I left my last job for many reasons, but fiefdoms were one of the big ones. I had a manager, when I brought up increasing automation in testing, say: But then what would the testers do?
My answer was: Automate more tests and test more systems, no one is being let go but now we can do more across the team and organization.
The threat of losing personnel though, to a reorg as the needed numbers changed, was enough to stop managers from doing things that would improve their product and the quality of life of their teams. It was pathetic.
Yeah I've never seen an increase in automated testing have the effect of laying off testers. Usually it results in testers moving up the food chain a bit: they get involved with the automation, help with things like CI integration, and find more time to devote to test strategies, documentation, etc.
That was one of my points as well. Our testers weren’t technicians flipping switches. They were engineers and computer scientists who designed test cases, maintained them, ran them, and analyzed the results. I wanted to free them from running the test cases (which could take weeks when the full suite was executed) so they could do more of the rest.
I'm not sure. I think most people know to at least pay lip service to "collaboration", even if they're awful at it. The best bet would be directed questions about how they have achieved collaboration in the past and how they might try to improve collaboration as a manager in your office. But you're pushing into mind reading territory, you'll need to be able to observe where they came from and what was actually done there. If it's an internal hire/promotion this is feasible, but it's not possible, in general, if you're hiring from outside your company.
Thanks! So, seems to me you're saying it's more important to look at what they actually did in the past (if there're any ways to find out), rather than listening to what they say.
Makes sense, humans are so good at quickly learning what sounds good and others want to hear, are they not
