While I generally align with a lot of their opinions on testing and consider myself a context-driven tester, I have to point out that neither RST nor context-driven testing are homogenous blobs of people who all think exactly the same . Personally my views on testing are drawn from the ideas from a lot of different people, some of whom arenāt even on speaking terms with each other. I see your work on LI occasionally and you strike me as a pretty common-sense guy, and I donāt think Iāve seen you espouse anything that would be incompatible with context-driven testing, per se.
Usually in modern teams, as testers we need to be more impassioned about quality and what good enough looks like. Like we ask devs to care and be āproduct devsā we need to be āproduct testersā and care more about what is being put out there.
I would need to see the specific thing youāre objecting to but to me this sounds compatible with the āquality is value to some person who mattersā definition of quality, which originated with Jerry Weinberg and I know is the one Bach/Bolton prefer.
Iām not exactly sure what Iām even saying, other than while I might ask a candidate to talk about some recent blog, article, talk, or [insert evidence of continuous learning here], I donāt particularly care if they know specific people. But I was also confused by your reaction and rationale, so again, I guess Iād have to see what specific RST material youāre referring to to have an informed opinion.
As a proud Beardalorian of course its not an actual red flag for me, in may in fact be a personal bias plus for a candidate to have a beard as there can be an initial sense of connection.
Iām flagging this because I believe these biasās are very often a part of the interview process.
There are laws against a lot of things to try and eliminate these biasās but we should not be blind to them.
When the bias turns into a prejudice that can make things hidden red flags.
Iāve seen this in past companies, two or three bad hires or experiences form similar types of people that mentally get put into the same box by the recruiter that others who apply who may be classed in that same box get red flagged even before a CV is read.
Bias is a very human thing, prejudice based on prior bad experiences could be argued as fairly human element as well and the laws do not make them go away.
They remain unfair though.
Here Iām only suggesting to be aware of these when you consider your own red flags and recruitment practices, put them aside.
On the other side, no Iām fairly sure Iām not going to shave my beard for an interview but I may give it a trim and tidy it up knowing that the recruiter may have a non-relevant bias for certain things.
A tie is another good example of non-relevant bias, you may be surprised though how many recruiters translate it into ability and suitablity for job at hand.
Since I recently moved from QA team lead role into CPO, I did a bunch of interviews for my replacement (senior QA & team lead). Some of the most important red flags Iāve noticed:
Experience in CV heavily mismatches how they did on test assignment (few small and easy automation tasks) and technical interview questions. I get it we all sweeten up our CV a bit, but there is a fine line between that and adding stuff you know nothing about.
Leadership style is micromanagement - I did ask a bunch of questions to assess how they lead and mentor others, and many said they were involved in every single meeting and project where their team members are. Thatās a huge no for me, at least not for a lead position. You need to provide support to your peers and let them take responsibility, no need to hold their hand.
Avoiding questions they donāt like instead of admitting they donāt know enough about that topic. Itās perfectly ok to say you donāt know something, tech industry is a vast field and each company has itās own choice of stack and tools. But avoiding questions is a red flag.
Bad communication and lack of soft skills - sh*t happens all the time at work, small conflicts appear, production accidentally goes down, deadlines are missed, etcā¦ Without proper soft skills to successfully navigate through all of that, youāre doomed to fail. Even more so if youāre leading a team.
. Personally my views on testing are drawn from the ideas from a lot of different people, some of whom arenāt even on speaking terms with each other. I see your work on LI occasionally and you strike me as a pretty common-sense guy, and I donāt think Iāve seen you espouse anything that would be incompatible with context-driven testing, per se.
