The Castle Is Under Siege - are you the bard?

“If you focus on people being busy, you get people being busy.”

You’ve probably heard that one in some Agile training or coaching session. It sounds profound. But it’s often used in ways that are… well, wrong.

This kind of slogan gets thrown around as if it’s gospel. It’s Agile Coaching Dogma: stemming from half-understood principles and applying Goodhart’s Law in isolation.

Let’s be clear: it’s nonsense. And it misdirects.

The Castle Under Siege

Imagine a medieval castle under siege.
Enemy troops on horseback are approaching fast.
The guards are scrambling to prepare.

The defenders need bows: Everyone will be dead if the siege succeeds.

But there’s only one fletcher.

He’s already buried in work, literally stringing bows as if his life depends on it. There’s a line of guards waiting, each of them waiting for a bow. He’s clearly under pressure.

Meanwhile, his apprentice is chasing that irritating mouse which gnawed at the bread overnight.

Just at that moment, a bard arrives with a clearly urgent request:: “ My mandolin broke, and I really need you to take a look. It’s for the royal banquet tonight. The king will be very upset if there is no music!”

So what’s the real problem?

The issue here isn’t just who’s busy — it’s how busy they are - and what they’re busy with.

What we're talking about here isn’t micromanaging everyone’s calendar. It’s understanding the Critical Path and applying the Theory of Constraints.

1. You have a bottleneck on your Critical Path to success.

The fletcher is the bottleneck. No bows = no defense. No defense = everyone's dead. Preventing that situation is the mission. Everything else is a means to this end.

2. The performance of the bottleneck defines the outcome.

In any system, the bottleneck limits total performance. Here, it's the speed at which the fletcher produces bows which defines whether the castle stands or falls.

3. When the bottleneck is overburdened, stop everything that doesn’t contribute to the Critical Path.

Seriously - cancel that mandolin repair request. Forget that status report. And that retrospective can wait until the archers are equipped.

4. Everyone else's job is to support the bottleneck.

Even if they're inefficient. Two guards stringing bows badly still gives you more bows than one fletcher collapsed from being overworked.

"But they're not specialists, it's not their job description, they aren't trained ..." - you underestimate human ingenuity. They will learn. They will grow. And even if they can't do all of it, there's most certainly some steps where they can relieve your bottleneck.

5. If others are blocked, and it’s not on the Critical Path?

That’s not the bottleneck’s problem. Trying to make it the fletcher’s problem only increases the risk of failure.

Everyone has their own "highest priority. And that's exactly the problem: not knowing the Critical Path, not understanding the price your request towards the bottleneck has in the Big Picture - that's how you destroy performance and slow everything down!

Does it resonate?

In a cartoon, the issue is obvious. You see the problem.

But in real organizations?

• Workloads are hidden.
• Everything seems critical.
• Risks are opaque.
• Goals are unclear.
• And attention is given by status and urgency, not by impact.

So what happens?

• Managers ask the fletcher to put down the bows and provide a status update.
• Consultants draw the fletcher into working sesstions to map the fletching process.
• Agile Coaches pull the fletcher into a retrospective and point out that skipping the Dailies means he's not embracing Agile.

Meanwhile, the castle is about to be overrun.

The brutal truth

The fletcher doesn’t need your coaching right now. The fletcher doesn’t need an alignment workshop. The fletcher needs help!

If you’re not helping, get out of the way. And then figure out how you can help.

This is Theory of Constraints

• Identify the bottleneck.
• Utilize the bottleneck.
• Protect the bottleneck.
• Support the bottleneck.

Not everyone in your company is the fletcher. But someone is. Do you know who?

And if you’re not helping them?

You just might be the bard.

Predictability in middle management? Good luck!

If you’ve ever worked in middle management, you’ve likely felt stuck between chaos from below and control from above. Executives demand structure, predictability, and process adherence. Teams, on the other hand, thrive on flexibility, adaptation, and autonomy.
And the manager? They’re caught in the middle, playing a never-ending game of Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Management: A Game of Rock-Paper-Scissors

You may wonder: What do management and Rock-Paper-Scissors have in common? Middle management is a shark basin - the other a lighthearted, simple hand game often played by kids. I often thought about how to explain what happens in middle management to people unfamiliar with it - and came up with this game as a simple model of what middle management has to deal with.

The Three Moves

As a middle manager, you can ultimately play only one of three moves:

Rock = Stability

Large companies are noisy, chaotic and unpredictable. Playing "Rock" means standardization, consistency, documentation, governance, and regulatory compliance create some predictability.

On the downside, an overuse of Rock makes the process itself the goal, and that causes tremendous waste.

Paper = Delivery

Paper is about taking action, getting stuff done, and produces measurable outcomes. With increasing levels of repeatability and reproducibility, performance becomes scalable.

Paper work is smooth. (all puns fully intended.) Unfortunately, Paper will eventually lead to "doing efficiently that which should not be done at all" (ref. Peter Drucker) - and the biggest threat to businesses is investing into results nobody needs.

Scissors = Disruption

Scissors cut through waste, inefficiency and outdated practices. A play of Scissors is leading innovation, making changes, and turning processes upside down - doing something new, or in ways that were never tried (here) before.

The opportunity of Scissors are immense - and yet, an overuse of the Scissors kills productivity: It destabilizes the organization, causing confusion and chaos.

So then - what is the best move? None.

Let me explain.

There's No Single Best Move

Every move creates the conditions for its own counter:

• Rock sets the basis for productivity - but ultimately, Rock itself is unproductive. Hence playing Rock means that Paper (being productive) becomes the next best move.
• Paper means being productive - but also, outdating. A prolonged period of playing Paper must be followed by a play of Scissors (change).
• Scissors cuts the waste - but it causes chaos: forcing Rock (stability).

The Real Complexity: The System Remembers

Middle management is a game played over time and not in isolation. Past moves shape future conditions. There are other players (your fellow middle managers, your teams - and your customers.) To win, you must think several steps ahead:

• Focus on Rock - and you'll lose to Paper. The player who plays Paper in a game of Rock, Rock, Rock - becomes the winner by default: being a results-driver an environment valuing process conformity over outcomes will be a refreshing change to senior leadership.
• Focus on Paper - and you will struggle with Scissors. The player who brings a novel idea into a stagnant organisation wins, as even small, actionable changes can make a world of a difference.
• Focus on Scissors - and you can't handle Rock. When you're constantly facing the reinforcement of status quo, change will be ineffective - regardless of how good and necessary.

Moving in sequence

And now comes the key challenge: "what should you play next?"

Let's explain what the real problem here is: You're playing a Multiway Rock-Scissors-Paper. You're playing against others (a solvable problem), but you are simultaneously playing against your own past and your own future.

We have established that if you played Rock yesterday, your best move today is probably Paper. And if you play Paper today, your best move tomorrow is Scissors. And after Scissors, you'll have to play Rock again.

But that means that you've got to make a tradeoff between scoring today, and scoring tomorrow. And you can only score today if you prepared for it yesterday.

So then, it's all clear: Play Rock, Paper and Scissors in succession.

Right?

Well - not so quick!

Making a winning move

Even if we assume a fully predictable system - the issue is that you're not playing alone. You're competing with other managers on budget, with other companies on market share, and with customers on business versus customer needs.

So if you played "Rock" yesterday, and you're fully predictable, a competitor will play Scissors on you - because you'll be playing Paper today, and that means, you'll lose.

But then - if you can't play Paper, should you play Rock? Well, then you're not being productive, and then your customers will play Paper on you.

Wouldn't that mean the safest bet after a Rock move is Scissors? Yes.

Except - because it's the safest bet, others will prepare for you playing Scissors by playing Rock.

So you should play Paper?

You see where this is going.

Your own predictability is reducing your odds of making a winning move - so your best chance is to not create any hints on what your next move could be.

The winning strategy: unpredictability

We've discovered that being predictable is a losing strategy.

And a manager always playing the same move is definitely predictable - hence, a single move can not be a successful strategy.

We've also seen that a sequence is also predictable, so "Stabilize, Perform, Disrupt" as a cycle is also not a winning strategy.

That leaves only one strategy for success:

• Play all three moves dynamically, and never lock into a single mode.
• Introduce controlled unpredictability to avoid becoming exploitable.
• Plan for future moves (n+2), not just the next one (n+1).
• Break your own pattern before the system forces you to.

And the desire for Predictability? That's the Problem.

Stakeholders constantly demand predictability: "We need a roadmap." "We need a deadline." "We need clear processes." "We need clear roles." Oddly enough, these demands create the very unpredictability they despise:

• Playing Rock (stability) reduces performance, requiring a rapid move to Paper (performance). And that means less focus on "How", and more focus on "What and When."
• Playing Paper (performance) leads to stagnation, inviting Scissors (disruption). This is going to be uncomfortable, but the only way to remain in business.
• Playing Scissors (innovation) leads to chaos, demanding a follow-up with some solid Rock (stability). But the people who thrive in creative chaos are the first who leave when things get cast in stone.

There’s No Easy Way Out - just a smarter way to play

The fundamental truth of middle management is that it is not a "problem that can be solved:" it is a system that must be navigated.

• Expect stability, and you'll be blindsided.
• Expect performance, and you'll be sidelined.
• Expect innovation, and you'll be slowed down.

Winning in middle management isn't about picking the right move - it's about ensuring you remain ahead of the game and are ready to make your move at the right time.

The only way to be sustainably successful in middle management is that you must know all three moves, you must know how to play them well, you must know when to play them - and what to do when one is being played on you. And why you can't win by locking in any of them.

So, the next time someone asks "predictability in middle management" - just smile. Because now, you know the truth: Good luck.