16 June, 2010

Auditioning for a Tester’s Role – Part I

Suppose that you have a friend who asks you to interview a tester for your team, How would you do it?

Here are a few sample questions:

What is the difference between smoke and sanity testing?

What is the difference between verification and validation?

What is the difference between regression and re-testing?

What is the different between a product and an application?
…..

I can’t stop rolling my eyes for the last one though. I have worked on products all my life. Now, what the heck does an application mean for heaven’s sake. OK, I am a nerd.

Did you know that within Regression testing, there are 3 types of regressions. Ah! We don’t read testing books. Do we? “Testing for 9-10 hrs a day itself is deadly boring. And I tell you to read testing books again? After all, Testing is not a sexy sport” At least, I thank you for reading my blog. You are better than many of those ignorant testing souls who don’t read anything about testing at all. Or maybe, you are here to judge my work (a shameless grin!).

Objective and Subjective Tests
Give a written test to testers where all they have to do is select/guess the correct answer to get through the test. Some questions might ask you to list the scenarios to test or even find a few bugs in the login screen that is included in the test paper. Login Screen seems evergreen! It is as good as writing multiple choice answer exams by mugging up model question papers. Meet any tester today and ask him some definitions. There is a high probability he/she will mouth all the important definitions a.k.a. ISTQB style!

Losing good candidates
Go to any ****interviews.com sites. The testing questions are so common that anyone can learn them and clear the tests for a testing job. You may argue “We do have 2-3 face to face technical rounds to evaluate testers where they will be judged on their knowledge”. What about testers who failed the tests simply because they didn’t know the definitions you were looking for. What if they were extremely talented, inspite of not knowing some crude definitions? We don’t care. Good candidates will find a good job anyway, not our headache. Isn't it?

Selection Criteria
There is no doubt that we need outstanding candidates to work with. There has to be some criteria to filter such candidates: number of years of experience, list of reputed colleges, list of relevant degrees, marks they scored in 10th, 12th and graduation, the company they are currently working for, the maximum number of buzzwords in the resume (Automation, QTP, Windows, Unix, Mac, Java, .NET, Perl, Shell Scripting, blah blah blah), how much salary they are drawing currently, How far do they stay from the office (by the way, we expect people to work long hours!), Is the candidate married (if yes, they may leave office after working for 8 hrs. Worst case, they may even plan for a baby next year), Do they have kids? (they may decline to work on weekends) and many more. If the candidate clears this list and is still alive and patient to join the organization, he would be offered. Let me warn you, if you are a woman interviewed in India, few interviewers look for Mangalsutra and Toe rings to confirm if you are married or not. Amazing professionalism!

Round 1
If some candidate comes till here, he/she is extremely lucky. There will be another round of definition/terminology checking session. The first round is cleared as the interviewee knows the definitions including full stops, commas and punctuation marks. After all, he has attended about 35 interviews so far in 35 different companies. And to top it all, he has model interview papers of this organization as well. Obviously, he memorized a lot of stuff last night.

Round 2
Another interviewer comes along. He has an important release that night. In spite of that, his manager forced him to take the interview as he had to leave early to his home town (Smart Manager?). This interviewer is frustrated with his work, with his manager and now this candidate who came out of nowhere to make his life more miserable. Ask same old meaningless questions. Give him a tough puzzle which takes a long time to crack. While the interviewee starts working on the puzzle, this guy makes a phone call to his childhood buddy. Sooner the puzzle gets cracked, angrier the interviewer will be. However, the candidate is shortlisted for the next round.

Round 3
A typical managerial round follows. He would be asked similar questions as in Round 1 and Round 2. The interviewee is asked to solve the same puzzle that was given in Round 2. He is lot more confident this time as he knows the answer already. After all, this was the same puzzle discussed in the Hiring meeting recently (and the sheep present at the meeting followed it blindly without looking for new puzzles). Once this is cleared, its over to HR round and offer letter is issed. It’s all over.

The team believes that the candidate is outstanding, else they wouldn't offer to him/her. What if he isn't? What if he prefers monotonous work to challenging work? What if he is not interested to learn anything? Was he ever tested for some of these attributes during the interviews? Was there feedback of any kind flowing in from the first round to the last one?

As people who want to hire good people for teams, we end up finding people who are very similar to us. We fear to find the ones who can challenge our work and add value to what already exists as well as to what we do. Eventually, the team becomes a group of 'Yes Men' who hardly question anything.

What kind of people are you looking to hire?

Regards,
Parimala Shankaraiah

28 comments:

  1. Hi Parimala,

    Well, I don't need to mention how brilliant you write or the post is interesting or things like that as everybody knows this. After all you are Rock Star Tester Dude :)

    It seems that important part is missing in today's post i.e. solution of the problem. The reason might be it is just first part of the series and there is more to come. So I will be waiting for remaining parts. Just go on. :)

    With Regards
    Mohit

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Parimala,

    Rightly said my Mohit, you will be providing solutions in Part2 of this blog.

    Apart from judging the testing/technical skills, how do we judge the non-technical skills like leadership, self starter, initiative, fighting skills to control quality, ownership, self motivator etc. If possible please address this in your part 2.

    Regards
    Siddalinga

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another nice post - I just love the way you write :)

    Regarding the topic - the pretty common scenario. That's what happens all over the place (sadly!) But the good thing is that, at least some companies have started walking on a different path.

    I had attended a walk-in earlier - there was a technical test (some testing jargon, matrix and some SQL queries), then there was a technical round (had some interesting questions though - like writing test cases for a graph which shows the distance between two points) then there was the HR round and then an aptitude test :) though I didn't enjoyed the process (it took the whole of my day, had to wait 3 hungry hours to get the results of that technical test and I almost fainted when the tech test results came - not because I cleared it, but I was that much hungry!! :P), I got the offer anyway :)

    The bad thing about candidates that I interviewed (not many) is that, they don't want to learn - they prefer monotonus testing. They don't like puzzles, they don't read (at least testing blogs). They are not being responsible - just felt they are lazy to do all this! May be a bad time for the interviewer in me, all the candidates who turned up where just the same. But more importantly, that is bad for them and their career. All I did was just giving some advice and some blog addresses for them to refer (and I'm happy to say that your's is on that list - always :))

    ReplyDelete
  4. excellent post! the way you write is even interesting :)

    As this issue is raised by some other blogger previously, so some of we are more/less aware about the fact already. i agree with Mohit that we are expecting some solution to the problem in the second part of this post and i believe you will do it perfectly.

    Thanks,
    - Selim

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Pari,

    Nicely drafted...(in pari's style).. :)

    @ All(who were asking for a solution),
    We always seek solution from others..Post has the solution in it....When u r in other side of Interview process, Don't do wat u feel bad now (from the post) ... :)

    And if u r candidate..plz consider the comment from nandagopal...:)

    Cheers,
    Venkat

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Pari,
    Nice post again. Most of all testers are in these process ( At least testers from India.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nicely written Pari!
    Rightly said, most of the times, selection depends on what the interviewer is looking for and not on what the candidate is actually capable of. Sad scenario indeed :(

    ReplyDelete
  8. hi pari,

    good post . but why you focus on interviewer how asking about test definitions , in my view , tester who I'm looking for hiring must have some skills in programing ,networking ,database ,design, etc. after that I'm asking about testing def.
    i don't need a checker i need a tester

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Mohit
    It seems that important part is missing in today's post i.e. solution of the problem.


    I started with a post on solution to the problem, but ended up describing the problem. Hang on there until I post Part II.

    @Siddalinga
    Apart from judging the testing/technical skills, how do we judge the non-technical skills like leadership, self starter, initiative, fighting skills to control quality, ownership, self motivator etc. If possible please address this in your part 2


    Its really nice to get special requests for blog posts on specific topics. I like that. I'll try to address it for you.

    @Nandagopal aka Testingmyway
    At least some companies have started walking on a different path


    We need to appreciate such companies for moving out of traditional setups and trying something different.

    The bad thing about candidates that I interviewed (not many) is that, they don't want to learn - they prefer monotonus testing. They don't like puzzles, they don't read (at least testing blogs). They are not being responsible - just felt they are lazy to do all this!

    They are not being bad or wanting to be bad, they just don't know that they don't know. If they have a problem learning anything new or not flexible to change, there is a problem. If the candidates is showing enough curiousity and passion to learn, anyone can mentor them. If they are averse to anything new, then there is a problem.

    I recently interviewed many testers who were pretty much similar to what you described. Some of them asked me for feedback which I provided. For some, I volunteered. Some were plain stupid. All along, I thought just one thing: one good candidate should not get missed among 25+ candidates we interviewed that day.

    Thanks for sharing your experience. As more and more testers learn to interview and to be interviewed, I am sure interviewing as a skill will be in demand.

    @Selim
    I agree with Mohit that we are expecting some solution to the problem in the second part of this post and i believe you will do it perfectly.


    I don't believe that I am the official provider of solutions or anything. Somehow, I am stating my experiences here and the learnings that follow them. I am glad however that it helps guide a few testers out there. Part 2 will follow shortly.

    Regards,
    Parimala Shankaraiah

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Venkatesan Kannan
    We always seek solution from others


    We always seek solutions from others because we are not confident that our solutions could be good enough. Nice one.

    @Teja
    Most of all testers are in these process ( At least testers from India.)


    I don't think it's just limited to India. Its applicable to any country where testing is still in its infancy and is yet to mature and grow.

    @Priya
    Selection depends on what the interviewer is looking for and not on what the candidate is actually capable of. Sad scenario indeed


    Sometimes, interviewers themselves don't know what they are looking for.


    @EETester
    I'm looking for hiring must have some skills in programing ,networking ,database ,design, etc. after that I'm asking about testing definitions


    Each person has his/her own style of interviewing which is fine. As long as you can guage a person well with your questions and your style, I think it is still good. I am not blaming interviewers in particular here. I have noted down what happens in a typical scenario. It may not hold good for many.

    Regards,
    Parimala Shankaraiah

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's funny you posted this today, I was just discussing hiring a tester with some people this morning at NDC2010.

    Personally, I don't care what testing terms a person knows or doesn't know. I'm not all that great with stuff like that myself. And, I can teach skills to anyone.

    What I can't teach is mindset and attitude. So I look for people with a great attitude. I screen testers with questions such as "What do you do for your own professional growth?" and "Tell me about some work you did that you're really proud of".

    When we interview testers for our team, we give them a laptop that's hooked to a projector, with the whole team in the room, and say, "Here's a part of our existing UI. Please test it, and tell us what you're doing as you test." That shows us their curiosity, creativity, and exploratory testing talent.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting Post!!! Honesty is 1 trait which I have never seen in interviews till today.

    1) 1 Question that I ask my candidates is about a defect that they leaked in 1 of their previous projects. None of them have admitted to leaking defects.

    2) I am not for knowing testing terms or not knowing testing terms. Writing the below as a point of view to see from the company's perspective, as to why the interview rounds/written tests consist of asking for definitions of testing terms. Sample a tester talking to a client counterpart. The client's expectation is that the tester know the same definition as that of the client. If the client calls it sanity testing, then it's sanity testing. If he calls it smoke testing, then it's smoke testing. In that perspective, it's very important for the candidate to know the relevant testing terms and the interview/written test is a filter for the company to screen such candidates. It is very important for us to keep the client's happy as well!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Parimala,
    You make me remember of my first interview where a lady interviewed and asked me same questions which were obvious. I thought they would value my talent and offer me a job but I saw that the lady was looking for definitions what she knows or has read from some text book. I was rejected. So, I said, "Your fate, You suffer with your no-quality product" :P

    Thanks,
    Santhosh Shivanand Tuppad

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Lisa
    It's funny you posted this today, I was just discussing hiring a tester with some people this morning at NDC2010


    Do we think very much alike? Just kidding.


    Personally, I don't care what testing terms a person knows or doesn't know. I'm not all that great with stuff like that myself. And, I can teach skills to anyone

    We are in dire need of more and more practitioners and role models in testing Lisa. It's sad that this craft has existed for years, but we continue to use same old loose methods to achieve our objectives.

    What I can't teach is mindset and attitude. So I look for people with a great attitude. I screen testers with questions such as "What do you do for your own professional growth?" and "Tell me about some work you did that you're really proud of"

    I strongly agree with you. If a person with wrong attitude gets in, he/she might end up affecting the rest of the team. Like they say a single weed can spoil the entire crop. I usually look for attitude and the reason why they want to be in testing. I get hurt when people say they want to be in testing because it's a 9 to 5 job, less stressful, easy to do, doesn't need brains and so on. Testing is hard. Period!

    When we interview testers for our team, we give them a laptop that's hooked to a projector, with the whole team in the room, and say, "Here's a part of our existing UI. Please test it, and tell us what you're doing as you test." That shows us their curiosity, creativity, and exploratory testing talent.

    Thank you very much for sharing this. I tried something close to this recently. It failed, but atleast I sowed a few seeds for a start. I am glad you follow this great approach to judge candidates. I think this is one of the best ways to guage testers instead of doing Q & A type interview. I am very glad for the testers being hired in your organization as well as the interviewers who follow this approach.

    Regards,
    Parimala Shankaraiah

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Fake Software Tester
    Interesting Post!!! Honesty is 1 trait which I have never seen in interviews till today


    I disagree. Wouldn't you reveal your real self if you were honest with yourself. Just a thought. No offence.

    There are many who are honest about what they do. It's more of a question of how much is honesty respected rather than how many have it. I am being honest.


    1 Question that I ask my candidates is about a defect that they leaked in 1 of their previous projects. None of them have admitted to leaking defects

    This is an unrealistic scenario and obviously you would judge that person as being dishonest. However, may be, he is unaware. May be, he is afraid to say he failed. I was once interviewed by a gentleman who asked me if I was honest. When I said I was, he asked me if I told every damn thing on the project to my manager. When I said that there was no such need to let manager know about trivial things, he claimed that I was dishonest.


    I am not for knowing testing terms or not knowing testing terms. Writing the below as a point of view to see from the company's perspective, as to why the interview rounds/written tests consist of asking for definitions of testing terms. Sample a tester talking to a client counterpart. The client's expectation is that the tester know the same definition as that of the client. If the client calls it sanity testing, then it's sanity testing. If he calls it smoke testing, then it's smoke testing. In that perspective, it's very important for the candidate to know the relevant testing terms and the interview/written test is a filter for the company to screen such candidates. It is very important for us to keep the client's happy as well!!!!!

    Do you mean to say you would memorize definitions to suit each client. I understand from you that there is a need for your client and the testers to be on the same page. That can be confirmed in many ways, why just check for definitions by rote. May be, the way suggested was the one you figured out or someone else did and rolled it out as a rule across the organization.


    Regards,
    Parimala Shankaraiah

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Santhosh
    I thought they would value my talent and offer me a job but I saw that the lady was looking for definitions what she knows or has read from some text book


    This is very common among many interviewers. As a matter of fact, interviewers are not trained to interview. They are dumped with interviewing tasks. There is a need to spread the message that interviewing is a key skill that needs to be honed with time.

    Regards,
    Parimala Shankaraiah

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Parimala!
    The idea of Faketester with the question about the defect that leaked is nice, allthough that as you said there are many reasons not to reduce points to one that fails to answer to that question. My favorite question for candidates with Testing experince was to tell me about one most interesting or outstanding bug they found - If you claim to have a testing experience you might have a story to tell me. this is a good starting point to ask questions and assess the candidate understanding of what s/he is doing

    ReplyDelete
  18. <<<<<<<<<<
    I disagree. Wouldn't you reveal your real self if you were honest with yourself. Just a thought. No offence.
    <<<<<<<<<<
    When I started, the name "fake software tester" seemed to be a closer reflection of the truth :).. And, it's a chosen mask, not a "secret identity"!!! But this post is not about me..... and so, coming back to the topic, Like you say, maybe people have come to the conclusion that honesty is not respected and choose to hold back information, or choose the diplomatic path!!!

    Defect Leakage --- It's not the only criteria on which I base my judgement..... but it does tell me if he's ignorant or impertinent! I truly believe that the probability of any tester not leaking a defect in a few years time of testing is very very very low... Maybe 1 in a million.... But again, judgemental skills differ from person to person ..... For the record, today 1 person did tell me that he leaked a defect and why it got leaked!!!

    On Definitions, I just tried to see it from the company's viewpoint and posted my comments... not a personal thought of right or wrong, but more from a point of view of "what might have been"!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Pari,
    Some questions like difference betwen smoke and sanity testing,product and application may be ambigious.But according to me the difference between verification and validtion is really an important for any tester to know.Believe that even in some companies they have their testing team(test or qa tesm is already an another controversy) named as V&V team and am also part of such a V&V team for almost past 5 years. Request to review and comment on the following link http://thirstytester.blogspot.com/2010/05/verification-and-validation-v-different.html

    Thanks
    Ram

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Issi Hazan-Fuchs
    Giving any conflict resolution type situations and asking the candidates to solve them gives an overview into their analytical and problem solving abilities.

    Parimala Shankaraiah

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Ram
    But according to me the difference between verification and validtion is really an important for any tester to know


    According to many of us, we need to know these definitions to find a job to survive in this industry. Sadly, this is not the right approach.

    Request to review and comment on the following link http://thirstytester.blogspot.com/2010/05/verification-and-validation-v-different.html

    I follow your blog regularly Ram. I have read this post too. I have a problem with telling Verification is "Are we building the product in the right way" and Validation is "Are we building the right product". This is same as distinguishing between Efficiency and Effectiveness. Both sound alike to me.

    As a beginner, If I am aware of just the definitions and don't know what they understand, that is a problem.

    Technical Jargon and terminologies vary from company to company. All I would do if I am asked such a question is 'I have done something like this. Is this what you are looking for'.

    My first org called sanity testing as Smoke testing. my second org called it as Build Verification testing. My third org calls it Sanity testing. If you ask me what is the difference between all 3 of them, I would explain why I think both are same and what I did as part of smoke/sanity/BVT.

    I hope this helps,

    Regards,
    Parimala Shankaraiah

    Thanks
    Ram

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Giving any conflict resolution type situations and asking the candidates to solve them gives an overview into their analytical and problem solving abilities.

    I totally agree. Let candidate share his thoughts rather than the memorized definitions.
    Am a newbie in this blog world and must say you are a super rock star tester :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Sheetal
    Let candidate share his thoughts rather than the memorized definitions


    My best friend got rejected in an organization just because he was not good in memorizing definitions and vomitting them in interviews. And he is a guy who was awarded as "Best Employee of the year" among 8000+ employees.

    I do agree that Interviewing is a skill in itself.However, there are some people who will be extremely good at what they do, but fail to make it because the interviewee has preconceived notions about the answers.

    Looked at your blog - Welcome to Blogosphere!

    Regards,
    Parimala Shankaraiah

    ReplyDelete
  25. There are some By-The-Books interviewers who ask questions which has many possible answers but they would expect one answer (which they know) and would reject the candidate if his answer is not the exact one they are expecting, but is from the set of other correct possible answers.
    Well, the organization who interviewed your friend was unlucky as they lost a chance to hire a talented tester :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. There is no bad certification. There are incorrect ways of certifying either by us or by others. This may give tag of Bad Certifier.

    There are no bad interviewers. There are incorrect way of identifying skills by interviewers. This may not help in enjoying the interview by interviewee and interviewer and loose resources.

    There is no bad auditioning. There are incorrect ways in understanding of what the auditioning is.

    There is no bad tester. There are incorrect ways of using the skills or learning the skills.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ya good experience collected and i think one may be personnel experience also.i too gone through these stages some are surprising

    ReplyDelete
  28. Test examinations during an interview always remind of of a scene from the television show, "The Office." In this scene, a manager is supposedly reviewing a large pile of resumes for several open positions within his department. To start out, he initially takes the top half of the pile and simply throws it in the wastebasket. When asked why, he responds, "Those people are obviously unlucky and I don't want unlucky people working in my department."

    I've interviewed countless times for countless companies and whenever I reach the point where I am asked to work out a logic problem, solve some story problem with code, or define some term I am always reminded of that scene. If you're lucky, you will have recently read the same article or book the interviewer did and give the answer they're expecting. If you're unlucky you'll have read some one with a counter opinion or perhaps might have used your cognitive reasoning skills to come up with a different idea. Since no one wants to hire some one who's unlucky, you won't make it.

    ReplyDelete