employee-based labor to absorb volatility

We’re not tearing down the existing model; we’re adding a new layer of flexibility for those who want it.

Importantly, these roles should be filled by experienced agents who already understand the customers, systems and expectations. That starting point changes a lot of the risk in knowledge attainment, culture alignment and connection to the organization.

Why Remote work brings possibility

A decade ago, many leaders dismissed part-time or flexible staffing models, and rightfully so. The constraints were real: training overhead, quality risk operational complexity. Why would a frontline agent drive into the office to work a 3-hour (or less!) shift?

The constraints were real then, but the environment has changed. Remote work has fundamentally altered what’s possible and workforce expectations have shifted.

The goal isn’t to replace traditional schedules or embrace gig economics wholesale. It’s to acknowledge that no single staffing model solves every problem, and that last 10–20% of volatility often requires a different solution than the first 80%.

Flexibility is easy to talk about. Operationalizing it is where the real work begins. Stay tuned for Part 2.