Testing Jobs: Navigating the New Realities and Expectations

Words from the editor

As the software testing industry continues to evolve, both candidates and employers are finding themselves in uncharted territory. In this edition of Quality Quest, we delve into the emerging challenges that are reshaping testing jobs, a space long regarded as dynamic but now increasingly complex.

On one side, candidates are navigating a fast-changing job market. With the advent of AI, automation, and agile processes, the demand for traditional manual testing has declined significantly. Today’s tester is expected to possess a range of skills far beyond basic test execution—skills like scripting, tool knowledge, and a deep understanding of system architecture. While this might seem like an opportunity for career growth, it has also created pressure for candidates to constantly upskill, sometimes without sufficient industry guidance on where to focus their efforts.

From the employer’s perspective, the task of finding and hiring the right testing talent is becoming equally daunting. With new technologies being rapidly introduced, organizations are struggling to define the ideal tester profile. Should they focus on specialists with deep knowledge in automation? Or seek out generalists who understand testing as well as coding, security, and performance? Moreover, the gap between candidates’ expectations and the realities of the job market is growing. While testers want to be recognized for their skills and expertise, employers expect versatility and quick adaptation to the evolving tech landscape. This dual-sided challenge is addressed in our first article, "A Balancing Act: Challenges in Testing Jobs for Candidates and Employers".

Another growing area of contention is the role of coding in testing interviews. In recent years, coding rounds have become a common feature, even for testing roles. Some view this as a much-needed shift, especially given the rise of automation and continuous integration processes that demand a deeper understanding of code. Others argue that coding might not always be the best indicator of a tester's abilities, especially when it comes to core testing skills like exploratory testing, critical thinking, and attention to detail. In our second article, "The Coding Conundrum: Evaluating the Role of Coding Rounds in Testing Interviews", we explore this debate, presenting the perspectives of both candidates and employers.

The testing profession is undergoing a transformation, and this edition of Quality Quest sheds light on how both job seekers and employers can adapt to these new realities. As we explore the challenges faced by testers and hiring managers alike, our goal is to foster a deeper understanding of the evolving skill sets, expectations, and processes shaping today’s testing jobs.

A Balancing Act: Challenges in Testing Jobs for Candidates and Employers by Brijesh DEB

The environment of testing careers has shifted dramatically over the past decade. As AI, automation, and agile methodologies increasingly dominate the software development process, testers find themselves at the crossroads of transformation. For candidates, this presents both a daunting challenge and a potential opportunity—where traditional skills may no longer suffice, and the demand for a more diverse technical skill set continues to rise. At the same time, employers are scrambling to define what exactly they need from testers in an environment that grows more complex by the day.

The Candidate’s Dilemma: Skill Expectations Beyond Testing

In today’s job market, the role of a tester has evolved far beyond executing test cases. Historically, testers were valued for their keen attention to detail and the ability to identify defects through methodical testing processes. However, the advent of automation tools and frameworks has pushed the role in a new direction. No longer confined to the task of execution, testers are now expected to understand scripting, have hands-on experience with automation tools, and possess the ability to integrate testing efforts within continuous integration and delivery pipelines.

Moreover, these new demands are not limited to automation alone. Today's testers are often required to have foundational coding skills, an understanding of cloud technologies, and a grasp of system architecture. This broadening of the skill set may seem like a golden opportunity for testers to diversify their expertise and grow their careers, but it comes with a considerable downside. The pace of change has outstripped the guidance available, leaving many candidates unsure of where to focus their learning. Should they prioritize becoming proficient in specific tools? Is mastering a programming language more crucial than building domain knowledge? The path is unclear.

This uncertainty, combined with the pressure to stay relevant, has created an ongoing cycle of upskilling that can feel overwhelming. Candidates are bombarded with new frameworks, tools, and methodologies, yet lack clear industry direction. While some may thrive in this environment of constant learning, others struggle to keep pace, questioning whether their traditional skills will soon be obsolete. The result is a growing tension between remaining a generalist, comfortable with a variety of tools and techniques, or becoming a specialist in a narrower domain like automation or performance testing.

The AI Challenge: The Race to Upskill

AI’s increasing presence in the testing world has added another layer of complexity. Many candidates find themselves rushing to learn AI and machine learning concepts, hoping to align with what they perceive to be the future of testing. Employers, for their part, are eager to integrate AI into their testing processes but often expect candidates to arrive with at least a basic understanding of AI’s capabilities and limitations.

This has created a new dynamic where candidates feel pressured to not only master traditional testing techniques but also gain fluency in AI-based testing tools and methodologies. The reality is that while AI can augment the testing process, particularly in areas like defect prediction and test case generation, it doesn’t eliminate the need for human-driven testing strategies. However, the messaging from employers often suggests otherwise, with a growing number of job postings listing AI knowledge as a "desirable" or "required" skill. This only adds to the pressure testers feel to continuously expand their skill sets in a fast-evolving environment.

Employers’ Perspective: Defining the Ideal Tester

From the employer's viewpoint, the rapid shift in testing requirements has introduced its own set of challenges. As the complexity of software systems increases, so do the expectations placed on testing teams. However, defining the "ideal" tester is no longer as straightforward as it once was. Should organizations prioritize specialists—testers who excel in niche areas like security, performance, or automation—or seek out generalists who have a broad understanding of testing, coding, and system integration?

One of the most significant dilemmas employers face is how to balance the need for specific technical expertise with the overall versatility of the candidate. Automation has become an essential part of the testing process, but hiring a candidate who only understands automation without a broader grasp of software quality can lead to significant gaps. Similarly, while scripting is essential, focusing too heavily on technical skills can result in overlooking other critical aspects of testing, such as exploratory testing or a deep understanding of end-user behavior.

Moreover, as new technologies like AI and machine learning integrate into testing processes, employers are left wondering whether they need to retrain existing staff or bring in new talent with highly specialized skill sets. Many organizations are beginning to recognize that while automation can dramatically speed up testing cycles, it still requires human oversight, creativity, and critical thinking—qualities that often come from seasoned testers with broader experience.

Another challenge lies in the growing gap between candidate expectations and the realities of the job market. Candidates who have spent years honing their testing skills and gaining certifications expect their experience to be recognized and rewarded. Yet, the rapid introduction of new tools and methodologies has left some feeling undervalued. Employers, on the other hand, may be prioritizing candidates who can quickly adapt to new technologies and processes, often sidelining experienced testers whose knowledge is rooted in traditional approaches.

The Job Description Dilemma: A Misguided Focus

One of the most glaring issues that candidates encounter during their job search is the disconnect between job descriptions and the actual responsibilities of the testing role. Many postings are riddled with a laundry list of tools and technologies—zillions of them, from automation frameworks to CI/CD pipelines—without ever really mentioning testing itself. The job descriptions seem to be more focused on coding and development skills, often giving the impression that testing is a secondary concern.

This emphasis on technical skills often comes at the expense of the core responsibilities of a tester. Key aspects like understanding user behavior, conducting exploratory testing, or ensuring that software performs under real-world conditions are either downplayed or missing entirely. As a result, candidates with deep testing expertise but less experience in coding or scripting may feel excluded, despite their valuable skills.

For testers, this can be frustrating. The focus on tools rather than testing often leads candidates to feel that employers are prioritizing coders who can also test over testers who have honed their craft. While some level of coding knowledge is undeniably important in today’s testing environment, job descriptions that emphasize a mile-long list of tools without any mention of testing principles risk alienating qualified candidates who could add tremendous value.

Bridging the Gap: Realigning Expectations on Both Sides

The disconnect between what candidates bring to the table and what employers seek is becoming increasingly evident. For the testing industry to thrive, both candidates and employers need to recalibrate their expectations.

Candidates must embrace the reality that constant upskilling is now a fundamental part of the tester's career path. Rather than viewing this as a burden, it could be seen as a means to future-proof their careers. However, the onus is not solely on individuals to keep up; educational institutions, online platforms, and industry bodies need to provide clearer roadmaps. Creating structured, role-specific learning paths can help candidates better navigate which skills are most relevant to their long-term career goals.

On the employer side, a reevaluation of hiring strategies is necessary. Organizations should strive to create more flexible job descriptions that acknowledge the importance of both technical and non-technical testing skills. While technical prowess in automation or coding is crucial, these should not overshadow the essential qualities of a good tester: curiosity, critical thinking, and a deep understanding of how software will be used by real people. Furthermore, investing in internal training programs to help upskill existing testers will reduce the burden of constantly sourcing new talent and promote a culture of continuous learning.

Employers also need to bridge the communication gap with candidates. Job descriptions often list a laundry list of technical requirements, which can deter potential applicants. Instead, employers should focus on core competencies and provide clear expectations about how much of the role involves learning on the job versus bringing established expertise. Offering candidates opportunities to grow into new technologies, rather than demanding mastery upfront, can help alleviate the tension between supply and demand in the testing job market.

The Path Forward for Testing Roles

The evolution of testing roles is a reflection of the broader changes occurring in the tech industry. For candidates, the future holds both challenge and opportunity, with upskilling becoming a continuous process rather than a one-time effort. Employers, on the other hand, must adapt to these changes by redefining what they look for in a tester and how they support their teams.

The key to success for both sides lies in balance—balancing technical skills with critical thinking, balancing specialization with versatility, and balancing expectations between candidates and employers. Only by addressing the dual-sided challenges can the testing profession evolve in a way that benefits both the workforce and the organizations they support.

The Coding Conundrum: Evaluating the Role of Coding Rounds in Testing Interviews by Brijesh DEB

The inclusion of coding rounds in testing interviews has sparked an ongoing debate in the software industry. On one side, employers view these rounds as a critical measure of technical competency. On the other, candidates often find themselves questioning the relevance of coding to the practical demands of a testing role. While coding skills are essential in certain aspects of testing, such as automation and scripting, the necessity of coding challenges in interviews for broader testing roles is less straightforward.

The Employer's Perspective: Ensuring Technical Competency and Authenticity

From an employer’s standpoint, coding rounds are a quick and direct way to assess a candidate's problem-solving skills, analytical thinking, and overall technical depth. Many companies, particularly those with a strong emphasis on automation or DevOps integration, view coding ability as a non-negotiable skill for testers. With testing evolving into a more engineering-centric discipline, employers believe that a solid foundation in coding helps testers collaborate better with developers, debug more efficiently, and, most importantly, build and maintain test automation frameworks.

In addition to evaluating technical skills, coding challenges have become a valuable tool for filtering out candidates with fake profiles or fabricated experience. The rise of online forums and coaching platforms that provide pre-packaged answers to interview questions has made it difficult for employers to differentiate between candidates with real, hands-on experience and those who have merely memorized theoretical concepts. Coding rounds, especially those that require live problem-solving, help expose candidates who may have inflated or falsified their experience by providing an unfiltered view of their actual abilities.

This issue is particularly pressing in regions where fraudulent profiles and fake certifications have become a growing concern for employers. In these cases, coding rounds serve as a safeguard, enabling hiring teams to identify candidates who truly understand the tools, languages, and frameworks they claim to have worked with. A tester with hands-on experience can usually handle real-time coding challenges with more confidence and adaptability, while those with faked credentials often struggle to perform in such scenarios. This layer of scrutiny helps employers save valuable time and resources, ensuring they only advance candidates who are genuinely capable of fulfilling the technical demands of the role.

Employers also argue that coding challenges in interviews provide a benchmark to compare candidates’ technical abilities, making the hiring process more objective and standardized. However, this perspective sometimes overlooks the diversity of skills within testing itself. Testing is not a monolithic discipline—there’s exploratory testing, usability testing, performance testing, and much more. While coding is invaluable for certain types of testing, it isn’t always the skill that determines a candidate's ability to ensure high product quality.

The Candidate’s Perspective: A Misaligned Measure?

For many candidates, the coding round is viewed with apprehension, especially for those whose career has not involved extensive coding. A tester who excels at critical thinking, user-focused scenarios, and finding nuanced defects in a system may feel that a coding test doesn’t fairly represent their true strengths.

Candidates often argue that testing is about understanding user behavior, detecting potential risks, and evaluating software from different perspectives. For roles that emphasize exploratory, functional, or usability testing, the focus on coding during interviews can feel disconnected from the actual day-to-day responsibilities. This dissonance can create stress for otherwise highly qualified testers who feel they are being judged on skills that may only represent a fraction of their role.

Moreover, coding rounds can disproportionately benefit those with traditional computer science backgrounds, potentially alienating testers who have developed their skills through non-traditional paths. This becomes problematic when the core of testing excellence—such as understanding product requirements, applying critical analysis, and improving the user experience—takes a back seat to algorithmic puzzles that are rarely encountered in practical testing tasks.

Many candidates feel that while automation skills are necessary for certain roles, the one-size-fits-all approach of coding rounds fails to assess the diverse skills testers bring to the table. It can also create an unnecessary barrier for highly skilled testers who may not have significant coding experience but possess a deep understanding of testing methodologies, user perspectives, and business processes.

Bridging the Gap: Are Coding Rounds the Best Option?

The question that arises is whether coding rounds are truly the best way to evaluate testing candidates. While coding is undoubtedly essential in modern testing roles, particularly in automation, it’s not the whole story. Employers must decide what exactly they are testing for and align their interview processes accordingly.

For roles that focus heavily on automation, coding rounds may be entirely appropriate. However, for positions that require a balance of soft skills, domain expertise, and strategic thinking, other forms of evaluation might prove more relevant. For example, assessing a candidate’s ability to design test cases, think critically about product flows, or detect edge cases might provide a more accurate picture of their capabilities as a tester.

One solution could be to create a more role-specific interview process. This could involve segmenting the interview into different rounds tailored to the specific skills required. For instance, automation testers could undergo coding challenges, while exploratory testers might be evaluated through scenario-based problem-solving exercises. This approach would help ensure that candidates are assessed holistically and in alignment with the actual responsibilities of the role.

The Path Forward: Finding a Balanced Approach

Both candidates and employers stand to benefit from a more nuanced approach to testing interviews. The testing landscape continues to evolve, and so must the interview processes. Coding rounds can provide valuable insights into a candidate's technical abilities, but they should not be the sole metric for success. By incorporating other measures such as critical thinking exercises, exploratory testing scenarios, and test design challenges, employers can more effectively gauge a candidate’s full potential.

For candidates, the key lies in embracing coding as an essential part of modern testing, particularly in automation-heavy roles, while advocating for more diverse evaluation methods that capture the complete skill set required for testing excellence.

In the end, it's about balancing technical competency with practical testing skills. Employers must ensure that their evaluation process reflects the complexities and demands of the testing discipline, while candidates must prepare to demonstrate their adaptability in a multifaceted and dynamic environment.