No man would willingly sign up to a working life of constant uncertainty. At the same time, there is one growing problem with the argument that Carlisle United urgently need more stability in some of their major roles.

It is that, the less certain the futures of Keith Curle and several players have become in 2017/18, the better the Blues' results have got.

Four wins from five, 13 points from a possible 15: this has been the recent output from a regime that, at the time of writing, is getting closer to a reckoning without anyone knowing what that reckoning is.

It cannot be a comfortable place for Curle, still without the foggiest about whether he will be here next season, while a sense of anxiety in the dressing room was also described by Jamie Devitt this week, when he talked about the "awkward situation" of so many players still being unaware of what happens beyond May.

Nobody would pretend this is the stuff of stable strategy. At the same time, United are inadvertently making a case for a little bit of unease being a good thing.

When contracts had the best part of a season still to run, after all, they were stumbling through this campaign's early months in the bottom half of League Two. When two-year deals had yet to pass the midway point, earlier in 2017, Carlisle's overall record was on the slide.

"As players it's a little bit frustrating that we don't know everything, but I think it shows there's unbelievable character in the squad that we're going out and putting these performances in, and getting the wins, doing our best to be in League One," said Devitt who, unlike a cluster of team-mates, has activated a trigger clause to secure another year.

The question, you suppose, is whether those performances are coming in spite of the big-picture confusion, or because of it?

Is the fact that so much is at stake - so many fates to be decided and the finish line now in clearer sight - shocking United into better collective form?

Is the "incentivised" nature of playing for United, something Curle has made a key part of his management, also working now in a different, unwritten kind of way?

Inside football, you would need a whole firm of devil's advocates to make the case for this. Bosses routinely crave a surer thing, a deeper sense of commitment. Many must cast their eyes enviously to Paul Tisdale, whose Exeter drew 1-1 with Carlisle last weekend, towards the end of his 12th year in charge.

On the BBC's Match of the Day 2 Extra last Sunday, Curle - a compelling guest - was asked about the crisis at West Ham. Carlisle's boss did not think it "helped" that David Moyes had only been given a short-term contract at the London Stadium. "If he's going to try to attract players in transfer windows, are big-money signings going to come to a football club that's only got a manager in place for six months?"

One did not need a visit to Bletchley Park to decode that message from a Brunton Park perspective. As well as leaving the man himself in limbo, it has also been pointed out in these pages and elsewhere, by Chris Lumsdon and others, that continuing to hedge the bet on Curle could already be costing United players, current and future.

That dressing-room insight, and the frustration hinted at by the in-form Devitt, is a serious matter for those running the Blues. It is a challenge to their powers of judgement.

Carlisle's approach, in making Curle wait, will come in for examination down the line. If they are left behind the eight-ball in the summer window, there will be an open goal for criticism. If they build positively, those urging the board to reward Curle now will have to eat a few words.

Whatever is said about cycles, and wider issues, the fact United are not yet clear on their 2018/19 boss appears, on the surface, troubling. It would probably help if those at the top were able to colour in the outline of an altered strategy, which chief executive Nigel Clibbens has hinted at in recent press conferences but not yet elaborated upon, given the immediate need for results.

"Continuity," which Clibbens claims to like, is not yet on the table with Curle, and even if it eventually is, we are still some distance from a Tisdale scenario where, it seems, trust in the boss for the long run is a given, and deep-rooted in the boardroom.

Anyone who thinks this stuff doesn't bother people in Curle's position is being naive. When Devitt also put it in simple terms from a lower-league player's perspective, with the creeping worry about mortgage payments from summer onwards, it also gave strong weight to sorting this stuff as soon as possible.

Certainly, letting things dangle is no way to run a club for too long. It messes with heads, leaves a sour taste, and hardly sends out a consistent message. It also opens up a big vacuum for speculation, which can be unhelpful in its own way.

For a short, desperate burst, though? The record since mid-February says it is not doing United any harm. Indeed, it is allowing Curle and those players to show how good they are when the whole thing is put at the mercy of a few tense games.

Pressure comes in many forms, and in some cases it is quite brutal. Is it not, though, what football is about - and do we not, after all, have to rethink just a little about what is the best environment for everyone, at all possible times?