If all you knew about testing you learned from the interview, what would you assume after watching interviews for testers at the top 10 software companies?
The above process might make some sense if it wasn't paired with the http://agilemanifesto.org/. How are you possibly putting individuals over tools if you are ignoring every aspect of what makes an individual a good long term investment or a tragic one?
These interviewing and hiring practices only match with the http://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org/ and should come with a certificate that says, "We are too terrified to try the real agile manifesto. We can't put individuals and people first. It is too scary and radical for us. Agile for real would make us feel powerless, and we can't give up that power. We are perverting Agile, and proud of it." It will never be stated that way. Instead, just say "We're customizing Agile to suit our needs." The mercenaries will comfort them, "There there, at least you got started and had the stand up meeting. You can be in the Agile club! Each company is different. So what if you've danced around the important part and implemented an empty shell. You'll still get your on time under budget bonus! And the users? Well, we've got a product owner who speaks for them.
As Lisa Crispin pointed out, the perversion of agile is harmful to everyone, not just to testing. There is no possible way for me to put a positive spin on what I see is the greatest danger to increased craftsmanship in testing. For that reason, let me share instead an alternative I'm seeing that fills me with great hope.
I'm seeing some interviews where people have a chance to audition. Find and write real bugs. Write code in their language on their system to show someone else. To have an interview as more of an entire person. To join with the team for a trial period. I see a future where you earn a chance to work with a team short term, say 6 weeks, and then they decide to keep you or you move on. This would be a better way to hire. What if you could audition 10 of your best candidates for 6 weeks and keep the best overall fit? Can you imagine how great this would be for your team? What about for the employees? At 6 weeks you are going to see who is learning fast, and who just started with a slight advantage. Who just interviews well, and who really works hard? Who asks the team for help and who stays lost for hours?
- Testing is an activity where you write code on a whiteboard.
- All tests are automated at this point in time.
- There is no important work in testing except for coding mainly on whiteboards.
- Fewer lines of code are always better so we don't waste pens.
- It really isn't possible to be too technical.
- It is just a matter of time before we are all replaced by robots, and thank goodness. How efficient will that be?
- Solving for palindromes and list order is really vital in testing.
- Knowing the maximum programming languages makes you the best tester.
- Having experience writing automation in one of the languages the company is looking for makes you the best candidate.
- Testing is mostly a programming craft.
- Hiring the best tester is mostly about matching a skill checklist and verifying the programming you want
- Test planning means designing a good program to categorize things.
- Because you CAN do the job, you WILL do the job.
- Programmers know that testers are just like them, only focused on a different problem.
- We think just like programmers because we are programmers and that is best for the user because that is best for the programmers because we let them define what they wanted in testers because they know what is best for the product is what serves them best, so it must be best for users.
The above process might make some sense if it wasn't paired with the http://agilemanifesto.org/. How are you possibly putting individuals over tools if you are ignoring every aspect of what makes an individual a good long term investment or a tragic one?
These interviewing and hiring practices only match with the http://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org/ and should come with a certificate that says, "We are too terrified to try the real agile manifesto. We can't put individuals and people first. It is too scary and radical for us. Agile for real would make us feel powerless, and we can't give up that power. We are perverting Agile, and proud of it." It will never be stated that way. Instead, just say "We're customizing Agile to suit our needs." The mercenaries will comfort them, "There there, at least you got started and had the stand up meeting. You can be in the Agile club! Each company is different. So what if you've danced around the important part and implemented an empty shell. You'll still get your on time under budget bonus! And the users? Well, we've got a product owner who speaks for them.
As Lisa Crispin pointed out, the perversion of agile is harmful to everyone, not just to testing. There is no possible way for me to put a positive spin on what I see is the greatest danger to increased craftsmanship in testing. For that reason, let me share instead an alternative I'm seeing that fills me with great hope.
I'm seeing some interviews where people have a chance to audition. Find and write real bugs. Write code in their language on their system to show someone else. To have an interview as more of an entire person. To join with the team for a trial period. I see a future where you earn a chance to work with a team short term, say 6 weeks, and then they decide to keep you or you move on. This would be a better way to hire. What if you could audition 10 of your best candidates for 6 weeks and keep the best overall fit? Can you imagine how great this would be for your team? What about for the employees? At 6 weeks you are going to see who is learning fast, and who just started with a slight advantage. Who just interviews well, and who really works hard? Who asks the team for help and who stays lost for hours?