The Dangerous Middle: Agile Roles That AI Will Erode First

TL; DR: Dangerous Middle and the Future of Scrum Masters and Agile Coaches

Peter Yang, a renowned product leader, argues that AI will split product roles into two groups: Generalists who can prototype end-to-end with AI, and specialists in the top 5% of their fields. Everyone else in the dangerous middle risks being squeezed.

How does this apply to agile practitioners: Scrum Masters, Product Owners, Agile Coaches, and transformation leads? It does, with important nuances.

Find Peter Yang’s article here: 5 Practical Steps to Future Proof Your Career in the AI Era.

---

🎓 🛒 The AI 4 Agile Online Course Is Available — Join Now at $ 129 until October 20, 2025: AI 4 Agile — Master AI Integration for Agile Practitioners.

---

The Reality of Process Facilitation

Practitioners are exposed if their core value is running Sprint Planning, facilitating Retrospectives, or maintaining Jira backlogs. Tools now automate or support much of this work.

We’ve seen this before. As teams learned to self-organize, demand for “process managers” fell. A similar shift is underway. Organizations may decide they don’t need practitioners whose skills stop at event facilitation. When other leaders can pull templates for Retrospectives, Sprint Planning, and backlog refinement, they ask, “What are we paying a Scrum Master for?” If you can’t answer in business terms, not process terms, you sit in the vulnerable middle that Yang describes.

In the Scrum Anti-Patterns Guide, I documented patterns like “Scrum Master as Secretary” and “Product Owner as Backlog Administrator.” These map to the vulnerable middle roles in Yang’s framework. If your primary output is meeting notes and Jira tickets, you’re at risk.

Cannot see the form? Please click here.

Where Agile Practitioners Hold an Edge

The most valuable agile work isn’t framework rollout. It’s building organizational learning.

This approach calls for integrative mastery: Combine data analysis, organizational psychology, systems thinking, and political skill to diagnose why empiricism isn’t happening even when teams “do Agile.”

Example: Performance drops, Retrospectives show conflict, and leadership pushes for speed. The issue isn’t a better Retro or a lecture on “velocity.” Pressure fuels conflict, conflict lowers productivity, which in turn triggers more pressure. Solving it means presenting uncomfortable data to leaders, facilitating hard conversations, and keeping credibility while naming executive behavior as the constraint.

Software can chart velocity, if need be, and analyze sentiment. It cannot run that conversation. Your edge is integration, not execution.

The T-Shaped Agile Practitioner, Reframed

Expanding your T-shaped skills as an agile practitioner is helpful, but not as “PMs learning to code.” Instead, use technology to enhance diagnosis while you keep interpretation:

Use tools to analyze at scale:

• Processing Retrospective transcripts across teams to spot recurring impediments
• Examining organizational metrics for systemic signals
• Surveying stakeholders to track sentiment trends.

Reserve judgment for yourself: Tools might report that five teams cited “unclear requirements.” You determine whether that points to a Product Owner gap, stakeholder misalignment, or avoidance of technical-debt discussions. That call rests on pattern recognition earned over the years.

An updated T-shape for agile practitioners, therefore, comprises:

• Depth: organizational change leadership, transformation strategy, executive coaching
• Enhanced breadth: Data analysis, sentiment detection, pattern recognition across large datasets, and administrative automation.

The Agency Imperative

High agency matters here, too, but it shows up differently in Agile than in Product:

• Diagnose problems leadership hasn’t named, e.g., “low productivity” rooted in organizational design
• Design interventions without waiting for permission, e.g., convene management workshops to tackle systemic blockers
• Challenge comfortable narratives, e.g., a failed Scrum rollout caused by missing empowerment, not team “commitment.”

Organizations tolerate facilitators when conditions are good. They value change leaders when transformation becomes urgent, and acceleration compresses that timeline.

The Dangerous Middle

The dangerous middle shows up as:

• Scrum Masters who know the Guide but lack change-leadership skill; I call them “Scrum Master as Secretary” in the anti-patterns book
• Product Owners who maintain Product Backlogs but don’t drive product decisions: The “Product Owner as Backlog Administrator” pattern
• Coaches who teach frameworks but can’t navigate executive politics: “Agile Coach as Framework Preacher”
• Transformation leads who implement scaling by the book but can’t link agility to outcomes.

These practitioners are competent in mechanics. That is what technology erodes first. If a playbook can capture it, software can replicate it. Reading unspoken dynamics, sensing performative commitment, and spotting structural incentives remain defensible.

Another anti-pattern from the book: “Agile Coach as Framework Preacher.” These coaches teach SAFe or LeSS mechanics, but can’t explain why the organization isn’t getting more agile despite execution by the book. Framework knowledge without diagnostic capability sits in the middle.

Implications for Leaders

Use Yang’s lens to assess your teams:

• Audit roles against the polarization: Who is a facilitator versus a change leader? The former face increasing risk; the latter gain value
• Invest in technical literacy: Give practitioners time and a clear expectation to experiment with new tools. Those who learn before displacement are the ones to keep
• Redefine “senior”: Senior means demonstrated organizational impact—transformations led, culture shifted, outcomes improved. Framework knowledge is table stakes; strategic influence differentiates
• Stop hiring for framework implementation: Hire for change leadership, organizational psychology, and influence without authority. Tools can handle mechanics; they fail on politics.

A Practical Path Forward

Adapt Yang’s five actions to escape the dangerous middle:

• Choose your positioning: become a top-tier specialist in organizational transformation or a broad generalist who blends facilitation, coaching, analysis, and research. Avoid the competent-only facilitator role
• Use technology to expand diagnosis: automate Retrospective synthesis, metric analysis, and documentation. Spend the saved time on trust-building, political navigation, and tailored interventions
• Build tool-collaboration skills: Give precise instructions, provide examples, and review outputs critically
• Demonstrate agency in public: Write about your work, share frameworks, experiment, and document what you learn
• Eliminate low-value tasks: Automate notes, status reports, decks, and documentation. Focus on emotional dynamics, psychological safety, and power structures.

The Investment

This shift to AI is not a blip. It changes how knowledge work gets done. Agile practitioners don’t need to become engineers. Use new tools to amplify strengths and focus on what software can’t do. That means:

• Experiment now
• Share learnings with the community
• Move your value from process to change leadership
• Build public credibility through visible results.

Escaping the Dangerous Middle: Why I Built the AI 4 Agile Course

Practitioners who invest now will be in demand. Those who wait will find the landscape already changed. This development is why I built the AI 4 Agile online course. It covers the three transitions that matter:

1. Diagnostic enhancement: Using tools to find systemic patterns across teams
2. Administrative elimination: Automating notes and documentation to free time for judgment work
3. Strategic repositioning: Moving from process facilitation to change leadership with frameworks for diagnosing failed transformations.

Understanding these tools is becoming mandatory. You can learn by experimenting now rather than scrambling later.

Conclusion

Yang’s core point generalizes: Agency is the agile practitioner’s moat. People who identify problems, design solutions, and execute without waiting will thrive. Agile has taught these principles for years. You can apply them to your own path, not just your teams, and save you from being left in the dangerous middle.

New tools won’t replace agile practitioners who build learning organizations, navigate complex change, and question comfortable assumptions. However, they will erode the market for moderating “agile ceremonies by the book.”

📖 The Dangerous Middle — Related Posts

AI Risks: Why Product Professionals Are Sleepwalking Into Strategic Irrelevance

AI Transformation Déjà Vu: Why Today’s Failures Look Uncannily Like Yesterday’s “Agile Transformations”

The Statistical AI Parrot in Your Sprint: Why AI Won’t Replace Your Agile Team (and Why Ignoring It Is a Mistake)

Ethical AI in Agile: Four Guardrails Every Scrum Master Needs to Establish Now

Generative AI in Agile: A Strategic Career Decision

Contextual AI Integration for Agile Product Teams

👆 Stefan Wolpers: The Scrum Anti-Patterns Guide (Amazon advertisement.)

📅 Scrum Training Classes, Workshops, and Events

Learn more about the Agile AI Manifesto with our AI and Scrum training classes, workshops, and events. You can secure your seat directly by following the corresponding link in the table below:

See all upcoming classes here.

You can book your seat for the training directly by following the corresponding links to the ticket shop. If your organization’s procurement process requires a different purchasing approach, please contact Berlin Product People GmbH directly.

✋ Do Not Miss Out and Learn more about the Dangerous Middle — Join the 20,000-plus Strong ‘Hands-on Agile’ Slack Community

I invite you to join the “Hands-on Agile” Slack Community and enjoy the benefits of a fast-growing, vibrant community of agile practitioners from around the world.

If you would like to join all you have to do now is provide your credentials via this Google form, and I will sign you up. By the way, it’s free.