The Common Denominator - Challenges Scaling a Testing Team

Transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.

Hey folks, we're going to go to a submitted topic. Uh, this one's pretty lengthy, so I am curious if I'll be able to to touch on all the different details, but uh, lot of, uh, you know, different different parts to this. And as I was reading through, I'm like trying to figure out how I want to focus on it. So, starting super high level just to kind of frame the scenario. And uh I don't I hope I don't get parts of this wrong just cuz I'm not reading it as I drive obviously. Seems like someone is in a QA kind of position is how they described it. Um so there's it's like it's a testing role and so they are responsible for building out a and maintaining a test suite. Um, and it sounds like there was, if I, if I understood this correctly, a larger team that existed before that was doing this.

So, a few few team members. Uh, when I say larger, I don't mean it was very large. I mean it was just larger than this single person. And it seems like it got reduced down to this single person. And so um they were saying okay like they were able to essentially do a lot of rewriting. They said a lot of the tests that were written before by the prior team were in a way that they don't want to maintain. So they basically wiped all of the the tests that were written and uh had started rewriting them in a like sort of I think in their words like a more lean way. So easier I'm assuming easier to maintain um better around the assertions and things that they're trying to check. So overall they're feeling like it's more targeted and uh easier to maintain. So then it seems like they have uh hired on more people to help with this.

And I think the part that I'm a little confused about as I read through this is like I don't um I don't exactly understand this person's sort of role and how it fits into a a broader team. Like that part uh I'm just not totally clear on just as a heads up cuz I'm reading through it going okay like this person's doing the hiring. So are they are they a manager? Are they uh somehow a solo like contractor developer that is is hiring on people to help? Um are they, you know, an IC within a team and when they say they're hiring, they mean that their their team was able to get more headcount and then they're the one interviewing. Like I'm kind of just confused about how that works. So, uh, they were saying that they brought on more people and they were kind of describing how, uh, they're trying to get people ramped up and be effective at writing, uh, tests with them.

And so as I'm reading through some of the the points here, right? Um, one of the things that was that was mentioned was along the lines of in the interview process, it was mentioned to the the candidates that it's uh it's not a democratic process. So that how things will be tested is sort of like already decided upon. So essentially like I'm I'm not going to get the right uh you know exact quote here but essentially uh we how to do this work has been decided so you will do it the way that has been decided and so that was mentioned in the interview process up front to the candidates uh before they joined in. So this person is asking a few questions about about this. They're saying uh number one they were asking like hey like thoughts on mentioning that about the non-democratic process. So they wanted some feedback on that.

Uh they were curious about how to uh I guess like effectively bring on people like this and get them ramped up and and and being effective following the same patterns. There is a question at the end from how to move into from like an IC into like a manager sort of position. So that makes me wonder like again I'm not actually sure what what position uh they they currently have. Makes me think not manager if they're asking that but I again not totally sure. And then um the sort of last thing that they're saying is like I get like I am considering just like wiping the team again and going back to to solo which again makes makes me confused about the current role. Um but then also to me is bringing all these pieces back together. Like it seems like they're viewing this once again as a failure and the most effective thing is let me just do it.

So, lots of stuff to unpack here and um I guess let me start just sharing my opinions and perspective as what I was reading through. So um I think the first thing that I would want to say is on uh on the hiring part with the you know non-democratic process and stuff like that like fundamentally for me personally um would just like not it's almost completely opposed to how I would do things and I'm not saying that therefore that's wrong but like if you want my opinion uh I I operate the exact opposite way uh to you know to the point of like I have I will always be around to suggest ideas if you want my opinion if you need help you want some opinion you want to bounce ideas back and forth you're completely blocked I am happy to sit down and suggest

uh different things that you could go do and express my opinion that way um I will It's extremely rare, at least how I try to operate, that I will tell you how it's done or how it needs to be done. If I'm like my framing is like if I'm telling you how it needs to be done, it's like I'm I'm trying to help you understand how it is currently done if you're trying to do that. But the the intention for me is to never tell you it must be this way. And so if yeah if you want my opinion on the non-democratic process kind of thing I think you know if that is how you operate then sure telling people upfront in an interview that is in my opinion that is the right thing to do so that they're not surprised but if you want my opinion on like is that a good way to approach things like for me it's not um because I I operate the exact opposite way.

Um, the way that I think about this kind of stuff is that if I I'm it's going to sound a little bit exaggerated and I don't mean for it to to sound rude, I guess, but my my take would be if I just wanted people brought on board to do exactly what I say, then like that's what computers are for. Um like I don't personally I don't want to hire people to you know to sort of press the keys and click the buttons for me. I I want them for how they think for their perspective and then that way we all have uh you know a better opportunity to build better things. So that's, you know, my take is like I I disagree with it, but if it's uh how you operate, then I think the right thing was telling people up front.

Um, when I when I read what was written down to me, it seems like this is someone who may struggle a bit with um like and I I don't have enough context to to to be able to say this, but it comes across to me that this is someone who struggles working in a team where uh you h you you're basically going to be subject to other people's opinions, right? And I and I don't say that as in like therefore they're bad or therefore um you know they're the one causing problems or something like that. Not not my intention to imply that. It is more like if I think about some of the things that are written down there, you know, prior team, right? I got rid of all of their tests because they're not written the way that I like. Okay. Um, you know, if you take that in isolation, like I could absolutely see situations where people are like, okay, uh, take any code base, right?

Okay, it's reached a point where we're like we need to refactor, rewrite to whatever degree and it seems like this is a very uh high degree of replacement. Uh is that fine? Like sure it can be. Um but now they're bringing on people and saying like you don't get to say how it's done. I'm telling you how it's done. Um, it seems like when they're kind of talking about how they're ramping people up in some of the some of the examples, kind of like some frustration around people not really getting it and then getting to the point at the end where it's like maybe I just reset the entire team and and stay solo. So it's almost like are is your expectation this is like aimed at this person, right? Is your expectation that like the only way that you can work well with others is if they're basically only doing things the way you want them, right?

And like if that's the case, I I think you're not going to have a good time ever working in a team. Whether that's a team you manage, if that's yourself as an individual contributor on a team, if your expectation of working with others is that they have to do things the way that you want them, I think that you'll always uh be disappointed, right? I think part of working in a team is making sure that you can express your your concerns, your ideas, being able to share those types of things, right? Having a safe place to do that. Um, and compromise because the only way that works in my opinion is if everyone gets to do that. So, it's it's not a it's not a team if you're the only one who gets to express the ideas. things have to be your way for everything. Um because what does that say for everyone else, right?

Like that that they they don't get to do that it might be, you know, more common in a team where you have say maybe you are the more senior person. Maybe realistically it does make more sense if some of the things that are having decisions being made are uh are done by someone who's more senior, right? Just from an experience perspective. But at the same time, like does that mean like when when do you start letting other people make decisions? Right? people will never sort of graduate from being a more junior, you know, tester or or developer. They won't ever graduate from that if they're not able to have such experiences where they said, "Hey, I got to make decisions on this." Right?

So part part of me is like just trying to understand a little bit better for this this individual that wrote this like I I understand that you are trying to get a a group of people together to work on something to be productive but I'm actually wondering if some of the challenge here is like is genuinely your ability to to work effectively with others. Right. So you you reset the team like would you rehire again and try again? Like I I don't know because I I think that if you're if you are not willing to change some things, I think you will continue to be disappointed. And this is all from, you know, uh an email and I like I've never talked to this person so I simply don't know if there's just more to it. Um, but kind of to segue, I mean, I don't have too much time before I get to CrossFit here.

I I think that if you're trying to bring people on, I think it absolutely makes sense to kind of show them the ropes, explain like here's the patterns, here's why we do them. Like basically get people up to speed with like here's where things are at. Here's why we've made decisions like this. Here's why um like here's the history. Like we we used to do this. Here's why we do it now. And that's the benefit. Um, and then from there, as people are ramping up and and trying those things and you're trying to put some process in place so they can be effective. To me, it's like make the space for them to as they're getting ramped up to also be able to suggest, right? This is where, in my opinion, the non-democratic part falls apart. I don't I don't know how anyone's going to be engaged doing work if they don't feel like they're part of the the process.

And to me that's a that is a what's the right word like I the word I want to use is like bargaining chip kind of thing but like that is a letting people be part of the decision- making is something that you can you get to trade to ensure that people are engaged right it's not the uh the reason I don't like that word or phrase for this is like that's not the only reason you do it but like that is a benefit of it is that when people are part of decision-m they will be much more engaged. The other benefit is that um you know people may not believe this but yeah like other people have good ideas right so when you're not the only person generating those ideas you have more brains generating ideas inevitably at some point something is going to come up that you didn't think of that you can attribute to someone else having good ideas.

So, in the last couple minutes, this person's kind of final question like, hey, like how to how to kind of transition into a manager role. Um, I think I I would just tie it back to all these things, right? Like my when I think about my role as a manager, it is about enabling my team to do the best work that they can. So, to be the most effective they can in their roles and then to help them grow. Because in my opinion, beyond their current work that they're doing, ensuring that they're growing in in their career is going to be the thing that ultimately gives them the best kind of engagement, right? I am valued, I am respected, and someone wants me to be successful beyond just an immediate ask, which I think is perceived as uh significantly more valuable, right? It's part of doing the work that I am assigned.

Someone also wants me to grow in my career. And I again, if you're asking me my opinions on this stuff, and I assume that's why this is written in, um the the big challenge here is going to be that like that means not dictating to people how things are done, right? It's about giving them guidance and it's about making sure that you give them psychological safety. You give them a safe place to make mistakes, right? Someone wants to test things a different way that don't line up with what you've done. Okay. So, how do you like in my opinion, it's not that you don't allow them to do to do it. It's how do you let them do that to try things so that if it doesn't work, if it's not better that it's not all is lost, they are they never want to try a new thing again.

You never let them try a new thing again because people will be afraid, right? All right. When you have people that are afraid to do things that are different, um I think a lot of stuff falls apart that way. Uh I I think that you get people that aren't productive or you will you'll feel like they're not productive if they're constantly going like, "Oh I can't do it this way or uh I'll get in trouble if I do it that way or or anything like that." when you have people that are able to have flexibility when they can take call it like I'm going to use the word risk but like calculated risk um to kind of to go outside of like the the perfectly prescribed norm I think that you get people that become uh much more effective they're much more engaged so in

terms of moving towards like being a manager I think that like you need to be very comfortable with those Uh it part of being a manager is like is not only the things I was saying as goals, but it's like it's like kind of scaling your impact, right? So the way like in my opinion, the way that you scale your impact is not how do I clone myself into others? Because um more of exactly you isn't necessarily the best way to scale. Um, I I don't I don't think that cloning individuals and having more people that are the exact same is the is the best way to do that. So I I think that that means bringing on people and creating a a space where they can be where you can help them be effective in in ways that is is different from other people on the team as well.

Right? People will have different strengths, different experiences, different weaknesses, different growth opportunities. And so trying to if you want to be a manager and you're trying to shape everyone to be the exact replica of you, I don't think it's going to work. Um, and I think that you want to demonstrate traits and qualities to a team that you want people to model, right? So just as an example, it's not it's not, oh, I I do this process and therefore I want people to to clone me in this process. It's more like I demonstrate accountability. I demonstrate being respectful to people. I demonstrate, you know, um being able to share my perspective, right? Like speaking up about things, demonstrating qualities like that so that other people emulate them and that creates the healthy team. Not not a matter of like you must follow X process. Um, just to give you maybe a counter example because I got to run into CrossFit here.

If you are telling people how things must be done, right? Let's let's make an assumption that you have figured out the most optimal way to do things currently. Just as an assumption, this is the way to write these tests. This is how we're going to do it. This is the most optimal way. And let's pretend it's scientifically proven. You have the evidence. Excellent. That's great news. Now, if going forward you have you never let other people be part of how that's done the decision-making or what that looks like. What happens when you fast forward a few years from now and things change like you have not allowed yourself to scale or a team to scale. If you are the only person that can make decisions on those things, you'll be stuck and your team doing whatever they're doing will be stuck. So something to consider. Um you need to basically teach others to be able to do that effectively.

Hope that helps. See you in the next one.