Category Archives: business

Dealing with the Business Neg

Have you ever had this kind of interaction? You are talking with someone, and you’re having a good conversation. At some point, seemingly out of nowhere, the other person says something subtly unkind about you. You may not even notice it at first, but then realize it was a backhanded compliment or a personal dig. You might not even notice until after the conversation has ended, and feel confused when you realize something was amiss. If this sounds familiar to you, you were most likely negged. Negging is a manipulation tool used by people to undermine your confidence and make you feel inferior to them. It’s gross and awful. They use it for various reasons, but it is always some sort of power play.

Have you ever had this happen in a business situation? While pop culture references negging in social contexts, you will also run into this behaviour in business environments from time-to-time. As you deal with executives, senior managers, startup founders, and other visionaries who have the ability to take product ideas and fundraise around them, you are going to run into egos. And rightly so, these are unique people who are able to create excitement over their ideas, get investment, attract people and create a team around them to see their vision get built into something tangible. People with big egos can feel threatened by others around them that have knowledge, skills and abilities that they lack. They bring you in to a business because they are aware of this and they want their product or service to be a success, but that doesn’t stop them from feeling threatened by you, particularly when under stress.

Popular folklore around business is that it is driven by forces of efficiency and demand, and private companies in particular are guided by forces related to their revenue and expenses, and adjust accordingly. In other words, companies operate on a knife edge of market conditions, and are adjusting their sources of revenue and keeping an eye on their expenses, and make decisions based on the best, most up to date data available at the time. That’s folklore.

The reality is that like everything else in life, emotions drive business decisions much more than anything else. When you trigger the emotions of someone who has more power than you, they will respond in surprising ways. One way is to use the neg, to try to assert dominance and let you know who is really in charge.

Sometimes the neg is subtle, but sometimes it is obvious. Usually near the end of a conversation, the person in power gives you “feedback” and describes something you do that they feel needs improvement. It’s almost always about your personality and being, which is hard to cope with, rather than some aspect of your work, which you could easily adjust and improve. As a consultant, I get brought in by companies who are looking to improve, so part of my job is to understand what the company is doing well, and what areas need improvement. A common reaction when I present my findings to senior managers is for them to get defensive and neg me.

Negative feedback isn’t always a neg though, so it’s important to analyze the interaction. Here are some things to consider. Was it a comment about you and your behavior, or is it related to your work? Is it in a context where critical feedback would be appropriate, or did it come out of nowhere? Does it seem reasonable, or petty and vindictive? Are you feeling defensive and upset, or are you feeling attacked and confused? Do you know down deep that they are right about it, or is this something new that you aren’t aware of? Does it feel better with time after the encounter, or do you feel more confused and worse off? If you find yourself agreeing with the feedback and coming to terms with it rather than feeling defensive, it might have been good critical feedback that was delivered poorly.

Why do they neg?

Businesses aren’t a meritocracy. The people in power got there due to circumstances, luck, and timing. They stay there due to their personality and their interpersonal skills, especially their ability to assert leadership and their mastery of group politics. In some organizations, the politics are vicious and cut throat. In others, they are milder, but leadership still requires you navigate them. Some leaders even have personality traits that are dysfunctional interpersonally, but advantageous in business. Leaders respond to threats or perceived threats to their leadership in different ways, but manipulation is less threatening than productive confrontation or straight out intimidation. Negging is a subtle way to undermine someone so they feel like they need to acknowledge that you have power over them. Here are some reasons why leaders neg.

They:

  • feel defensive about your critical feedback (even though they want it and need it).
  • are intimidated by skills you have that they feel they lack.
  • perceive your leadership in the organization as a potential threat.
  • are jealous of you. Jealous of your skills, success, experiences, the way you look, etc.
  • want to manipulate you so that you do something for them that you normally wouldn’t do.
  • are insecure and run everyone down to make themselves feel better.
  • have a personality disorder.
  • feeling stressed and desperate and are inadvertently lashing out.
  • like to fuck with people.
  • experience a combination of the above.

There are probably others I have missed. In short, people are people, and there are a lot of reasons why people behave the way they do. Pettiness and childishness does not disappear just because you are in a business context. In fact, pettiness and childishness can be amplified in stressful business situations. There are cliques and group patterns that emerge like in every other group, but there are also financial and other rewards at stake, causing people to behave in different ways depending on their hope for reward or fear of punishment. People in leadership like to stay in leadership positions, and the further up the corporate ladder you go, the more stresses there are. The financial rewards are greater, but there are more powerful people with a lot of influence and power that are putting pressure on the leaders. If you add desperation to the mix, then more erratic and dysfunctional behavior will follow.

Software companies in particular are incredibly difficult business environments due to their fast, hectic pace, fickle consumer markets, disruption from competitors, and the winner takes all environment they are capitalized in. Furthermore, investment firms often like to back leaders with a certain kind of personality, and arrogant, dysfunctional people are often lionized and held up as leaders we should emulate. That said, in a fast paced, ever changing environment, even the most balanced and empathetic leaders will suffer under the strain. None of us are perfect, and under the right conditions we can behave poorly, even when we don’t mean to.

In other cases, the business neg is more insidious. Sometimes people behave this way because they are:

  • sexist. The vast majority of the time it’s a man who doesn’t want to see a female or non-male in a business environment, and/or they are trying to hit on you.
  • racist. They don’t like the color of your skin, where you are from, etc.
  • homophobic. They don’t approve of who you love.
  • transphobic. They don’t like your gender.
  • anti-science. They resent the data you use to make decisions.
  • politically intolerant They want everyone to believe and vote the way they do.

These are extremely difficult situations to navigate, but they are easier to spot than the previous list. Leaders in companies are used to people agreeing with them, and can find alternative people and viewpoints extremely threatening.

What can you do about it?

To cope with the business neg, you first need to analyze it. Was it reasonable feedback that came at an awkward time, and I’m just feeling defensive about it? For example, I presented findings for a small software company after a short audit. Audits aren’t pleasant to do, and are unpleasant for the people in the company. After I was finished, the CTO lashed out at how I had presented the information. He was angry and said that he didn’t like the format of my report and wanted it changed. The QA manager responded with a backhanded comment, implying wrongdoing on my part during the audit. I felt taken aback by both comments, and immediately felt defensive. I thanked both for their feedback, then held my tongue and stayed quiet, even though I felt like responding in my own defense. Instead, I waited. The meeting ended, and I had some time to reflect. Which one was critical feedback that was poorly timed, and which one was the neg?

In this case it was straight forward. The feedback from the CTO was easily addressed, and I chalked up their negative behavior as a form of projection. They were upset with the findings and took it out on me. On the other hand, QA manager’s response wasn’t critical feedback, it was a statement intended to undermine my credibility. The team was struggling because an Agile consultant had worked with them a year prior, and advised they automate all tests. Now they were collapsing under the weight of all the tests and couldn’t move forward. I provided some actionable approaches to cope with this: use proper software architecture and design with automation code, treat it equally with product code, refactor, don’t mindlessly automate, summarize tests, etc. However, the QA manager was afraid they would get blamed and would lose face, lose opportunities in the organization, or lose their job. I ignored their statement and moved on.

Another neg came at the end of an interview. The executive who had walked me through their pitch, their financials, their organizational structure, their positives and their negatives suddenly turned on me. They towered over me and got quite aggressive. They essentially insulted me, and then concluded the meeting. I knew then that there was a problem with fit, and we weren’t going to work together.

Here are some options for dealing with the business neg:

  • Ignore it and move on.
  • Acknowledge it and address it.
  • Talk to trusted confidante outside of the organization
  • Run.

Sometimes good leaders have some negative traits, and getting negged once in a while is the cost of doing business with them. None of us are perfect, and if it isn’t really harmful and you can cope with it, then ignoring it and moving on might be appropriate. However, what works for you might not work for others, so don’t assume everyone should always put up with it just because you can. One way to determine if this is a trait is to watch and see if they do it to others, and how they respond. If they start to supplicate to the person doing the negging, that is a big warning flag. The person doing the negging probably wants this. If they ignore it and nothing else happens, it is probably a behavior the leader isn’t conscious of.

There are two ways you can acknowledge and address negging. The first is head-on, in the moment. You call out the other person and ask them what they mean and what they hope to get out of the comment. This is high risk, because people don’t like getting confronted by their toxic behavior. It can be effective in stopping it, or in ending a business relationship where there isn’t a good personality fit. In other words, this will very well end a business relationship early on, before it gets to be truly abusive. Another approach is to acknowledge it after the fact on your own, and address it through your own behavior. If it is worthwhile feedback and you can do something to address it, you’ll grow from it. If it is just a neg, you need to utilize your own self care tools, possibly with the assistance of a counsellor or therapist.

Negging is awful and can be so damaging it tears you apart emotionally, causing you to doubt yourself. Often there is a grain of truth to the neg, which can prey on you and dominate your thoughts and self talk. If it comes from someone in a position of power over you, especially someone you admire, it can be even more difficult to cope with. Getting advice from someone who isn’t in the situation can help a lot. Recently, I had a startup founder insult me at the end of a session. I confronted them in real time, and they started making excuses and then blamed themselves. I laughed it off afterwards, but a few days later self doubt started to creep in. I called a friend and professional colleage and shared what had happened with them, and what was said. They were shocked, said they had never witnessed anything like that from me, and told me to ignore it. Sometimes though, people have agreed with the assessment, even though it was delivered poorly, and gently offered support and ideas on how I could address it. I am not perfect, and I have problems with communication. My brain tends to run more quickly than my words, so I can overwhelm people with too much detail, and interrupt when I have a new idea or thought. I work on these problems, and sometimes a neg is poorly framed feedback meant to address this. I would prefer more straight forward feedback on these and other issues I have in the proper context, but that doesn’t happen that often. With experience, I have developed a pretty good sense of negging that has a reasonable motivation, and negging that is designed to manipulate or insult. Working with others on my own weaknesses and coping skills has helped in this regard.

Finally, if it is really damaging, you need to get out of the situation. If it is a first encounter, or early in the business relationship, congratulations, you found out early on that this person is harmful to you. Move on to another opportunity. If it is in an established business relationship, moving on might take time and planning. In that case, hunt for a new job or relationship and end things cleanly once you are able to. People who are against who you are as a person can never be satisfied, while others who are so deeply dysfunctional will never change. You’ll be a target for not just negging but harassment, bullying and possibly worse. It will be damaging to you personally and emotionally to stick around, as well as your career. Your mental health will suffer, and if you are set up to fail, your professional reputation could be harmed. I have seen business leaders with severe personality disorders absolutely ruin the mental health of those around them. I have seen sexists, racists, and political zealots destroy everything they have built because of their lack of empathy and respect for others. I have seen talented staff driven off because of who they were, not because of their work or interpersonal relationships. When someone is completely unreasonable and is angry with your right to exist, you need to get away from them.

Do you neg others?

It’s one thing to see this behavior in other people, but it’s important to analyze our own interactions. We might be the person inflicting the business neg on others. A lot of these behaviors are learned when we are young, and to help us cope in difficult situations. We may be more comfortable being passive aggressive rather than confronting an issue directly. Or we may not be aware we are doing it. It just might be part of our learned communication and interpersonal interactions. If we are rewarded for manipulating people, then it becomes more entrenched. If you realize that you neg others, please try to stop. Seek professional help via a counsellor or therapist, and through professional communication and HR training. There are tons of resources out there to help you deal with confrontation better, on how to have difficult conversations and provide feedback in a healthy way, and how to cope with your own emotions so you don’t lash out when you feel threatened. There are better ways to assert your leadership or get things done than using potentially damaging manipulation tactics.

Bottom line: negging is real and it will affect you. A business relationship is no different than any other relationship, no matter how successful or large the company is, or how fancy the office space is. People are people. Always trust your gut. If you think you are being negged, you most likely are. Find the best path forward to cope and deal with it effectively. And, if you neg others, please seek help and stop.

PS: the business neg can show up in various ways. I’ve seen it as a marketing strategy where organizations try to shame or manipulate people into buying something. I’ve also seen corporate trainers and other people in positions of influence do it. Once you learn to spot it, you see it more often, and you can deal with it rather than feeling troubled by it.

A Bad Mobile Experience is Bad Customer Service

As a travelling consultant, I get insight into a lot of organizations. One theme that I see over and over is a lack of understanding about mobile experiences among decision makers and technical teams. When it comes to interpersonal or written communication, companies have sensible rules and practices about making that exchange great. You’ll hear or read slogans about treating the customer right, or to go beyond and satisfy and impress them. Most organizations have great alignment on that message, and when I walk into an office, I am greeted by friendly security and front office staff who smile, are pleasant and help me get to where I need to go. They want all of us to have a great first impression, so they invest in human-friendly lobbies with art, comfortable furniture, and great lighting. This extends to email and voice communications as well. People try to be professional, pleasant, and make me feel welcome as a customer or consultant. However, that is rarely my first impression of that organization. For me, and millions like me, I get my first impression of that organization through their mobile experience.

In many cases, that mobile experience is the opposite of their interpersonal customer service. They fail to realize that a bad digital experience is just plain old bad customer service. It is the virtual equivalent of a rude call center employee, or an office administrator who tells me to go f— myself when I walk through the door. Instead of feeling valued by the organization, my mobile experience feels like they don’t care. They make me feel confused (what does this company do?), they make me feel frustrated (I can’t solve the problem I need to sort out!) and that they don’t value my time (why do I have to gesture so many times and spend so much time to do a simple task?)

These organizations would be horrified if I was flipped off when I walked in the door, but they have no problem making me feel just like that when I try to interact with them virtually on my mobile device. And they don’t seem to have a problem with it. On the other hand, organizations that realize great customer service extends to digital experiences have alignment on their customer-first values. Instead of worrying about mobile frameworks and handsets and technology development, they seek the solutions that provide a great customer service on virtual mediums. Thankfully, that means we have a lot of examples on how to do it well.

Here is an example of contrasts: airline mobile experiences. I won’t name names, but I will describe 3 different mobile experiences and the technology they are using to either create great customer service, or do the digital equivalent of flipping us off.

I travel a lot, and when I am travelling, I need the following at a minimum:

  1. Ease of use (so I can get my information quickly when under pressure on a trip)
  2. My booking details stored: confirmation number, flight numbers, seating details (this eliminates printing out paper that often gets out of date)
  3. Access to my booking details when I don’t have network connectivity (when you travel, you are frequently without wifi or cellular data, particularly if you don’t want to purchase an expensive data plan during a short trip)
  4. Up to date flight information when I am connected to a network (so I can get out of jams when there are delays or cancellations)
  5. Ability to book or modify or cancel flights
  6. Simple contact to customer service if all else fails on my own

Let’s look at three different mobile experiences from three different airlines:

  • App 1: a native mobile application
  • App 2: a hybrid mobile application
  • Web 1: mobile optimized web-only access

How do they stack up?

App 1 (native):

  1. Ease of use: incredibly easy to use, and it takes 2 gestures to get my current flight information. It takes about 15 seconds to tap the app and get all the info I need to fly
  2. Flight details stored: all my flight information is stored so I don’t need to search elsewhere
  3. Offline access: this app not only displays all my information when I don’t have networking or wireless access, but if I am not connected, it provides a warning message and tells me the data may be out of date. This is useful in cabs, in areas of an airport without connectivity (such as in security) or in an aircraft while in airplane mode so I can check my next flight if I have a connection
  4. Information updates: this app lets me know of gate changes, delays, and even lets me check on in-bound aircraft status and other dependencies. When there are problems, I and others with the app know before official announcements are made, which gives us a jump on the competition for rebooking or making alternative arrangements. This app has helped me get to a client site or get home on time on a number of occasions.
  5. Flight bookings: this isn’t easy to do on mobile devices, but with a few taps and gestures, you can get the job done without feeling frustrated
  6. Easy contact to a real person for help: one or two taps and I am speaking to a customer service rep who can help with a problem I can’t sort out with the app

App 1 overall customer experience: great!

This app has really improved my flying experience and I am growing to like this airline more over time.

App 2 (hybrid – combo of web and native technologies):

  1. Ease of use: not bad, but it is a bit clunky and doesn’t respond as smoothly to input gestures as the native app. I can’t zoom in on some screens, and on others, it takes me out of the app to the website, which is irritating. It feels quite slow, but I don’t have to do a lot of inputs, I just feel like I am waiting
  2. Flight details stored: This is a thin-client app (not taking advantage of local storage that hybrid apps provide), so I have to store my booking reference in a note, leave the app, copy it from a note, paste it in, and then wait for it to load my details. This is frustrating and takes a lot of time. There is no excuse for overlooking this with a hybrid app.
  3. Offline access: The app will not function without a good wireless connection. That means it is useless in many areas of an airport. If I want to check my flight number for a connection while the app is in airplane mode, it crashes. I have to take screenshots of details when they are available as a workaround.
  4. Information updates: The app does not provide updates. I have to navigate to the airline website or airport website and search for details on the flight. This is too time consuming and is frustrating. I get no information advantages and have to get in line with everyone else if there is a delay or cancellation
  5. Flight bookings: Not bad. Nice interface, and few gestures to get the job done. It just feels slow compared to a native app.
  6. Easy contact to a real person for help: I have to do a lot of navigating, and then I get redirected to their corp web site which is slow, cumbersome and frustrating

App 2 overall customer experience: poor.

Every time I use the app I get frustrated and I project that frustration on the airline. In one case, I was having trouble checking in at a kiosk, so I opened up the app. It gave me a cryptic error message that made me feel like my flight had been cancelled. I had to stand in a line up for a half hour to find out from a human to look into the problem and sort things out. This app requires workarounds (save my booking reference in a note or search for an email confirmation and screen shots of up to date data) to be even useful when I fly. They chose hybrid to get cross platform support, yet they don’t even take advantage of the affordances of a hybrid app.

Web 1 (mobile web site):

  1. Ease of use: horrible. I have to open a web browser, and to just enter in their URL is over 20 taps! I probably don’t have 20 taps in a month of using the other apps in total. Once I enter in their URL in my device and fix typos, 30 seconds has passed. I am then redirected to a mobile optimized web site. I can’t get both my flight status and my booking information in the same place, so to get the same information I get with 2 taps from a native app takes me over 50 taps and gestures and can take 2-3 minutes, under ideal conditions. Their image carousel on each page takes forever to load, and gets in the way of my interaction.
  2. Flight details stored: As a web app, there is no local storage, so again I have to store my booking reference in a note, leave the web browser, copy it from a note, paste it in, and then wait for it to load my details. This is frustrating and takes a lot of time.
  3. Offline access: None. I can’t do anything without a good wireless connection.
  4. Information updates: No updates. I have to go to a different website for that, and tap away on the URL, and experience the same pain.
  5. Flight bookings: Not bad. Nice interface, and few gestures to get the job done. Again, it feels slow compared to a native app and there are some inconsistencies from screen to screen.
  6. Easy contact to a real person for help: I have to go to their corp web site, which means I usually have to find the option to go to their full web site (a tiny URL at the bottom of some of the mobile screens.

App 2 overall customer experience: Rage inducing.

When this app lets me down in an airport because it takes too long to get anything done, I look longingly at the competition counters across the hall. This experience is beyond useless and it causes me to lose faith in the organization as a whole. If this is so painful, how is the flight? Also, I found that staff members have very little faith in the mobile experience. Even though I had a PassBook ticket that was valid, they reprint a hard copy when I try to board the aircraft because they “don’t trust the mobile app”. PassBook integration is one thing they do well, but people get so frustrated with an experience that doesn’t fit the needs of customers and staff on the front lines hear about it and try to adjust.

So whose app do I use the most? App 1 of course, and I also fly with them the most. I get a great customer experience with their mobile app, and they also do a decent to please us in their interpersonal interactions. The airlines that supply App 2 and Web 1 actually have better interpersonal interactions – they are friendlier and more helpful, but the mobile digital experiences are not convenient, so I don’t fly with them as often. This has less to do with the technology they have each chosen, but in how they have chosen to implement it and whether they are making technical decisions or customer-serving decisions in how they create mobile experiences.

A great customer experience that enhances convenience goes a long way. In fact, I will put up with less than ideal interpersonal interactions with a company if their mobile experience is convenient and makes my life easier. Next time you are looking at your mobile experience, no matter what the technology, ask the question: are we creating a great customer experience with our technology as well as with our people? The extent to which you use mobile technology to address that means much more to your customers than just “going mobile” and putting something out there. In some cases, no mobile access is better than one that makes people hate your company.

In an upcoming post, I’ll talk about ways our hybrid and web-only airline friends can improve their mobile customer service.

Elisabeth Hendrickson on 15 Years of Consulting

Elisabeth has been in business for herself as an independent consultant for 15 years. She has a great blog post about it here: Happy Birthday Quality Tree Software. In the post, she describes the workload and the challenges. I’ve been an independent for about half as long as she has, about 7.5 years, and my experiences mirror what she describes. I too get queries from aspiring consultants who ask for advice. Elisabeth talks about long hours, hard work, and challenges. This quote in particular resonated with me: “The bottom line is that running a business, any business, is hard.”

If you are curious about going out on your own, this is a good piece to read. As a business owner, you are constantly looking at ways to be profitable, and dealing with challenges and changes in your environment. What do you do when you work very hard at a new revenue stream and it doesn’t work? What happens when a popular source of revenue loses favor in the market and you have to start over with something new? What do you do when people copy you, and your business model and a reliable source of revenue slows to a trickle because of market saturation? It is a balance of looking at your cashflow, looking at your financials and adjusting, taking risks, failing, succeeding, and adjusting some more. Also, a lot of what you do as a business owner is tedious – the logistics of running a business can be a big time sink, so you have to balance activities constantly to keep up with market forces. Elisabeth is correct, when you get it right, it is incredibly rewarding, but be prepared to put in time and effort, and to be able to motivate yourself through the boring parts, the low parts and the really hard parts. And sometimes, you have to reset your business and start over again.

Why Are We in Business?

When I look at my work in software testing, I find myself at the intersection of three disciplines:

  • Technology
  • Philosophy
  • Business

I have business training, with a focus on technology. Sometimes I forget about the business, and focus on testing ideas, technology concerns, and following a process. As a tester, I think about the product, and its impact on users, but I forget about what really keeps us in business: the sale of a product or service. Whether a product might be saleable or not might be a testing question we should ask.

It matters not a whit what our process is if we aren’t bringing in as much or more money than our business is shelling out. I have seen fabulous execution of software development processes in companies that went under. I’ve also seen completely chaotic development environments in wildly successful companies. What was the secret? One group focused on sales, on making the product easy to use, and really listened to the customer. In the end, the difference between the development teams having a job or not did not come down to technology or process decisions, but whether the company could sell the product.

Technology, process and engineering considerations are useful to the extent that they help the company feed the bottom line. If a process helps us deliver a product that customers are happy with, then great. However, we need to be careful on what we are measuring. We need to look at the big picture, and not be self-congratulating because of adherence to our favorite process. If the company isn’t making enough money, it simply won’t matter. In time we’ll be a project team looking for work, lamenting about how great our process was at the last company we were at.

As Deming said, everyone within a company is responsible for quality. I also believe we are all responsible for the company’s success in the market. Focusing only on engineering, technology and process may not help if we are a company that can’t sell our products, and can’t satisfy and impress a customer. If we reward employees for adherence to a process, how long will it take for those rewards to become more important than the goals of the business? At the heart of every business is this equation:

Revenue - Expenses == Profit

Without profits, the business will eventually cease to exist. In software development, it pays to keep this in mind. Too often we are distracted by details in our daily work, and forget the basics of business.

Presenting Testing Activities to Business Stakeholders

Brian Marick’s series on Agile Testing Directions begins with a test matrix that describes testing activities as “Business Facing”, “Technology Facing”, “Support Programming” and “Critique Product”. This resonated with me, but it wasn’t until he pointed out that in my pair work with developers I did both Business Facing and Technology Facing activities that this seemed to click. I think this matrix he has developed provides testers with a common language to identify and communicate these activities.

I recently did presentations to business stakeholders on testing activities in Agile projects. I’ve generally found it difficult to explain the testing activities I engage in to fellow testers, let alone business stakeholders. In one meeting, I thought of the test matrix and brought up the “Business Facing” testing and “Technology Facing” areas of testing while I was explaining how I test on Agile projects. People seemed to understand this, so I started working on it more.

I started thinking of the matrix rotated on its side with Technology Facing on the left and Business Facing on the right. Instead of “support programming”, I went with “support” to capture both areas. The “business support” would involve activities like setting up meetings with developers and business stakeholders after each development iteration to ensure that the working code is what the business expects, and to get people communicating. I also thought that business support would involve helping the business people with acceptance tests and things like that.

I initially thought of naming each quadrant of the matrix, but when explaining it to my wife Elizabeth, she said: “Why don’t you just put that in a tree diagram?” I did just that, and presented Agile Testing activities like this:

I felt that “technical testing” was a simple way to describe “technology-facing product critiques”, and “business testing” would describe “business-facing product critiques”. Keeping it simple seems to work well when communicating testing concepts to non-technical people.

I described some of the testing techniques in each area. For example, a technical testing activity I use involves collaboration with the developers to write tests that can be run in the absence of a user interface. This can involve adding tests to drive a layer of the application at the controller level. Once the developers make this area testable, we co-design and develop a test case. I can then own the test case and run it with different kinds of test data.

Under the programmer support activity, we can pair together to generate testing ideas. In a test-driven development environment, we can pair program to come up with tests that drive the code, or the tester can use a scripting language to write the tests for the developers.

Business people and technical people seemed to understand this tree diagram and the explanations I gave. I heard later that business stakeholders were starting to use this language in other contexts when they were talking about testing.