Improving the State of your Testing Team: Part Four – Attracting and Retaining Talent

The greatest challenge in building a team is finding good people. But as difficult as finding those people can be, keeping them motivated and in the building after you hire them is where the real work begins. Almost the entirety of our improvement program in the Global Test Center (GTC) is based on talent management. Metrics? Nope. Maturity models? Nope. Best practices? Nope.

They only way we are going to improve the state of testing here (or anywhere IMHO) is by focusing on hiring, training, and motivating the best testers in the industry. And the approach we’ve taken has three parts:

  1. Creating an environment of honesty and transparency
  2. Building a development structure focused on training, coaching and mentoring
  3. Transferring control and quality of work to the teams

A Case for Transparent Management

The greatest advice I ever got on hiring managers was from one of the best people I’ve ever had the pleasure to work for, and her motto was: “People don’t quit their company; they quit their manager”. There is a lot truth in that statement, and it echos a Forbes article published last year that boiled down all the “top 10” reasons why talented people leave companies into one:

“Top talent leave an organization when they’re badly managed and the organization is confusing and uninspiring.”

Want to run your best people off quickly and efficiently? Make them work for uninspiring leadership that treats people like children by not sharing information. In “The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization“, Peter Senge talks about building a learning organization through honesty and actively sharing information. I tell my teams everything I possibly (and legally) can so they aren’t confused about my thought process and as a result, buy into my decisions.

Don’t judge me on my access to information – measure me on the decisions I make with that information. That’s where my experience and skill as a manager comes in to play and differentiates me from my peers. Withholding information from your teams is a very standard practice for frightened or immature managers, and is incredibly damaging to the culture of your team. Transparency is probably the most important – and completely controllable aspect of your management style that will impact unwanted attrition.

Failure = Success

I may have a slight bias from watching him play basketball for the Chicago Bulls, but Michael Jordan’s perspective on failure encapsulates my approach to developing people: “I’ve failed over, and over, and over again in my life – and that is why I succeed.” Letting people fail means you are setting them up for success. Unfortunately, most of the training programs I’ve seen run on the premise that you can transfer knowledge to people through strictly explicit means. The problem is that most of what we need to learn (and specifically to try and fail) only comes from tacit knowledge, which by definition isn’t easily learned through reading and writing.*

We have structured our GTC University into three distinct areas: training, coaching, and mentoring. Training is all the stuff we need people to read and understand to do the basics of their jobs. That’s focused on functional knowledge, white papers and books on testing, videos, etc., all stuff they can digest in their own way and time. Coaching takes people through specific techniques and approaches and then lets them practice while we watch with an immediate feedback loop. Test Management Mentoring is our program of pairing “up and coming” test leads and managers with senior test managers they don’t report to and focuses on large, strategic testing problems.

GTC University

Without all three, and especially coaching and mentoring, you run the risk of a shallow development program that only delivers the lowest value knowledge acquisition. People need to try and fail in a safe environment so they can have confidence to suceed in real projects. I think this quote my mom left in my notebook when she dropped me off for my first day at college sums it up nicely:

“And if it be said, that continual success is a proof that a man wisely knows his powers, – it is only to be added, that, in that case, he knows them to be small.”H Melville

A Players Hire A Players – B Players Hire C Players

Weak managers will actively discourage autonomy to maintain control. Talented people in creative, intellectual activities (like testing software) HAVE to have a large amount of autonomy to be successful. In his book “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us”, Daniel Pink suggests a terrific technique for gauging how much autonomy the people in your team really have. Autonomy audits put your control issues somewhere on a scale between a “North Korean prison and Woodstock”. If you are not giving people control over their own work, you can only expect them to hire teams whose work they can control.

Once you’ve let go of control and really trust your teams, let them take responsibility for the quality of their culture. I encourage my teams to make it difficult to join them as I want them to set their OWN barriers for entry and not let just anyone into our club. And now that they truly own their work and environment, they hold each other to standards I could never enforce as a manager. Great people aren’t easy to find or grow, but I believe if you work in a transparent way, deliver all three elements of development, and give people ownership of their work, your chances of finding and retaining your A players are greatly increased.

*For more on that topic I HIGHLY recommend Michael Bolton’s writing and the excellent book he introduced to me by Harry Collins.

What Does it Take to Change the Software Testing Industry? Courage!

My fellow AST board member and resident “software anthropologist & software tester”, Pete Walen, recently posted about what he felt it took to make a difference or change the world. He rather pointedly asked the question, “When was the last time you were proud of the work you did?” Excellent question!

One of the values I talk about with my teams is integrity, and an example of how I see that being demonstrated in your testing should be a refusal to accept mediocrity. After some modest questioning from his readers about challenging processes and the fear of losing your job, Pete came back with this (emphasis mine):

“If that idea does not give you a certain period of pause, you might be independently wealthy,  have no responsibilities beyond yourself or, well, you just don’t care about the future. There may be something else at work.  There may be some ideas that I have not considered.  Or, maybe you just don’t care.

Even better! Changing the way you, your project, or your business conduct and value testing is hard work! And it takes more than brains – it takes guts. Software testing is loaded with unchallenged ideas from the last 20 or so years, and changing its perception works against ingrained bias and prejudice. Not only that, the industry is lousy with vendors and consultants who earn a tidy income from high volume, low margin (and low value) test factories. And trust me, successfully changing that environment is not about bringing your own lunch – its about eating someone elses!

So here’s why I think Pete’s post is so important. Jump eight thousand miles or so from snowy Grand Rapids, Michigan to sunny Pune, India. Now, I have travelled and worked in India for over 10 years, but something struck me about the conversations on my last trip – the tone. I had the distinct pleasure of participating in an AST round table discussion on testing skills with Pradeep Soundararajan CEO of Moolya, Justin Hunter CEO of Hexawise, Smita Mishra CEO of QA Zone and our hosts, Cognizant.

Keith Klain - AST India Roundtable

Talking testing with Hexawise, Cognizant, Moolya and QAZone

The discussion ranged from which testing skills are hot in the market to how best to use tools in a rapidly changing environment. But for me, the highlight of the night came when one of the over 200 people attending asked what it takes to improve testing in a company. The “Kung Fu Panda” from Moolya raised his hand and said “One thing – Courage!“. James Bach did a great write up in Tea Time with Testers about how Moolya are changing the way a software testing company runs in India (or the world for that matter), and after spending time with Pradeep and seeing loads of examples of their work, I know they take changing the software testing industry seriously.

And so should you. According to Mark Twain, courage is not the absence of fear – but the mastery of it. There are people working in software testing all over the globe who are questioning long standing ways of working – some for the first time. Get yourself energized and get involved. All it takes is a bit of self-reflection like the brand Pete Walen is selling, followed up by a healthy dose of action Moolya-style: courage!

Context-Driven Controversy? Meh…

“I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.” –  Groucho Marx

As a relative newcomer to the context-driven community, I read with great anticipation the latest post on the Context-Driven Testing website. Unfortunately, a pattern seems to be developing on that site where good ideas or topics for debate end up drowning in some bizarre public spectacle made up of innuendo, accusations and irony. Sapient testing? Fuzzing? Checking vs Testing? HVAT? How about: WTF? My view……who cares. All this leaves me feeling bored and frankly, a little sad.

I’m drawn to the CDT community because I’m a skeptic. I’m not sure about anything, let alone the best approach to software testing, so the CDT philosophy of rejecting “best practices” hits all the right notes with me. Even after knowing about the Association for Software Testing for years, I’ve only recently been active, as I was not convinced you could effect change in software testing through “community” action.

I’m also interested in the CDT world because it forces testers by principle to do something that in my opinion, other approaches to software testing do not: use their brain.

This one-sided debate about who owns CDT, whether people are censured, the existence of an anti-automation cabal – all of that smacks of a storm in a tea-cup. Is the CDT community under assault from a bunch of Luddite “consultants” looking for ways to leverage marketing materials? Huh? And are these same “consultants” censuring people while twisting their mustaches and hatching diabolical “manual testing only” plans? Seriously? When you get past all the smoke and rhetoric, I can tell you my experience has been exactly the opposite.

Want to know what Michael Bolton says about “checking vs testing”? Read this. Want to know if James Bach is “anti-automation? Ask him here. They’re not firing off missives filled with thinly veiled attacks. Their work is out there for criticism – and trust me, they welcome questions. We all know how I feel about scrutiny, and after two years of extensive training, and consulting work filled with long debate and personal discussions, I can assure you – neither James nor Michael are “anti-automation”, CDT religious nuts, or stifling feedback. What a bunch of nonsense.

But don’t take my or anyone else’s word for it – find out for yourself.

There are so many great things happening in the CDT community now – and they are happening on a global scale. Seeds that were sown years ago are starting to grow, and CDT is being adopted by larger organizations on a bigger scale and continues to gain acceptance into mainstream software testing philosophy. So let’s get on with the work at hand: questioning ourselves, rigorous debate, and building a vibrant testing community that improves the lives of software testers and meets the demands of our business.

“The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can’t find them, make them.” – George Bernard Shaw

The Pursuit of Scrutiny

“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves” – Arthur Miller, The Crucible

I love scrutiny. I love it so much that I try to constantly surround myself with people who challenge my views. Either by directly asking for critique or by putting my work up to public review, I seek honest perspectives on my work to continually improve. I need scrutiny in the same way crucibles are used in laboratories or for scientific purposes: they withstand high temperatures to remove impurities. Scrutiny burns off impurities in my ideas and actions. It clarifies them. And I set the pace and tone for that scrutiny through how I give feedback to others: straight and to the point.

And guess what drives my desire for scrutiny: insecurity. That probably sounds funny coming from me, and might even sound like a weakness, but I assure you it can be one of your greatest strengths if used properly. My insecurity drives my quest for excellence in myself and in turn, in my teams. I am not confident we are always doing the right thing. I am not convinced we are always pursuing the right strategy for tools, process, and people. And it is exactly because I am not 100 percent secure in all my decisions, that I don’t just “like” scrutiny, I NEED it! In the never-ending pursuit of excellence, scrutiny is my compass.

Far too often I have seen testers get crushed under the weight of their own insecurities. And coupled with a fear of failure, that can have a paralyzing effect on either a person or team. Face your fears! Put yourself out there! Let the heat of challenging views and rigorous debate clarify and sharpen your ideas. At best you will have strengthened not only your position, but also your character, and if you fail, it would be, in the words of Theodore Roosevelt, “while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

I want my work to be excellent and able to withstand scrutiny, and if people aren’t willing to give it freely, I must wring it out of them. It’s my responsibility as a leader. I shout and bang my fist on my desk because I demand excellence from myself and my teams. I don’t know if we’ll ever get there, but through our pursuit, some awesome things are starting to happen. If testing is questioning a product in order to evaluate it, it is my opinion that questioning must start its focus on the questioner.

Recently, I have witnessed or been involved in several discussions and Twitter threads that seem to be equating challenging an idea with attacking the person who proposed the idea. I reject that premise as no idea, person or thing defines me – so it is impossible to offend me. But even if they did offend me, or I felt it was a personal attack – so what! Force it through the crucible of your own scrutiny and all the imperfections will burn away. Professional testers honing their skills should never shy away from challenges to their ideas – they should not just welcome, but court them!

I leave you these words to inspire you to seek your “crucible”:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Theodore Roosevelt, Excerpt from the speech “Citizenship In A Republic” delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910