Testing for Non-Rocket Scientists- Building the Right Test Team

I think the major issue I have with some testing movements is the assumption that all testers are created equal. That everyone who is “good” will want to study epistemology, or can even spell “heuristics”. That they will not only BE outstanding testers, but that they will want to understand what MAKES an outstanding tester. That everyone is technically savvy, intuitive, curious, and skeptical. That they all want to study everything about their chosen field, are motivated to become The Best There Is, and are constantly improving their phenomenal skill sets. In short, that everyone is a Super Jenius (apologies to Wile E. Coyote).

This is simply not true. And because it is not true, the entire house of cards crumbles.

It sounds Really Good to build a team of such type and caliber of players. But the reality of the situation is that often such a team would be a failure. It would be one-sided with all of the talent loaded in one direction. And a one-sided team is a team with limited capability.

Let’s consider what most testing organizations would consider the top of the food chain. That brilliant, multi-talented, extraordinary, intuitive testing genius.

How many of those do you actually have on your staff? Are you lucky enough to have ONE?

Here’s my experience with that level and caliber of tester. First, they’re difficult to manage. They are hard on themselves, do the work of 3 or 4 people, and can hold the reins of 100 different issues simultaneously, while finding 50 more. They work odd/long hours, they put in 200% and they feel personally responsible when things go wrong. Why hard to manage? Well, one reason is that critiquing or trying to mentor a genius is difficult. They take it Really Hard, even when you’re gentle with them. Chances are they’re hard enough on themselves; having YOU criticize them, no matter how necessary, is quite devastating. These people are driven to be the best. Because they’re so driven, they tend to work until they drop, get so tired they become ineffective, or get sick. Then you’re minus an employee. Some are on the opposite side of the scale – they come and go as they please, putting in maybe 4 hours of work per day, knowing they can finish the work with a brilliant “blitz” when they feel motivated to do so. Superstars of this kind tend to be hard on their teammates. Their own standards are extraordinarily high for themselves and unreasonably high for others that are merely hard-working and “normal”. This means you have to be realistic when assessing them for potential lead opportunities. They can be difficult, autocratic, and non-motivating as lead personnel. Some want it “their way or the highway” and will actually squash independent thought. Some are absolute geniuses at testing and have no common sense whatsoever when it comes to working with others, taking care of themselves, or anything practical. This means you may have to take care of them like you would a child. They are normally quite confident in their own abilities, and can be opinionated, rude, and intimidating – to the rest of the staff, to you, and to your management. In other words, you may find yourselves catering to a Real Prima Donna. There is also a marked tendency to work on what they WANT to work on and nothing else. That means necessary or required work may not get done.

Do you really want 10 of those on your staff? Do you think they’ll play well together?

Probably not.

I generally categorize Super Jeniuses into two categories. There are those that will knock themselves out to improve if you (gently and kindly) point them in a direction, and there are those that are simply assholes (the Prima Donna variety). It doesn’t matter how talented an individual is, it’s best to have a zero tolerance policy for assholes on your teams. They piss off other team members, do not promote your organization in a positive way, feel entitled, and drag the rest of your team down. If they were really That Smart, they would realize that good relationships are a key to success in ANY business; QA does not exist in a vacuum and neither do they. Regardless of type, your Super Jeniuses will require more care and feeding than the rest of the staff.

So should you avoid hiring the Super Jenius? No, not at all. Depending on the size of your team, I’d ALWAYS recommend pulling on board some of the “best of the best” in terms of analytical testing skill – if you can find them. And you may get lucky and find some that are practical and kind as well. I’m just saying that an entire TEAM of such caliber will make your job a Living Hell and it’s doubtful your organization will profit long-term. It’s a good idea to have people at the top of their game on your staff; others can learn from them and they can raise the bar in your organization.

So say you get extremely lucky and have some Superstars on your staff. What other types of people are you going to need in order to get the job done?

I think it’s important to realize that everyone is talented in some way. I’ve met very few Superstars the course of my career. But I’ve met many, many people that fall into other categories. When you inherit a team, you’ll need to assess them to make sure they’re in the correct slots and have work they can excel in and challenges they’ll enjoy.

First, I’d advise you try to build a team that has complementary, rather than identical, skills.

One requirement for a test team is that EVERYONE be competent. Not extraordinary, just competent. That means they know how to test, can take over the tests of others, are willing to help their compadres, and most of the functions they’ve handled do not manifest major errors in production.

Outside of basic competency, I’d suggest that for a team over 12, you look for some organized, calm, dependable executors. You know the type, don’t you? They have every piece of information that comes across their desk categorized and in a properly-marked manila folder. Their Email is similarly categorized. These people are normally extraordinarily good with data, correlating statistics, and finding the stuff that everyone else on the team threw away or into a pile. Their work is inevitably done on time or before time, and they help out the other members of the team. They’re the workhorses of the organization. They don’t have the brilliance or leaps of intuition of the Superstars, but they’re always there when you need them.

You’ll also need some trainer/mentors. These are the people that go out of their way to help new members of the team and offer training to people outside the team. They’re the ones that remain patient when asked the same question 200 times by the same person. They handle people that would make a Superstar bang their head against a wall until their brains leak out their ears.

Not everyone who can train, is organized, or a brilliant analyst has the ability to persuade or motivate others. So finding a staff member or two that excel in this area can be of benefit to your team. Generally, I refer to these types as “salesmen”. These are the people you want making presentations or heading up projects that are going to require significant negotiation with outside areas.

I personally like having a few “players” on my team as well, as they help me keep on my toes and their desire to succeed can lead to some pretty spectacular efforts. A player is someone that is primarily driven by ambition. If you get them while they’re still young, a “player” can be mentored to become a force to be reckoned with. What a young “player” tends to forget is that while focusing on their own ambitions is not all bad, the way to get to where they want to be is through good application of all of the other things that make a manager great. When you combine the drive, social skills, and negotiating skills of a player with the proper skillset and some consideration of others, you can end up with a superstar. Some managers will avoid “players” as they are worried such personnel will try to climb up their broken and bloodied bodies in order to try to get their jobs. This is insecurity on your part and if you fear for your job you need to get over it. It’s hard to be effective when you spend too much time looking over your shoulder. A “player” is not necessarily a heartless bastard. If you help mentor and train a player, it is actually more likely that you’ll have a friend for life – either working for another company, in some position in your own company, or still working for you as you move up the ladder. Players understand the “I help you, you help me” mentality. It’s likely, by the way, that some of your own executive management are “players”. You might want to keep in mind that players appreciate those that help them reach their goals.

Last, but not least, if your team size is large enough and you can afford it, a few staff members new to the field are good for your team. It allows your trainers/mentors to flex their muscles and gives your team an influx of new ideas. These are the people who will be leads and managers when you retire; their development and contributions to the field as a whole are in your hands. I look at it as an investment in future.

I’ve given some broad categories here, and most people I’ve met in the field tend to fall into one of them by nature, but everyone is different and most people have some skills in more than one area. Some are gifted in all of them, although that’s very rare.

One of the points I’m trying to make, however, is that there isn’t one type of person or tester who is “best”. Some people are not challenged and feel trapped testing “old” stuff or existing regression tests. Some people find comfort in doing what they’ve done before a hundred times. Some people are wretched trainers. Some just have a “knack” for it. Some people are brilliant analysts, but poor communicators. One size does not fit all. If you have a mature organization, there should be room for all types of testing personnel. That repetitive work you can’t give to the superstar because they’ll hate it and do a haphazard job after they’ve postponed it to the last possible minute might be just perfect for one of your workhorses, who pride themselves on methodically working through what’s on their plate, and feel a sense of accomplishment when they complete something they know well on time or early. What’s more, it’s possible that both people can and will appreciate the contributions of the other, particularly if they are recognized and rewarded with a fair hand.

There’s more to building a team than just skill set, however. Your people have to “mesh” and get along with each other. Frankly, I think there’s just one way to handle that. You need to hire people who are nice. That’s right – nice. I’m going to brag about my team now. There are no demographics on my team. You couldn’t pinpoint age, gender, race, nationality, or anything else. The team takes care of each other, puts up with each other, and are all dedicated, hardworking, and intelligent. They have a sense of humor about themselves. They have primo skills and primo personalities.

“Nice” seems like an odd requirement, doesn’t it? You’ll never see it in a job description. But think about the people you’ve had trouble with on your teams. Chances are pretty good they were anything but “nice”. I read a study one time that said people regard those that are Evil as “more intelligent”. Several well-known consultants have built reputations on that. I have the opposite opinion. I think people who are evil, nasty, or cruel to others are stupid. They don’t forge relationships, make friends, or influence anyone but the young and/or immature who want to be “cool”. Acting like a pig is never “cool”. They are not team players. They are inevitably argumentative, arrogant, and intimidating. I wouldn’t hire one to be on my team if they were the Supreme Tester of the Universe. I encourage everyone to read “The No Asshole Rule” by Robert Sutton. It’s so true it will make you laugh (and wince!) and wish it was required reading for anyone who works for a living. So hire nice people. I’m not talking about namby-pamby, weak-willed, banal persons who have never had an independent thought and never argue or take a stand. I’m talking about reasonable, tolerant people with a sense of humor that will lend a hand to help out their coworkers.

These different strata of personnel have different skillsets and need different motivators in order to remain happy and productive. More on motivators (and demotivators) for QA staff in a future blog….