Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this post.

Comments

• 1 Sep 2010 Matthew Heusser wrote:
  Hello Lanette.
  
  Have you noticed that every year, students graduate from MIT or Carnegie Mellon thinking that testing is a straightforward business process that should 'just' be automated?
  
  And with IQ's in the 130-140 range, they are going to try, dangit! and with Pride-Qs in the same range, if they haven't achieved it yet, they sure aren't going to make a big deal out of it.
  
  So I'm not surprised, nor really disappointed, when we keep recycling these ideas. Especially when you consider that they enable the sort of Tayloristic thinking so prevalent in corporate America. (Context-driven, not so much.)
  
  So we've got some work to do.
  
  For those of us who dabble in test education, that's an opportunity, right?
  Reply to this
  1. 1 Sep 2010 Lanette wrote:
     I figured out recently why some business people didn't want to hear about the risks. They hadn't felt the pain yet, so they couldn't relate to what I was trying to save them.
     
     I think the problem for these new graduates is that they haven't experienced the pain yet. Until they do, no amount of words will hold interest.
     
     I see 2 choices for those of us not in education. Choice 1 I tried last year at StarEast, and BetterSoftware. That is where you speak to the mainstream tester. There you have a chance to introduce new concepts, where they will ask you where the content and directions are. Or, we can go preach to the choir. That is my plan this year at CAST, PNSQC, and STPcon. Want to interact, be inspired, and feel good rather than spent more time talking to those who haven't experienced any of the pain or joy, and therefore are unlikely to be interested.
     Reply to this
• 1 Sep 2010 Devon Smith wrote:
  This is a good post and I really agree with your take on the agile perversion.
  
  I don't know that I'm a fan of the 6 week trial though. Think, as a candidate, how many other job opportunities you would be missing out on if you take a chance with one company and are not selected. It is not really respectful to a practiced professional to put them through such an extended trial, when they need to make decisions on what job to take (potentially out of a few offers) and think about what it means for their finances and their family if they take a chance on a trial period and then it doesn't work out.
  
  That being said, I always consider my first months on a job as a trial period. I need to work hard to prove myself and make sure that I am delivering what is expected, as well as fitting in well with the company. But I don't think we should have to be competing with other people where you get into a situation where you performed well, but someone else is chosen. I'd rather know in the interview.
  
  When I hire people now, I try my best to give them a chance to perform in the interview to show off their knowledge. I make the best choice I can. and try not to cut ties with the other people I really liked, but who didn't work out for whatever reason.
  Reply to this
  1. 1 Sep 2010 Lanette wrote:
     I'm not sure how to fix the interview problem, all I know right now is that what is being used right now isn't useful, fair, relevant to testing or agile, nor does it do a good job of taking into account what makes for a team work, or even what makes a company worth working for. Or what makes a person worth working with.
     
     We know from science that the number one reason people leave their job is their manager.
     
     The 6 week trial. Let's see. For the last 2 jobs I interviewed for that I DIDN'T get, I had 16 interviews. Most of them were useless. It cost me a trip to go visit my father that I'd planned, an untold amount of stock (due to unforseen circumstances), lots of stress, a few outfits, and ultimately if you count in all of the driving time, and so forth, I think that 6 weeks paid at what is an average mean salary for the team you are working on wouldn't be too bad. Maybe it could be adjusted by position, and maybe 6 weeks is too long. Maybe a few weeks would be better. What would even a few DAYS do? We haven't even tried investing half a day on the people we hire. Companies are more willing to dump money at the candidates than actually spend time making a good choice. They are more than willing to give someone 15 freaking interviews with people who can't even do they job they are interviewing people for. I could live my entire life without another interview with a business person who thinks testing and "using the application" are the same thing.
     
     If someone doesn't hire me, the ball is in their court. If they really liked me and want me to come interview, when they find a job they think fits me, they will contact me and ask me to apply. If not, I'll carry on looking for a place that excites me to work. I'll keep trying. I'll continue to work and gain experience wherever I can, because I love testing and I miss it when I'm not testing. I'll go to conferences, read blogs, read books, share my stuff and ultimately keep looking for home. I dream of my utopia. Because once you have that flow on a team where you are working close with a developer and you are really part of the team and you feel so useful and productive, no roadblock filled imitation will do. You miss that efficiency so much and the company of having a strong team so bad that you'll keep seeking it. And if you are silly like I am, you believe it is seeking you too.
     Reply to this
• 1 Sep 2010 Gil Broza wrote:
  Thanks for a very interesting post.
  I'm a fan of the audition method for most roles, and testing is no exception.
  
  I agree with Devon that 6 weeks is too long. Of course I'd expect the company to pay the person for their time (perhaps less than full regular pay), but this really is too much of a gamble on the candidate's part.
  
  Every process we use encourages some sort of behaviour. Would a 6-week stretch encourage candidates to not take this company seriously and keep looking for other jobs meanwhile? Jobs they could start at right away at their regular pay (even for a three-month probation period, like we have here in Canada)? And if you try this with the 10 best candidates, how would they behave *toward one another*? This is outright competition. Somehow I like it when candidates don't see their competitors on a daily basis.
  
  Gil
  Reply to this
  1. 2 Sep 2010 Lanette wrote:
     I threw 6 weeks out there because as a consultant on the more technically complex projects, by then I will have shown what "full speed" looks like, and I'll know if the place is somewhere I want to work long term, or if I'm just as happy to finish up the project and move on to something else.
     
     Your point on competition is a good one. I think a 3 month probation period is a good one. I would take how they behave toward eachother as part of who they are and how they perform. If they help others they are competing with, I'd want them on my team more. If they undercut others and compete with ruthlessness, I'd say no thanks. I've worked with those backstabbers before. From the advice to spend time on rear covering activities, to hiding your work when meeting with folks up the food chain, I know I don't want to be in the trenches with people I can't trust. I'd rather be unemployed and change professions than become one. The only people who can say that this behavior is unacceptable and can not stand or be rewarded is those of us who interview, hire, and work with others, and can bring it to light.
     Reply to this
• 1 Sep 2010 Curtis Stuehrenberg wrote:
  Devon - The trial period goes both ways. Think of all the candidates the team could have been interviewing or giving a shot rather than the one sitting at the desk. Taking on a new job is risky, but no more so than taking on a new team member.
  
  Lanette - I'm seeing a lot more personality and culture fit interviews when talking to startups and smaller companies dominant in niche markets. I'm starting to think the culture of coding as king is fostered and nurtured by the "rock star" cultures of large software companies where a lot of people in the hiring manager position did their apprenticeships. I have talked to a few hiring managers at large companies like "Mircozon" and "Googlehoo" and "HTCIBM" who were bucking the trend to only hire architects and coders, but they were conspicuous for their exception.
  
  But with the coming fall of the "House of M" heralded by their failure to adapt to a new market demanding real innovation, I think we might be seeing the beginnings of a change. Companies can no longer rely on a particular skill set being relevant three to five years in the future. They'll have to follow the lead of scrappy smaller companies and start hiring people who know how to learn, and learn fast.
  Reply to this
  1. 2 Sep 2010 Lanette wrote:
     I'm not sure about the much touted decline of the House of M. I personally love Bing and I think if such a thing happens in would be many years in the future. I wouldn't count out a major resizing and strategy change. At this point I fear the political machine is giant there, and unfortunately that means they can't attract as quality of talent because the intrinsic rewards are weak. I think that Google is winning in that regard.
     Reply to this
     1. 4 Sep 2010 Curtis wrote:
        The trouble I have with Bing is it isn't in any way innovative. There is simply too much pressure being placed on a team that is essentially attempting to take on the three thousand pound gorilla in a room of three hundred pound gorillas. How do you win by copying a company that does what they do so well they've become the de facto name for the very market space. Microsoft is basically trying to take on Q-Tip or Band-Aid by offering a different cotton swab or adhesive strip.
        
        Other than that, Microsoft is retreating into smaller and deeper high end customer markets which is a sure sign of a company losing their innovative edge. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you. You can stick around making gobs of cash for quite a while as a sustaining company. You'll just need to be comfortable with irrelevancy eventually.
        Reply to this
• 1 Sep 2010 Matthew Heusser wrote:
  FWIW, I would think you could structure the engagement so that it is a six week "contract."
  
  Then if you decide to not go forward, you can say "yeah, they brought me in as a hired gun on a six week contract ..."
  
  Less social stigma. I'm thinking about how you could say that with integrity, tho.
  
  One way to do it is with an internship during summer of senior year in college. That's how Fog Creek does it.
  Reply to this
  1. 2 Sep 2010 Lanette wrote:
     One thing that enticed me about consulting was the chance to work at a few places for just one project. I get to contribute something of value and learn more about the industry, what is out there. I see my consulting as dating. I may someday get married if I find my right match.
     Reply to this
• 1 Sep 2010 Tim Western wrote:
  The idea of a six week contract, really scares the hell out of me. When I went looking for my last job, if you would have told me it would have been six weeks with no promise of full time employment. (Oh and I'd have to commute almost two hours, move my family, or find a small garage to sleep in during that time) I would have said thanks but no thanks.
  
  Now, if that work could be setup and done remotely somehow, then I might be more interested in trying it, but what if I have to also give up the current job in hand, going after a six week job in the bush, that end sup being a phantom when you don't get hired full time?
  
  I'm not sure there are many people in the world who would put up with that especially if the impetus to change jobs is to find solid work for a while, not a brief respite and then back into the street.
  
  Maybe I'm alone in feeling this way, but it was a leap of faith when i took a 6 month contract with no promise of assured employment at the end to move down here, but at least I was able to make the jump and have enough time to acclimate and feel confident before that time was up.
  Reply to this
  1. 1 Sep 2010 Tim Western wrote:
     Actually now that I ponder it, I know exactly why it scares the heck out of me. I once worked at a location, where people were always in fear of their jobs. It was because of how the company was run in effect, but it lead to a culture of blame and CYA.
     
     I do not know many people, who could handle six weeks like that of uncertainty and not be also looking for that next gig at the same time, or trying to CYA so that you didn't get into any major trouble. How much time and effort might be wasted in any given testing span if the people being tried out are looking over their shoulders, wondering when, or if the Ax will fall at week 4, 5, 6 etc. Contract or no, outside of Consultants who perhaps routinely jump from project to project (yet still basically work for the same overall unit), I'm not sure the average person can handle that and not have some efficiency lost due to fear, looking over the shoulder mentality that such beliefs might bring to a prospective hire (tester or programmer).
     
     Now I have worked the Temp circuit before, and after several assignments you get used to not knowing if tomorrow is your last day, but it is not an easy mindset to master as far as I can tell.
     Reply to this
     1. 2 Sep 2010 Lanette wrote:
        I was thinking more of a 6 week contract for pay, but that may be too long for most. As a consultant right now, I was thinking more of how long it takes for people to see how fast I pick up on the environment, how I react to stress, what full speed looks like for me, and where my strengths/weaknesses are.
        
        Being temporary is only hard if you delude yourself that there are jobs that are truly permanent. With the layoffs the last several years, I'm not sure most job seekers think that way.
        Reply to this
        1. 2 Sep 2010 Tim Western wrote:
           After pondering this more last night, I somewhat agree. A six week try out might be a great thing. I mean if you know you can do the job, why fear trying to show it? I know I had some bad experiences in the past, and maybe those temper my reaction to such a suggestion. I know one time I interviewed for a position, that while I didn't know a lot about SQL Sever at the time, I had no doubt I could transition and learn it. Was offered the position, and basically accepted it, but couldn't give them a start date till I looked at the logistics of moving there. (Something admittedly that hadn't occurred to me until I saw the roads between there and here.) In that time, the Chair of that department returned and had already hired someone else, and I lost that opportunity. Not only that, but at the time, I had just started training for another job that would have been a decent stop gap while I interviewed for other technical jobs. I had to take 1 day off to do this interview, and they would not take me back when they heard I did not get the job. I've also had situations where I had a job in hand, but knew of others who if the boss found out you were interviewing, you could lose the job, even if you got it, he likely wouldn't take you back if things didn't last, because in his eyes that was 'disloyal'. I guess with the climate here being what it is, and not as robust in technical pursuits, that I tend to value each opportunity carefully. I didn't take my current job until I felt the impetus to change, almost exactly as Jerry Weinberg describes in QSM: Vol 1.
           Reply to this
• 1 Sep 2010 Oliver wrote:
  Hi Lanette,
  
  Interesting article. I still had certification up on spot No 1 for threats to testing and I think that won't change (at least that's where we're at in NZ).
  
  Agile has taken a close second now. I realized there was something wrong but because it's still all in it's infancy here I put it to a temporary/learning thing.
  
  What I did notice is that I heard a LOT of the same sentences the test tool vendors used end of the 90ies/beginning 20th century. "Test automation is the ONLY future", "full regression with test automation ", "get rid of testers once everything is automated",...
  
  It took us about 10 years to get rid of this nonsense (which management of course gobbled up and believed). Now along comes Agile and we're back to square one. It's just sad and infuriating. What amazes me is who is touting these tunes now. They are the scrum masters, the agile coaches and the such. I still can't fathom WHY?!
  
  Agilists also doesn't seem to understand the difference between unit testing, test automation and testing (or sapient testing). This is just short of phenomenal because that really isn't new to the world.
  
  Again WHY? I don't get it. But alas it makes my life a bit easier. I just dust off my 10y old arguments, presentations and convictions and start all over again.
  
  Cheers Oliver
  
  P.S. Does anyone know how to iport Powerpoint 97 slides into Powerpoint 2010?
  Reply to this
  1. 2 Sep 2010 Lanette wrote:
     I was wondering if the heavy certification culture of Europe had come down to harm NZ yet. It is too bad people are falling for it. I call it an ankle biting dog because it is bad and annoying, and it IS a threat. People are getting infections and dying. I just see this Agile perversion being a more urgent threat, so triage it to the front of the line. However, I mean in the US because that is my context. I live in Seattle and recently applied for jobs and interviewed in this area. I even looked for jobs around the US considering a move because there are a few people I'd like to work with for good companies.
     
     Real Agilists DO respect testing. They realize exploratory testing isn't optional. The agile coaches and scrum masters who don't understand and appreciate testing talent are what I call "mercenaries" after it was defined for me by Micheal Bolton. I would use another word personally for an individual who will sell anything to make a dollar. Somewhere there is a word between vulture and prostitute that fits, but in order to keep it professional and fair, mercenaries will do.
     
     The reason why is because they can prey on ignorance about testing and make money. Congrats, you are the only defense in place against this ignorance. You've been enlisted to help. Good luck with your powerpoint upgrades.
     Reply to this
• 1 Sep 2010 Jon Bach wrote:
  I know how to fix the interview problem. Quardev's been doing it for years with great success. I've done over 400 of them in my 6 years there.
  
  1) Resume comes in
  2) HR asks basic questions (available, hourly rate you want, current visa?)
  3) Phone screen by a senior tester at the lab to talk testing philosophy and experience
  4) Audition -- they come in and have to test something for an hour while we interact with them -- we take notes on the whiteboard right in front of them -- WE are at the board the whole time, not them. They test and talk out loud. If they are an introvert and need solitude for fuel, we leave the room and let them think it out. If it's for an SDET position, we do a separate coding interview where they try to improve (or refactor) a piece of badly written software.
  
  We make an offer, they accept or don't.
  
  Done and done.
  
  I see no other reliable way to hire a tester other than to see them test in an environment where the interviewer works *with* them, not *at* them.
  Reply to this
  1. 2 Sep 2010 Tim Western wrote:
     That sounds like a better system to me. I've had interviews were people handed me a piece of code in a language I knew, and asked me if I could spot three errors about it. I've also had some that asked me to describe generally how I would go about doing a particular task. THey didn't stick me in front of a computer to do it, but they were good questions to ask I think.
     
     I'd not fault any employer for putting an interviewee on the spot and asking them to show them their stuff for a couple of hours.
     Reply to this
     1. 2 Sep 2010 Lanette wrote:
        I agree this is better, and my consulting interview was nice like this also. The problem is, I still have to interview for the client which in most cases will go like my list above and they have the power to choose.
        
        I'm glad that you guys are setting a good example. I see you doing more than that, and also speaking out against things that harm testing and educating people. There are too few people ready, willing, and capable for a fight on that many fronts. More on your other comment in a bit.
        Reply to this
        1. 2 Sep 2010 Tim Western wrote:
           I remember a time, fresh out of College, I interviewed for a development position. They actually gave me I think it was a 20-30 question test, and then went over my answers with them on basic concepts. Some of them were acronyms knowing what they meant. I actually remember doing poorly on that test audition, but that was good, it drove me to find out about things I had not thought to dig into before.
           
           I think the kinds of questions you ask in an interview can also help. For the job I do now, I was asked three questions that I remember vividly.
           
           
           Tell us about something that you did in your profession that you were very happy with how things came out.
           
           Tell us a time when you ran into difficulty, or encountered a problem in the progress of completing an objective, and what steps you took to overcome those obstacles.
           
           Tell us a time when you worked on something that you found difficult, or something that forced you to stretch your knowledge and understanding to complete, and what did you think after you had finished.
           
           
           I love questions like these in interviews because they force you to think. How do you handle success? How do you handle strife or difficulty? How do you evaluate yourself after completing something that was more difficult for you.
           
           They weren't necessarily looking for technical answers, as trying to see how I thought, what my experiences were like, and whether I exhibited the ability to take initiative and try to solve problems when I bumped into them.
           
           I was telling my wife the other day, that some of the things I've done on this project, might be difficult for a non 'coder' to find a way around. Having that tool in my chest enabled me to work around a couple of problems that I would likely have had to throw my hands up and say I'm blocked I can't do it. Instead, I used what I had learned elsewhere and crafted a way to get around the problem with our testing setup, so as to be able to continue and complete the objectives.
           
           Those are the kinds of things I'd look for when higher both developers, and testers. Anyone can learn the semantics, syntax, or how to do something that is cookie cutter. The question is can you think through a problem, generate possible solutions, and then pick one, and move on from there.
           
           For testers, I see this in much the same way. Any 'monkey' can sit at a keyboard moving the mouse and clicking aimlessly trying to break something. It takes sapience to come up with a test objective, and then work through things related to that objective exercising the system in an effort to learn how it behaves.
           Reply to this
• 2 Sep 2010 Oliver wrote:
  The thing about the 6 weeks, 3 months or whatever it may be is that companies are not geared for it. By definition it will be exploited and mis-used. There is no such thing as trial. You are resource and you are easily expendable.
  
  You got a project that needs testers for 6 weeks...
  
  That's just the way it is. Not condoning here, just bein realistic. If you find a company that works differently (and has financially survived) let me know. And don't give me false positives that act like that only on the surface.
  
  Anyway... In an interview I look for ability and engagement. Then I check tester traits which to me is a nack for analysis and problem solving. The person doesn't need to be a tester to get the job with me. I need the right character. Everything else can be learned. Of course it would help though.
  
  I do know after a few minutes if I'd like to hire a person or not. The rest is just verifying first gut feel (and as my wife says, my gut is usually spot-on). Usually I couldn't tell you the real reason for hiring someone or not. I just feel if people are testers or not (i.e. testers that just do stuff by going through the motions).
  Reply to this
  1. 2 Sep 2010 Lanette wrote:
     "There is no such thing as trial. You are resource and you are easily expendable."
     
     There are many agilists who won't work with those who call people "resources". There are many examples of companies, from SocialText to Lean Dog, to Fog Creek that do things differently as survive. Hey, they even thrive. Life is a trial, a temporary learning assignment. Our brains can't handle that fact, so we pretend everything including us is forever. That may be the way it is now, but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way or even that it is possible. Want a company not in software that treats employees better than just "as a resource"? Try Zappos. The difference is entirely notable if you've ever had to call them for support.
     
     How about on the phone? Do you decide with your gut then? Research on interview decisions are interesting. Being attractive, tall(for men), and confident gives a person the greatest possible chance of being hired.
     
     We can't count on THEM to do it. There is no one else. Only we can change the things that impede progress in software.
     
     You may think I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
     
     A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality. --John Lennon
     Reply to this
     1. 2 Sep 2010 Oliver wrote:
        Yes, I hear you. I dream the dream too but I do have to live in realism until it becomes my dream.
        
        Yes, interesting to see how personal appearance and things affect your judgement. But being aware is half way to dealing with it. But....
        
        These things also fall into my judgement. Maybe not if someone is tall or not but for a tester I do look for confidence. It is one of the qualities needed. But confidence you could certainly do on the telephone too.
        
        I've never made an employment decision or interview on the phone and never would. It's just too risky. I have been involved in processes where people did it and it turned out OK but for me I don't go there.
        
        There is a distinct difference between IT in the US and in NZ. It's the difference between product development vs. bespoke development. NZ is definitely more the latter. Product companies like the ones you mention have more luxuries (less crusty history) around how they do things. Innovation actually drives product. Bespoke is different and more restricted....and more pro certification.
        
        Certification is big here and in a resurgence at this point in time. I still think it's an insult to our profession. But that might just be me
        Reply to this
• 17 Sep 2010 Morgan wrote:
  The trial period is a nice idea (in theory) BUT what about people who are currently employed? How would that work? Not only would it not be fair to the person's current employer, but it would probably be next to impossible for the candidate. This would ultimately rule them out.
  
  Not to mention... I think 6 weeks is a long time and there comes a point in which you have to wondering if the temporary staffing increase could be abbused. I know I'd be pretty ticked off to pour my heart into a job for 6 weeks only to find that I wasn't the chosen one!
  
  Love the blog - keep up the good work!
  
  Morgan
  Reply to this
  1. 17 Sep 2010 Morgan wrote:
     That's what I get for changing what I was saying in paragraph two before finishing my first cup of coffee... that's *WONDER and *ABUSED.
     Reply to this

Leave a comment