I applied for a job as a test automation specialist, but ended up working in support.

Have a nice day, dear readers! This article is not intended to be a helpful guide, but rather an interesting observation about the job market. Here we will skip the topic of growing expectations from the candidate and focus on a more absurd thing. I would be glad to hear your opinion on this matter and share your thoughts in the comments.

Of course, today in the field of information technology any specialist must have a broad outlook and deep knowledge not only in his highly specialized field, but also in related fields. This determines the professionalism and high level of qualifications of a specialist. However, after studying many vacancies on the labor market and going through a number of interviews in various companies, I noticed one sad trend.

Although I cannot speak for the entire IT industry in Russia, I want to share my observations about the field in which I work – software testing automation. Judging by job descriptions, conversations with HR specialists and technical interviews, in Russian companies there is often some distortion of concepts.

A year ago, when I started my job search, I went through a series of interviews, and each interview, although specific depending on the product and company, had a general trend.

In different companies, from start-ups to large corporations, one could notice similarities in the requirements for candidates for the position of software testing automator. They expected the applicant to have knowledge of various testing methods, practical experience in using test design techniques, confident command of a programming language and automation libraries, the ability to develop test frameworks, experience in maintaining test documentation and other little things directly related to testing and related areas. However, now companies often headline “We are looking for an AQA engineer to automate testing” they are looking for anyone, but not AQA.

I wanted to join the product team, but ended up in the service team

Yes, at the moment this is the main problem for many testing specialists. When you choose a career path as a software quality assurance engineer, you might not be particularly excited about the opportunity to work in second (or first) line support. On the other hand, companies often need such specialists because they play an important role in the team and are key performers. These are “know-it-alls” who can be directed to solve any unsolved problems in the field of testing, development, deployment, etc. Agree, every company needs its own superheroes! However, until recently, the profession of a support specialist was not regarded as separate from testing (perhaps I’m wrong in my observations here, correct it in the comments), and no schools offered courses in this specialty. Companies were simply forced to look for such heroes in testing. And I think there is no problem in this. problems start later.

Exactly when companies, trying to get such specialists, begin to disguise support work as the work of a quality assurance engineer. Here are a couple of colorful examples.

Not long ago I worked in a company developing a web service for doctors. The product was excellent, the team was professional, and the company was very loyal and open. But my stay there lasted only six months. At the interview, I was told in detail about the processes in the company, how tasks are distributed between manual and automated testing. One thing confused me – I had to work in support of the second line for a week a month. However, in fact, over the course of six months I devoted only two weeks to developing test frameworks and automation. The rest of the time was spent on manual testing and support. This was far from what I expected, and certainly did not live up to the promises made to me when I was hired.

I had an interview with one of the largest IT companies on the Russian market. I had an interview with HR and met the team. They told me what product the team was working on, asked standard QA questions and asked me to talk about the theory. Overall, I was pleased with these stages. However, after some time, HR reported that they had sent my resume to another department, since the one where I had originally interviewed had “temporarily suspended hiring.” I was immediately invited to a technical interview, where, despite my two years of experience, they demanded too much. They expected me to know two programming languages, be able to develop frameworks, set up a test environment, build CI/CD processes and write pipelines, as well as solve development problems, etc.

At the end of the interview, when I asked questions, it became clear that this team was not a product team, but a service team. They help other areas with their tasks (considering that this is a large IT company with more than 10 areas and products). Moreover, their team can hardly be called a team, since during the year they had only one person – a team leader, and I was supposed to become the second.

Is there a problem?

I know there is a growing problem with candidates often exaggerating their skills and experience on their resumes. However, it seems to me that the opposite problem is also acute. There is nothing wrong with attracting a candidate with interesting tasks that, in fact, may turn out to be more routine. In general, you can understand why startups and small companies embellish work conditions and tasks.

If you can put up with the monotony of tasks, then is it worth putting up with obvious substitution of concepts and lies? While companies can catch a candidate's lies during an interview or probationary period, the candidate does not always have enough time to spot the company's lies. Moreover, it seems to me that this approach artificially increases the requirements for a specialist, since he has to master several subject areas at the same time. This leads to problems with staff shortages, since rarely anyone is able to pass such a strict selection process.

The market dictates that for a successful career in IT you must have all the skills at the same time. As a result, positions that were intended for junior specialists are often occupied by mid-level and senior-level employees, since only their competencies are sufficient to perform duties at the entry level. At the same time, the search for specialists for higher positions (senior and lead) drags on for many months.