Oleksandr DogrykDirector of Operations| Globberry LLCKyiv, Ukraine
The situation is as follows:
There are several outstaff/outsource projects (for example, ~40 people in total).
All people were selected exclusively for these projects by the Project Manager and HR.
Within the projects, the responsibility for task assignment and execution control lies with the Client (they have their own Delivery Manager).
The contractor company has a functional structure, but the heads of functional departments know nothing about the outstaff projects and are not familiar with the people working on them.
All ongoing employee-related matters such as motivation, development, administrative issues, payroll, social aspects, etc., are currently handled by the Project Manager from the people-supplier side.
In your opinion, who on the supplier side should handle these ongoing matters (HR, functional/line managers, or the Project Manager)?
We keep in mind that any costs associated with these activities will be charged to the project, and we must not increase the overall amount of communication / create additional bureaucracy.
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
This situation is very common in outstaffing models, but it reveals a design gap.
In my view, the Project Manager should not be responsible for ongoing employee care. That role overloads the PM and is not sustainable, even if it works in the short term.
HR can support administrative matters, but HR alone cannot replace continuous human leadership.
The real gap is the absence of functional or people leadership on the supplier side.
A simple and low-bureaucracy model works best:
Project Manager focuses on delivery and project-related performance.
Designated line or people manager provides light, regular human follow-up (motivation, development, wellbeing).
HR supports payroll, policies and administration.
This does not increase communication. It redistributes responsibility correctly.
If employee care is charged to the project, that is healthy. What is risky is hiding this work inside the PM’s role until it becomes invisible and unsustainable.
The real question is not who handles the tasks, but who protects the Project Manager from becoming the substitute for the whole organisation.
...
1 reply by Oleksandr Dogryk
Dec 31, 2025 10:06 AM
Oleksandr Dogryk
...
Thanks, Luis, for your vision. I fully agree with your model of responsibility distribution from the perspective of allowing the Project Manager (PM) to focus on project outcomes. The responsibilities you outlined for the PM and HR roles align completely with my own view, and I've already configured things exactly that way. My specific question concerns people care (motivation, development, wellbeing) and shifting this function to line managers. Option 1. Keep the function with the PM. Pros:
The PM understands the project's needs and goals, the requirements of the role/position, and the individual's capabilities, and can therefore create and monitor a development plan that directly impacts project results.
By maintaining direct personal contact with the individual, the PM gains greater openness and a deeper understanding of the person, enabling flexible negotiations around various project outcomes. This goes beyond standard "time spent on the project" — it's about situations where people can agree on and achieve significantly higher results (particularly when solving complex tasks or projects where standard teams/individuals fail to deliver success, or deliver only ~80% success that technically satisfies the client but doesn't provide genuine human satisfaction from the collaboration).
This aspect is extremely important to me personally, because it is precisely this approach that enables a team of highly professional people to compete in a B2B environment against large IT vendors. This is exactly what clients choose us for — and if we lose this element, we will lose both projects and our further development. Cons:
It takes time and distracts from standard activities focused on project results and client interaction.
I've rarely encountered PMs on the market who — without prior experience as functional/line managers, or even with such experience — are willing to take this on. Again, it diverts attention from standard tasks, requires significant time and emotional energy, with results that are not always immediately obvious to the PM or the project.
Challenges in implementation/scalability due to the high skill and responsibility demands placed on the PM.
Lack of clear recognition within the organization for this non-standard set of duties and contributions by the PM.
Option 2. Transfer the function to the line manager. Pros:
Relieves the PM role of these requirements and frees up time for the standard set of responsibilities focused on project delivery.
Gives functional/line managers better opportunities to manage people across projects and provides additional avenues for individual self-realization.
Cons:
For the individual, project results may become a lower priority than personal development, with recognition from the functional/line manager carrying more weight. In other words: person first, project second.
Introduces additional communications/procedures between the line manager and the PM, or between the functional structure, PMO, and the individual.
Will most likely lead to additional organizational costs and slower decision-making.
This is my view, and I agree that your proposed model is more sustainable in practice — but I don't want to lose full control over the project. Perhaps some simple rules or procedures could cover the key aspects without major changes. I will think further in that direction...
Based on the context you have provided, I'd see this as more of a project-oriented/projectized initiative than a matrix style one in which case the PM would be primarily responsible for the people management function for the staff they had procured or selected. Their interactions would need to be in accordance with the company's HR practices and they would need to liase with functional managers for things such as knowledge transfer and if back filling was required for short term staffing gaps.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Oleksandr Dogryk
Jan 07, 2026 11:38 AM
Oleksandr Dogryk
...
Thanks Kiron
Yes, but this essentially means building many small companies under PM ownership. The question is whether project managers in practice actually do this with relatively small teams (10–20 people), and whether it is a reasonable use of their time to cover all functions and roles within a project. This is the question for which I am trying to find a practical solution.
I agree with Kiron regarding the authority in a projectized environment, the PM must indeed hold the primary responsibility for the team they selected. However, we need to distinguish between Leadership Authority and Administrative Execution.
The common failure in outstaffing models is treating the PM as a 'universal bucket' for everything that lacks an owner. While the PM should lead on performance and trade-offs (Integration), forcing them to handle ongoing HR tasks (payroll, social aspects, administrative wellbeing) is a fundamental Scope and Generalization Error. Saving Changes...
Oleksandr DogrykDirector of Operations| Globberry LLCKyiv, Ukraine
Dec 29, 2025 6:36 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
This situation is very common in outstaffing models, but it reveals a design gap.
In my view, the Project Manager should not be responsible for ongoing employee care. That role overloads the PM and is not sustainable, even if it works in the short term.
HR can support administrative matters, but HR alone cannot replace continuous human leadership.
The real gap is the absence of functional or people leadership on the supplier side.
A simple and low-bureaucracy model works best:
Project Manager focuses on delivery and project-related performance.
Designated line or people manager provides light, regular human follow-up (motivation, development, wellbeing).
HR supports payroll, policies and administration.
This does not increase communication. It redistributes responsibility correctly.
If employee care is charged to the project, that is healthy. What is risky is hiding this work inside the PM’s role until it becomes invisible and unsustainable.
The real question is not who handles the tasks, but who protects the Project Manager from becoming the substitute for the whole organisation.
Thanks, Luis, for your vision. I fully agree with your model of responsibility distribution from the perspective of allowing the Project Manager (PM) to focus on project outcomes. The responsibilities you outlined for the PM and HR roles align completely with my own view, and I've already configured things exactly that way. My specific question concerns people care (motivation, development, wellbeing) and shifting this function to line managers. Option 1. Keep the function with the PM. Pros:
The PM understands the project's needs and goals, the requirements of the role/position, and the individual's capabilities, and can therefore create and monitor a development plan that directly impacts project results.
By maintaining direct personal contact with the individual, the PM gains greater openness and a deeper understanding of the person, enabling flexible negotiations around various project outcomes. This goes beyond standard "time spent on the project" — it's about situations where people can agree on and achieve significantly higher results (particularly when solving complex tasks or projects where standard teams/individuals fail to deliver success, or deliver only ~80% success that technically satisfies the client but doesn't provide genuine human satisfaction from the collaboration).
This aspect is extremely important to me personally, because it is precisely this approach that enables a team of highly professional people to compete in a B2B environment against large IT vendors. This is exactly what clients choose us for — and if we lose this element, we will lose both projects and our further development. Cons:
It takes time and distracts from standard activities focused on project results and client interaction.
I've rarely encountered PMs on the market who — without prior experience as functional/line managers, or even with such experience — are willing to take this on. Again, it diverts attention from standard tasks, requires significant time and emotional energy, with results that are not always immediately obvious to the PM or the project.
Challenges in implementation/scalability due to the high skill and responsibility demands placed on the PM.
Lack of clear recognition within the organization for this non-standard set of duties and contributions by the PM.
Option 2. Transfer the function to the line manager. Pros:
Relieves the PM role of these requirements and frees up time for the standard set of responsibilities focused on project delivery.
Gives functional/line managers better opportunities to manage people across projects and provides additional avenues for individual self-realization.
Cons:
For the individual, project results may become a lower priority than personal development, with recognition from the functional/line manager carrying more weight. In other words: person first, project second.
Introduces additional communications/procedures between the line manager and the PM, or between the functional structure, PMO, and the individual.
Will most likely lead to additional organizational costs and slower decision-making.
This is my view, and I agree that your proposed model is more sustainable in practice — but I don't want to lose full control over the project. Perhaps some simple rules or procedures could cover the key aspects without major changes. I will think further in that direction...
You describe very clearly why this model works so well for you today, and I agree on a key point: what you are protecting is not “people care” as an HR activity, but human performance leadership inside the project.
That is a real competitive capability.
I believe the critical distinction is this.
The PM must remain close to people, performance, motivation and context.
That does not require the PM to own full people-care accountability.
What makes your model powerful is the PM’s proximity, trust, ambition and shared ownership of outcomes.
That should stay.
The risk is not that Option 1 fails, it clearly works.
The risk is where the capability lives.
If excellence depends on exceptional PMs acting as de facto line managers, the model does not scale, creates hidden overload, and concentrates business risk in individuals rather than in the system.
This is not a critique of the approach, it is a sustainability observation.
A practical middle ground I have seen work well is this:
The PM retains ownership of performance, expectations, feedback, ambition and daily human connection in the project.
A designated line manager or people partner owns wellbeing, development continuity and cross-project balance.
The interface is intentionally minimal, short and exception-based, not process heavy.
In this design, the PM does not lose control of the project. What changes is that the PM is no longer the single substitute for missing organisational roles.
So the question shifts slightly.
Not who owns people care, but what must stay with the PM to preserve excellence, and what must move to protect sustainability.
If that boundary is made explicit, you preserve exactly what clients choose you for, while removing fragility as you grow.
Your instinct to look for simple rules rather than structural upheaval is the right one.
This is not about adding bureaucracy, it is about making an already strong practice visible, shareable and durable.
Happy to continue the exchange.
This is a very real challenge for high-performance outstaffing models that want to grow without losing their soul.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Dec 31, 2025 10:06 AM
Replying to Oleksandr Dogryk
...
Thanks, Luis, for your vision. I fully agree with your model of responsibility distribution from the perspective of allowing the Project Manager (PM) to focus on project outcomes. The responsibilities you outlined for the PM and HR roles align completely with my own view, and I've already configured things exactly that way. My specific question concerns people care (motivation, development, wellbeing) and shifting this function to line managers. Option 1. Keep the function with the PM. Pros:
The PM understands the project's needs and goals, the requirements of the role/position, and the individual's capabilities, and can therefore create and monitor a development plan that directly impacts project results.
By maintaining direct personal contact with the individual, the PM gains greater openness and a deeper understanding of the person, enabling flexible negotiations around various project outcomes. This goes beyond standard "time spent on the project" — it's about situations where people can agree on and achieve significantly higher results (particularly when solving complex tasks or projects where standard teams/individuals fail to deliver success, or deliver only ~80% success that technically satisfies the client but doesn't provide genuine human satisfaction from the collaboration).
This aspect is extremely important to me personally, because it is precisely this approach that enables a team of highly professional people to compete in a B2B environment against large IT vendors. This is exactly what clients choose us for — and if we lose this element, we will lose both projects and our further development. Cons:
It takes time and distracts from standard activities focused on project results and client interaction.
I've rarely encountered PMs on the market who — without prior experience as functional/line managers, or even with such experience — are willing to take this on. Again, it diverts attention from standard tasks, requires significant time and emotional energy, with results that are not always immediately obvious to the PM or the project.
Challenges in implementation/scalability due to the high skill and responsibility demands placed on the PM.
Lack of clear recognition within the organization for this non-standard set of duties and contributions by the PM.
Option 2. Transfer the function to the line manager. Pros:
Relieves the PM role of these requirements and frees up time for the standard set of responsibilities focused on project delivery.
Gives functional/line managers better opportunities to manage people across projects and provides additional avenues for individual self-realization.
Cons:
For the individual, project results may become a lower priority than personal development, with recognition from the functional/line manager carrying more weight. In other words: person first, project second.
Introduces additional communications/procedures between the line manager and the PM, or between the functional structure, PMO, and the individual.
Will most likely lead to additional organizational costs and slower decision-making.
This is my view, and I agree that your proposed model is more sustainable in practice — but I don't want to lose full control over the project. Perhaps some simple rules or procedures could cover the key aspects without major changes. I will think further in that direction...
You describe very clearly why this model works so well for you today, and I agree on a key point: what you are protecting is not “people care” as an HR activity, but human performance leadership inside the project.
That is a real competitive capability.
I believe the critical distinction is this.
The PM must remain close to people, performance, motivation and context.
That does not require the PM to own full people-care accountability.
What makes your model powerful is the PM’s proximity, trust, ambition and shared ownership of outcomes.
That should stay.
The risk is not that Option 1 fails, it clearly works.
The risk is where the capability lives.
If excellence depends on exceptional PMs acting as de facto line managers, the model does not scale, creates hidden overload, and concentrates business risk in individuals rather than in the system.
This is not a critique of the approach, it is a sustainability observation.
A practical middle ground I have seen work well is this:
The PM retains ownership of performance, expectations, feedback, ambition and daily human connection in the project.
A designated line manager or people partner owns wellbeing, development continuity and cross-project balance.
The interface is intentionally minimal, short and exception-based, not process heavy.
In this design, the PM does not lose control of the project. What changes is that the PM is no longer the single substitute for missing organisational roles.
So the question shifts slightly.
Not who owns people care, but what must stay with the PM to preserve excellence, and what must move to protect sustainability.
If that boundary is made explicit, you preserve exactly what clients choose you for, while removing fragility as you grow.
Your instinct to look for simple rules rather than structural upheaval is the right one.
This is not about adding bureaucracy, it is about making an already strong practice visible, shareable and durable.
Happy to continue the exchange.
This is a very real challenge for high-performance outstaffing models that want to grow without losing their soul.
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
In this setup, I’d avoid making the PM the long-term owner of employee care. It works short-term, but it doesn’t scale. A clean, low-bureaucracy split usually works best:
PM stays close to people on performance, expectations, feedback, and day-to-day motivation tied to delivery.
Line/people manager owns wellbeing, development continuity, and longer-term people care across projects.
HR handles admin and policies.
That way, you preserve the PM’s proximity and influence without turning them into a substitute for the whole organization. The goal here should be sustainable care without overloading delivery roles. Saving Changes...
Oleksandr DogrykDirector of Operations| Globberry LLCKyiv, Ukraine
Dec 29, 2025 7:19 AM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Oleksandr -
Based on the context you have provided, I'd see this as more of a project-oriented/projectized initiative than a matrix style one in which case the PM would be primarily responsible for the people management function for the staff they had procured or selected. Their interactions would need to be in accordance with the company's HR practices and they would need to liase with functional managers for things such as knowledge transfer and if back filling was required for short term staffing gaps.
Kiron
Thanks Kiron
Yes, but this essentially means building many small companies under PM ownership. The question is whether project managers in practice actually do this with relatively small teams (10–20 people), and whether it is a reasonable use of their time to cover all functions and roles within a project. This is the question for which I am trying to find a practical solution. Saving Changes...
Oleksandr, this is a situation I have seen quite often in out staffing and staff-augmentation models.
In my view, ongoing employee care should not sit entirely with the Project Manager, even if that feels efficient in the short term. The PM already carries delivery risk, coordination, and client-facing accountability, and absorbing full people-care responsibility tends to blur boundaries and become unsustainable over time.
What has worked better in practice is a shared responsibility model with very clear boundaries:
The Project Manager remains close to people on performance, expectations, feedback, and day-to-day motivation tied directly to delivery.
A designated line or people manager on the supplier side owns wellbeing, development continuity, and longer-term people care across projects.
HR supports payroll, policies, and administrative matters.
This does not require additional bureaucracy if roles are defined explicitly and communication is kept lightweight and exception-based. In fact, separating delivery leadership from employee care often improves clarity, reduces hidden overload, and makes the model more scalable.
I see many of the responses here highlight the same core tension between delivery excellence and sustainability. Making this boundary explicit appears to be the real lever, rather than assigning the full responsibility to a single role. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
