In a meeting about hiring a new tester, a manager asks me:
Are we looking for a manual or automation tester?
In my head, the time stops and I have all the time in the world to wonder about the question. I'm neither. Nor is none of my immediate team colleagues. Yet look into the next team and they have one manual one automation tester. No wonder the manager asks this. We've moved from this to the next level. We're neither. We're both. Preferably, we're something different: contemporary exploratory testers.
In the actual conversation, I don't remember the exact words I use to explain this, but I remember the manager's reaction: "that makes sense".
We are looking for someone who is *learning* and does not box testing into *manual* and *automation* but builds from a strong foundation of understanding testing but does not stop at the sight of code.
We want a tester who, when changing the hardware setups and network configurations, also changes the setups in the test automation repos and verifies what ever test we have automated will still run, instead of handing the information and task to someone else.
We want a tester who reviews other testers' test automation pull requests and proposes improvements both in what gets tested and how it gets tested, and understand what the automation now has.
We want a tester who reviews application developers' pull requests for scope and risk of change, and target their activities using this information as one source of understanding what they might want the team to test.
We want a tester who documents their lessons from spending days deeply analyzing features for problems with some tests they leave behind that run in automation.
We want a tester who talks with documentation specialists, product management, project delivery organization and support, and turns the lessons into investigations that could leave something behind in either unit tests or system level test automation.
We want a tester who pays attention to the state of the automated tests and volunteers to investigate and fix in the team.
We want a tester who creates automation to do repeatable driving and monitoring of a feature the team is changing now, and analyze the insights from receptions, as well as consider throwing away the automation because it makes no sense to keep that around continuously.
We want a tester who will spend four weeks building the most complex analog measurement test setup with resistors and power sources, and understands what of that they find relevant to include in our test automation setups.
We want our testers to work without having to hand off everything within testing to someone else because it's the only way they imagine how both good testing and good test automation can co-exist.
I have these testers and I grow these testers. The 14-yo intern that joined us this week has already been a tester like this while working in pairs and ensembles, and picking up tasks they can do. They've written tests in python for APIs and Robot Framework for GUIs, and found critical bugs in ongoing features.
Hire for potential. Hire for growth. Hire for learning. Hire for attitude.
If the attitude is missing the power of "yet" as in "I don't automate, yet", or "I don't design versatile tests, yet" it may be a better idea to invest time into someone who already harnesses the power of yet. I require working with code from a tester. But just as much, I require them to be ready to become excellent testers in its own right.