Neurodiversity In The Workplace: Part 1

Introduction

I recently wrote a blog about internal blogs and statements posted by my employer about Neurodiversity.

I thought I’d collate a collection of stories of people doing bizarre things at work. No idea if people were actually “neurodiverse” but given the claim:

“Diversity is important for any organisation to develop, and understanding neurodiversity comes with huge benefits.”

I like to imagine an entire company where everyone behaves erratically. For the most part, I don’t think there would be benefits; it would be more like a comedy show.

These stories are about several people but I will merge them under one name, Russell. Some of these are taken from chat logs with my colleagues:

Bitshift

Me:
fact from Russell: due to cosmic radiation, about once a month, you get a bitshift in your computer
Andrew 15:05:
i'm gonna knock him out

Mobile Phone

Russell purchased a cheap phone from China. I think it had a normal sim slot and he had a micro sim. He placed his sim card in there to try it out, then wanted to get it back out. He ended up slashing and poking at it with some scissors to get it out, eventually cutting off large bits of the plastic; basically trashed his new phone. Andrew told him that he could have gone to a phone shop and they would have got the sim card out for him. No idea what he was thinking.

In a similar cutting story…

Cutting Contactless

Me 11:39:
Russell has a contactless bank card, but he has cut it so the contactless won't work; says it is anti-fraud protection
Andrew 11:39:
you can just ask for that to be switched off at your bank. Idiot.
Me 11:40:
I was just gonna ask you if you can do that…or you can chop part of it with scissors
although surely you can't use it if you do that because won't staff refuse it because it's been tampered with
and I'd imagine cash machines won't like it either
Andrew 11:41:
it's just like the mobile phone situation again

Leaving Card

Me 09:56:
Matt said that Russell wrote a question in Steve's leaving card, asking him if he has an expansion for a computer game
Andrew 09:56:
LOL
Me  09:56:
didn't even sign his name, just a question

“That’s a cat’s paw I drew under my name in your card. Just to clear up the confusion” –
Russell to Phil

Playing Pool

Russell said to Matt “Do you fancy a game of pool in 30 seconds?”. Why not just ask to play right now, or not specify a time?

Car Park

We were having a department meeting about some upcoming redundancies. At the end, the manager asked if there are any questions. Russell speaks up

“when are the lines in the car park going to be repainted?”.

Everyone laughed and Russell was baffled. It wasn’t the time or the place to ask such a question.

Feeding the Birds

Russell once went to the reception desk to ask if he was allowed to feed the birds that were near the car park. Not sure why the receptionist was the authority on the matter, but I presume he was wondering if there was some kind of health and safety violation if he did so.

Computerise the Dental System

Russell is asking Matt about the Referrals code, and after 10 minutes, he reveals it is because he is going to the dentist but they are using a paper system, so he wants them to use a better system. I’d love to know if he actually spoke to the Dentist or the Receptionist to try and get requirements to design them a new computer system.

One day, the CEO came to visit and walked up to random people to ask them more about their job and what things are good/bad at the company.

Me 15:32:
Russell is talking to the CEO, this is gonna be good
Matt  15:33:
Oh god
He had to speak with Russell 
Please record it
Me  15:33:
I hope he asks about the car park
or about dental appointment bookings
Matt  15:33:
Ha ha ha
Me  15:34:
or about feeding birds
all high on the agenda
Jim told the CEO he had no idea if we were Team A or B
straight in there with his knowledge
looks like Russell kept it short and serious!
Matt  15:36:
Ha ha ha
Honestly - poor CEO does not know what he has let himself in for

Who are they?

Russell was the sort of person that was quite oblivious to others. There were well-known colleagues that had been there for years, and he would ask who they were. There was a surreal moment where he asked “do you know where Rob sits?” when Rob had been in our team for a few months and sat 2 desks away. I don’t get why he was confused. Rob wasn’t at his desk at the time, but that shouldn’t have made him go crazy.

“I breathed in a nut”
Russell

Real World Research Studies

Me 10:57:
Russell has just gone to a meeting called "Real World Research Studies"  
Andrew 10:57:
Is he joining us in the real world then? 🙂
Why weren't we invited?
Me 10:58:
dunno, he was dressed smart as well
Andrew  10:59:
How strange. Maybe it's a special project for the elite.

Timekeeping

We work 9-5, but allow people to work an hour later/earlier if they wish. I suppose we are more flexible on authorisation of your manager. Russell had some really strange working patterns.

Me 14:09:
Russell is here!
Melissa 14:09:
(chuckle)
Me 14:09:
he comes in when he wants
Melissa 14:10:
dont understand why you would work 2-10
bizarre shift
Me  14:10:
maybe he was raised by owls
Melissa 14:10:
hahahahaah
or bats
maybe he's batman
Me 14:11:
we have never seen them in the same place together, so it's a possibility


Me 15:27:
Russell has just turned up. What a legend!
Derek  15:33:
at 15:27?!
Me 15:33:
I hope he goes home at 4pm
Me 15:35:
I do wonder what he does throughout the day. Do you think he just woke up?
Derek 15:36:
I have absolutely no idea!
he's as crazy as a coconut that lad!
did you know he lives on a barge!?
Me 15:37:
he used to, I think he just rented it for a year or whatever
Derek 15:39:
ahhh - i wondered maybe he spent most of the day trying to get through the locks on the canal (rofl)


Me 15:06:
Russell is here!
Andrew 15:17:
he's just got in now?
Me  15:18:
Yeah

Me 13:53:
Russell didn't turn up to the pub for the meal, so Mel brought the meal back
it's still on the plate they served it on
Andrew 13:54:
Haha, did Russell order food but just not turn up?
Me 13:55:
yeah
Andrew 13:55:
what a pellet

Mispronunciations

have you heard how Russell says integer?
Me 14:29:
no
Andrew 14:32:
pronounces the 'g' as a hard G
like egg


Me  13:08: 
"we are opening and closing so many wuh-pf windows" 
Andrew 13:08: 
Russell ? 
Me  13:08: 
yeah 
loves pronouncing things different for the laugh 
Andrew 13:09: 
like when you only ever see something written down then embarrass yourself when first attempting to pronounce it in public 
he's got it for everything

Unprofessional Language

Me 12:11: 
Russell is doing a demo to a group of people. "It's the same sort of shizzle..."
Andrew 12:12: 
haha
he's an idiot
Me 12:12: 
I don't know who these people are, but using words like "Shizzle" is crazy
Andrew 12:12: 
ha are they external people?
Me 12:13: 
not sure. They are dressed quite casually. Some of our managers are there as well

The Stand Off

Another peculiar character, Jeremy just leaped out of his chair. This startled Russell, noticeably jumping in his chair. They then just stared at each other for a good 15 seconds.

Email Etiquette

Russell starts off an email with “Hi guys” then proceeds to justify his use of the word “guy” and opts to use the word “squadron” rather than “group”.

“Hi guys (I don’t think there are any girls in the particular squadron I worked with this week – please correct me if I’m wrong though):”

He can also sign off emails in style

“Have at it.“

At our office canteen, the canteen owner used to sell really random stuff in addition to meals. Some people suggested they were stolen goods which I thought could actually be possible. Russell seemed to feel inclined to purchase whatever he was selling. One day we got a mass email saying taht Russell had bought chocolates to share. Not because it was his birthday or anything like that, just that the canteen was selling Guitar Hero 5.

“I had to buy a tub of candy from the canteen because I felt bad that I couldn’t buy guitar hero off them due to the fact that I already own a copy of that particular title.”

Me  08:49:
Is that a contender for Quote Of The Week?
Andrew 08:50:
that is pretty good
Me  08:51:
how can you feel bad about already owning something someone is selling
you would be poor if that was your mentality when you walked into a shop

He also apologised for sending a mass email where he had a massive box of Maltesers chocolate that he wanted to share.

Me  15:16:
is Russell really sorry for sending an email about Maltesers?
it will just happen again and he won't have learnt his lesson
Andrew 15:17:
he's off his head him

The Blair Witch

Me  15:17:
did I show you that photo where he is just facing the wall
Andrew 15:17:
lol no
omg please send
Me  15:18:
it was like he was acting out scenes from the Blair Witch Project
when he noticed me, he just walked further down the stairs and did it again
Andrew 15:21:
send me the pic
Andrew 15:28:
LOL
have you shown josh?
Me  15:28:
can't remember if I did
Me  15:33:
has the photo freaked you out
Andrew 15:33:
it's amazing
what the hell goes through his head?
why are there so many weirdos here?

The Shoulder Roll

Russell demonstrated the difference between a forward-roll and a shoulder roll. We were on the second floor of the office and it caused a loud bang. I messaged Andy who was on the floor below:

Me 10:15:
"I always worry about shoulder-rolling just in case there's broken glass on the floor" - Russell
did you hear a banging sound a few minutes ago?
Andrew 10:15:
hahaha yeah
Me  10:15:
the bang was Russell giving a demo of the roll
Andrew 10:15:
what the hell is shoulder rolling?
it sounded more like a hammer
Me 10:16:
Instead of doing the classic forward roll which starts on your head, the shoulder roll is a faster roll leading with your shoulder
I'll get him to come down and give you a demo

In Waves

There was one time where the office was really quiet and all of a sudden, Russell shouted

“IN WAAAAAAAAAAAAVES”

He was listening to Trivium’s “In Waves”.

Sometimes you saw him air guitaring, or pounding his chest.

In a similar battle theme, he turned up to the office party with a “Viking horn” which he filled with alcohol to drink out of.

Leaving

Me 14:29:
did you know Russell is leaving?
Andrew 14:35:
Yeah, he can slap his belly somewhere else
Me  14:35:
and spin around with a grin on his face
Andrew 14:35:
ha spin around?
i've not seen that one
Me 14:36:
he did it today
Andrew 14:36:
how many rotations we talking?
Me  14:36:
I think he only did 2, but that's all you need
Andrew 14:41:
"Remember slapping yer belly as a kid?"
Me 14:42:
and bringing your viking horn to the party
Andrew 14:42:
and miming along to some unheard metal guitar solo
Me 14:43:
ha. He was air guitaring earlier

He later left to get a job in London. I’m sure he said it paid about the same as what he was getting here, but he had to travel an hour to get there. London wages should be significantly higher due to the higher cost of living. So leaving a relaxed job for longer travel time is a really strange decision indeed.

Neurodiversity Celebration Week

In recent years, my employer has been progressively promoting more “woke” issues, as well as some health-related content. Our recent internal blogs on Viva Engage have been about Neurodiversity Celebration Week.

“This week is Neurodiversity Celebration Week; a worldwide initiative that aims to challenge stereotypes and misconceptions about neurological differences. We want to use this opportunity to raise awareness of the experiences of neurodivergent employees, highlight the value of neurodiversity in the workplace, and provide tools and guidance to help all our people create an inclusive environment where diverse minds can thrive.”

I think it is a good idea to remind people that some people think differently. I’m unaware if I have anything like autism but I do often struggle when posed questions that are phrased in certain ways. When we first learned about Agile development, and started doing “Retrospectives”, some of the initial ones had obscure questions like “if the last 2 weeks were a chocolate bar, what would it be?”. My mind is just like “wut”, whereas everyone else on the team came up with an answer, even if they just chose their favourite chocolate bar and forced certain elements into it. “There were some really smart solutions to problems so I chose Smarties”. When I failed to answer many questions over the months, some people moaned that I wasn’t participating, but I just got frustrated with that line of questioning.

“These blogs perfectly highlight the fact that everybody, and how we each experience the world, is different. Depending on how our brains are wired, we think, move, process information and communicate in different ways. We all have a responsibility to create an inclusive working environment where diverse minds can thrive. Everybody should feel safe, supported, and able to perform at their best. Therefore, it is important that we firstly recognise an individual’s differences, and work to harness their strengths and talents whilst minimising the challenges they may experience”

I think some conditions do have strengths and weaknesses. As far as I know, certain types of autism can lead to some great ideas since they have a different way of thinking, but then can be awkward in different social situations. One person wrote a blog on their life and observations with autism.

Here are some key takeaways from their blog:

Autism is a spectrum, which means that everyone who is autistic can have a wide variety of signs and symptoms, and how it impacts individuals can differ greatly.
Everyone uses phrases that have subtle implied meanings. For people with Autism, the implied elements simply disappear, and everything can be taken at face value. So an example they gave was if they put a jumper on, and someone asks “Are you cold?” they would answer “no” because they are now warmer.
Their responses to questions can often seem rude or abrasive, yet they were only literally answering the question they were presented.
If you ask many questions quickly, they will then present an answer to each in the order you gave them. They are insistent in processing all information sequentially, and will want to answer all of them.
Sensory overload: They despise being touched, they feel overloaded by background sounds, and will need to be alone to recharge after a long period of social interaction.
They often talk over people

I was looking on our Sharepoint for the additional neurodivergent resources. I came across some strange statements:

“Most neurodiverse conditions are classified as disabilities, but it is important to note that not every neurodivergent person identifies with a disability, to avoid stigma and isolation.”

Is it really possible to “identify” with a disability? Like the autism blog described, they didn’t want people to treat them differently but they acknowledge their social awkwardness, and understand others need to be aware of their traits in order to not be offended, or to try and adapt their line of questioning. I assume that is the point the statement was trying to make.

“Diversity is important for any organisation to develop, and understanding neurodiversity comes with huge benefits.”

That’s another one that needs more explanation. I think some people can come up with interesting ideas if they have something similar to autism, but a lot of other neurodiverse conditions are only negative. The way you “benefit” is to try to reduce the impact of the negatives. The statement by itself sounds like it is only positive to hire neurodiverse people, when that is not the case.

I saw a recent BBC article where the caption claimed that Down’s Syndrome is “an ability not a disability”. I get the sentiment, and that people often misunderstand the condition, but I don’t think anyone really believes it is an ability. I’ve seen a lot of this reframing in recent years: Things that were considered “mental health” conditions are now framed as normalised/part of someone’s identity, so is a positive thing that should be celebrated. Then not only is this mentality being pushed by mainstream media, it’s now being pushed from inside company culture under the guise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Humane AI & Rabbit R1: What Are These Companies Hiding?

What Are These Companies Hiding?

Dave2D made a video covering two AI Assistant devices; The two products Rabbit R1 and Humane AI pin are launching very soon. He was suspicious because he is unaware of anyone getting a review copy to promote them, and the existing marketing materials have been a bit vague or suspiciously misleading.

It reminds me of when there was some controversy over a computer game that wasn’t reviewed before release – which caused suspicion that it was going to be released in a broken state; because if the company really believed in it, they would send it for review to be praised. Restricting reviews seem an admission that the product isn’t good, or as what it seems.

The examples they have shown is that you can use voice commands just like an Alexa, and can book trips, bring up nutritional information for food by recognising what it is, live translations. You don’t need your phone or to launch any apps.

The Rabbit R1 is the more popular of the two (100,000 units on preorder) and is $200 device, featuring a cute design, small screen, camera, analog scroll wheel, speaker and button; very simple. The Humane AI pin is a $700 device and it also needs a $25 monthly subscription. Instead of using a screen, it projects the image. So you clip it to your clothes and hold your hand out to view. It’s a neat party trick, maybe a little gimmicky.

In the marketing, both companies deflect any questions using AI buzzwords and using very specific examples. It seems it might be the case that they just do a subset of what your phone can do, but worse.

Personally, I didn’t understand what most wearable tech did like the Apple Watch. In that example, it seemed to be sold on the idea that you no longer had to take your phone out of your pocket to check a message, but it seems a simple value proposition for a device that costs hundreds.

A mobile phone is more versatile and often more personal because it’s easier to hide the screen. Whereas, if a device relies purely on voice, then people can overhear, it causes a scene, and maybe could be hard to hear in a busy environment. The projection idea might even be difficult to see in different lighting, although might be easier to hide from other’s view, although you look a bit weird.

Since these devices can’t do everything your phone can do, you still need your phone with you. Certain devices like an mp3 player became obsolete when smartphones were widely adopted because people didn’t want to charge and carry two devices around… Or most people anyway; I don’t like the idea that listening to music is draining my battery that I might need to use for phone calls and text messages. I listen to a lot of music so I like to keep the devices separate.

So back to these two AI devices: A good question is “why isn’t this just an app?” Google already has a Google Assistant that you can talk to, although I have never tried that out. With how AI has progressed, the likes of Bing gives you easy access to quick searches, summaries, image generation etc, so it sounds like most of it could just be an additional app to download, or would be quickly obsolete if Google just adds the feature natively to Android. The possible limiting feature that Dave mentioned is that with all the permission needed to work, it might be seen as a security risk for Android to grant permissions to your location, images, contacts, microphone, camera, passwords etc. If it’s the company’s own device, then they can access all features of such a device.

When you are on your phone, you have the flexibility to react on-screen and look at images, reviews and follow links in order to make a decision. Having something that’s basically fully voice controlled has less flexibility. You are kind of forced down a specific path.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the marketing materials have often shortened the sequences to make it seem more impressive than it is. Wait time is a massive factor in the user experience. If there’s too much delay, then the usefulness and appeal is reduced.

The size and weight of devices can be a problem. If you are expected to pin the Humane AI device to your clothes, then it needs to be light without tugging on your clothes.

If these devices are using their own AI models, then another question is “how good are they?”. What is their training data, and are the initial versions going to be poor, but get better over time when learning from the early adopters?

Personally, I could see this being like the Google Glass where it sounds like a cool idea, but then it’s actually a bit limited, overpriced, and you look silly using it.

The End Of The Desktop-Based Authenticator

A few years ago, we were told we must use two-factor authentication. (I’m sure I had a blog on that but can’t find it). Two factor authentication is much more secure because even if someone has your username and password, then they cannot get in without being able to generate your codes.

The idea of a Desktop-based authenticator is absolute nonsense to me, because if you want to log into a website on a different device, you cannot because your authentication codes are on your main device. Maybe you could install on multiple devices? But even if that is allowed, then isn’t that still increasing the risk? So if you are restricted to only using your computer where the authentication codes are, then if the malicious user has got access to your computer – they also have access to all your authentication codes.

A few years ago, we got a new security expert, and have been increasing security over time. Recently, one of the companies we own was hit by a ransomware attack so security has increased once again.

We were told there would be placing more restrictions on personal use of company devices, and instead, we should buy our own tablet/laptop/computer for internet browsing.

I was really surprised that they are only now advising getting rid of the desktop based authentication, and now say that we all need to install it on our phones. I did that years ago.

“Having a desktop based authenticator is no longer an appropriate feature as unfortunately external threats are becoming extremely more clever and a compromised laptop or workstation would mean the authenticator could be accessed and that would lead to credential compromise and extremely damaging to our organisation hence the authenticator is no longer deemed safe on the same device.”

They also stated that authenticator apps are “required everywhere”.

One employee launched into an absolute tirade about it. He did make some good points about how necessary equipment should be provided and managed by the employer.

The Tirade

I have to disagree that authenticator apps are used everywhere. I only need it for work. My bank uses my biometrics for authentication, it is the same for my bitwarden (password vault), health app interactions and credit card companies. I feel you are trying to use grammar to try and mitigate the fact that this is an app I only need for work vs a "work app". The reality for me is this is an app I need only for work purposes, and whether I call it a work app or an app I need for work, it is the same thing.

It seems hypocritical that at a time when we are being told that no personal use can be made of work laptops and that we should use the new benefit introduced to buy a personal laptop, that the organisation is forcing us to install applications for work onto our personal phones. My wife is the Pro vice-chancellor at a university that was hit (last year) with a cyber attack and they are still recovering from that incident now. The impact has been devastating. They use MFA for access to all their systems and the university has provided devices to all staff to ensure that they can continue to access the systems they need to without the need to purchase personal equipment for work or use personal devices to enable them to work, because they understand that securing their systems requires investment.

The reality for me is I already have a number of work apps on my personal mobile phone... whatsapp for Business Continuity purposes, webexpenses to be able to claim expenses and now Authy. It is becoming increasingly difficult to have a clear distinction between work and personal life. I can totally understand why some people may be unhappy with this continued blurring of the lines on mental health grounds, but there are also those who have reverted back to unsmart phones - I considered this at one point when I decided the toxic nature of social media platforms was extremely unhealthy. In the end I just removed all those apps from my phone because I decided the value the other applications was worth sticking with a smartphone. If you don't own a smartphone are you now expected to buy one to do the job? If we lose our smartphone, do we need to inform IT that our work authenticator has been lost and therefore potentially compromised? There needs to be a clear policy on expectations above and beyond the "just do it" messaging so far.

There have also, unsurprisingly, been a number of cases taken to court in recent years for people unwilling to install applications on personal phones that are required to perform work functions. Most cases have ruled in favour of the employee with advice given such as:"[...]Secondly, employers facing resistance from employees about the use of technology should explore whether any other solutions are available. In this case, the issue may have been swiftly resolved by providing a work phone or installing the app on a laptop. Had the Claimant continued to refuse to use the app in those circumstances, it is likely that the employer could have fairly dismissed for misconduct, subject to following a fair procedure.[...]"So are there alternatives available? I know we have a huge number of work mobile phones that are unused - couldn't these be provided to those wanting that work/life separation protected? They wouldn't need a SIM as the app will work over WiFI, so the cost is minimal.

Closing Thoughts

Personally, it’s not a big deal for me because I do use an authenticator app for everything that supports it, and I only have maybe 4 codes for work-related websites. I think it would be more inconvenient to have a separate device, and if I did, I would end up leaving it next to my laptop. So if the laptop was stolen from my house (where I work), then they would steal the phone next to it too; therefore it is like the Desktop-based authentication scenario. Although if the phone has password/biometrics to access, then it will be secure. If I only have 1 phone, then the phone will leave the house with me, having the benefit of security and not being as much of a pain to replace.

Analysing Risk – A Story

Just like my last blog, this is based on an internal blog that our most experienced software tester wrote. She seems to love Michael Bolton, but not the singer. Michael Bolton is also the name of a software tester that is the co-Author of Rapid Software Testing (see About the Authors — Rapid Software Testing (rapid-software-testing.com)).

Michael Bolton

She said that Michael Bolton was asked the following question:

Q: My client wants to do risk analysis for the whole product, they have outlined all modules. I got asked to give input. Do we have a practical example for that? I want to know more about it.
Tester

Michael: Consider the basic risk story –

Some victim will suffer a problem because of a vulnerability in the product (or system) which is triggered by some threat.

Start with any of those keywords, and imagine how it connects with the others.

Who might suffer loss, harm, bad feelings, diminished value, trouble?
How might they suffer?
What kinds of problems might they experience? What Bad Things could happen? What Good Things might fail to happen?
Where are there vulnerabilities or weaknesses or bugs in the product, such that the problem might manifest? What good things are missing?
What combinations of vulnerability plus specific conditions could allow the problem to actually happen?
When might they happen? Why? On what platforms? How?

Our tester stated “This is a brilliant definition of risk. It is also a somewhat intimidating list of questions. If you are looking at this and thinking, “That’s hard!” you’re absolutely right. Good testing is hard. It’s deep, challenging, exhausting. It will make you weep, laugh, sigh from relief. But it’s also tremendous fun.”

Test Automation Mess

Every now and then, there is a big initiative to focus on Automated testing. A manager will decide that our software is complex and too manually intensive to regression test in detail. Automation seems the answer but it’s never that practical.

Our main software, a desktop application, requires interaction through the UI which is incredibly slow and unreliable. We used to have a dedicated Automation team that maintained the tests but they would take several hours to run, would randomly fail, then eventually the team disbanded and declared them obsolete. There’s been times we wanted to replace them with the likes of CodedUI (which turned out to have the same issues), and more recently FlaUI.

When the last “drive for automation” was announced by the CTO, our most experienced tester wrote an internal blog which I thought had a lot of subtext to it, basically saying “it’s a bad idea”.

Communities of Practice around Test Automation

With all of the new Communities of Practice around Test Automation*, I wanted to share some thoughts on whether automation is actually a good idea. This comes from experiences over the years. I hope this saves some people time, and provokes conversations.

To automate or not to automate? That is question….

A common question in a tester’s life: “Should we automate our tests?”

Which of course really means, “Should we write our checks in code?”

This will inevitably give rise to more questions you need to answer:

which checks we should automate
and which we should not automate
and what information running the checks gives us
and how does that information help us assess risks present in the code
and which is the best tool to use
and how often we should run the checks

Asking and answering these questions is testing. We have to ask them because no automation comes for free. You have to write it, maintain it, set up your data, set up and maintain your test environment, and triage failures.

So how do you begin to decide which checks to automate?

Reasons for automating:

The checks are run frequently enough that if you spent a bit of time automating them then you would save time in the long run (high return on investment)
The checks would be relatively easy to write and maintain owing to the product having a scriptable interface (such as a REST API)
They can be performed more reliably by a machine (e.g. complex mathematical calculations)
They can be performed more precisely by a machine
They can be performed faster by a machine
You require use of code in order to detect that a problem exists
You want to learn how to code, or flex your programming muscles(Even if you ultimately decide not to automate your checks, you may decide to use code for other purposes, e.g. to generate test data.)

Reasons against automating:

There isn’t a scriptable interface; the product code can only be accessed via a User Interface (UI automation is notoriously expensive and unreliable).
In order to have a greater chance of finding problems that matter, the check should be carried out by a human being as they will observe things that would matter to a human but not a computer (e.g. flickering on the screen, text that is difficult to read).
The checks would have a short shelf life (low return on investment).

Beware of the fallacy that use of code or tools is a substitute for skilled and experienced human beings. If you gave an amateur cook use of a fancy food processor or set of knives, their cooking still wouldn’t be as good as that of a professional chef, even with the latter using blunt knives and an ancient cooker. Code and tools are ultimately extensions of your testing. If your testing is shallow, your automation will be shallow. If your testing is deep, your automation can be deep.

Ultimately the benefit you derive from writing coded checks has to outweigh the cost, and to automate or not is a decision no one else can make for you.

Testers in my Team

Most of the testers we employ aren’t that technical, and most aren’t interested in writing Automated Tests since that requires knowledge as a developer since it is coding. One of our testers went on a week-long training course about FlaUI. One of the first things he says is “FLAUI is not worth its value”, which made me laugh. The course cannot have painted it and a good light !” 😂

He then got asked to move teams to do pure automation for a few months. Another tester had no interest at all, but was instructed to “try learn”.

“writing the steps is fine, it’s just when you go into the code”
Joanne

There was no way she was gonna be able to learn it. She isn’t technical and the desire isn’t there at all. Being pressured by managers to move away from “manual” testing to “automated” just disrespects them as a tester. It’s happened before and they end up leaving. She eventually moved internally to be a Release Manager.

Automation Mess

The original decision to move to FlaUI was made by a group of Testers and they didn’t get input from the Developers.

I think it would be logical to code using the Coding Standards that us Developers have followed for years. If Developers want/need to help write Automated tests, they can fit right in since the process and code style is the same. Additionally, after years of writing Automated Tests, maybe the Testers want to switch roles and be a Developer and so it would be a smooth transition.

Not only did they invent their own Coding Standards, which meant variables/methods/classes were named differently, there was a lot of duplicated code to perform basic actions like logging in, selecting a customer record etc.

The process including a branching strategy was different too, and so instead of having a Master branch, taking a Project Branch for longer-lived changes, and standard User Branches for simple short-lived branches, they went for a more convoluted strategy where they had Development, Devupdate, Master. Then it became a disorganised mess when work wasn’t merged to the correct branches at the right times.

I can’t even make sense of this:

Before the start of Regression:

1) Lock the Development Branch (no PRs to be allowed to come in to Development till regression is completed)
2) Development, Devupdate, Master are up-to-date by syncing your local with remote branch and get all the commits into local branch
3) Merge from Development to DevUpdate
4) Merge from DevUpdate to MasterUpdate
5) Set <updateTestResults> to true and <testPlanId>(from URL ?planid=12345) inProjectSettings.xml in MasterUpdate
6) Raise a PR from MasterUpdate against Master. Throughout step 3, step 4, observe that ‘commits behind’ are equal after the merge process to that of master.
Once the above process is completed, observe that Master branch is 1 commit ahead of other branches

After the end of Regression:

1) Development, DevUpdate, Master are up-to-date by syncing your local with remote branch and get all the commits into local branch
2) Merge from Master to DevUpdate
3)Change the <testPlanId>toxxxxand<updateTestResults> to false in DevUpdate
4) Raise PR from DevUpdate against Development After Step 2, observe that ‘commits behind’ are equal after the merge process to that of master.
Once the above process is completed, observe that Development branch is 1 commit ahead of other branches

Eventually, a few more technical testers were moved into the team and tasked with aligning the process and codebase with our production code – ie sort the mess out.

This is the classic case of managers thinking they can just assign “resource” to a team, and give them an aim “automate this”; and expect results. But you need the technical know-how, and a clear direction.

Reward package

When it comes to the end of the year, we often get an email from HR reassuring us that our wages will be analysed, and changes will be made so we are paid a fair wage.

Define “fair”.

When there is inflation, if your wage doesn’t rise to match, that is essentially a pay cut because the money you get just isn’t worth the same as it used to be. HR often say that it has never been a policy to give inflation rises, but how is that fair?

They will often say that raises will be given based on performance, but with some exclusions (if you have had a recent promotion or wage rise). Then they say they look at what other companies pay, but that’s purely based on trust.

How many companies do they look at?
How do they find equivalent jobs to base the comparison against?

We carry out external benchmarking to ensure our salaries are competitive and fair in today’s market.

We use external salary data to develop market rate midpoints for roles. This is the rate of pay for someone who is fully competent in the role and therefore individual salaries may be below or above the midpoint. Our salary frameworks are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure they remain fair, competitive, and are suitably benchmarked both internally and externally.

If you are promoted or move into a new role that is an approved vacancy, the new salary will be determined by the new line manager and HR , subject to approval by the Senior Leader of the relevant business area. If a proposed increase is more than 5%, it will need to be approved by the relevant executive member and the Head of HR)
HR

See, it is a wishy washy definition and claim. If they are paying fairly, why are there so many people required to sign off a rise of more than 5%? If you were underpaid before and deserve a large rise, then why is this process there?

There’s been times where people get promoted or change roles, and the difference in wages is very large. But they have the skills and the attitude to do it, yet are told the rise is too large, so it needs to spread over a few years. Yet, if they employed someone externally, they would give them the starting salary, maybe even allow them to negotiate a higher one. But the loyal employee that they know is good? – don’t want to give them the money.

Just remember: companies would rather pay $25k to a recruiter to replace you than give you a $25k raise
— I Am Devloper (@iamdevloper) June 10, 2022

Just remember: companies would rather pay $25k to a recruiter to replace you than give you a $25k raise

Overtime

I’ve criticised overtime in many of my blogs. I think it encourages slacking because you can create the need for overtime by not doing your work during contracted hours. Since overtime is usually given based on your hourly rate, overtime is even more beneficial if you are already paid more, but yet you could be doing the exact same work that everyone else is doing.

When you reach a certain rank, our contracts then say that you can no longer receive payment due to “their contracts allow more flexibility to work additional hours to fulfil their duties”. I don’t even know what that means. We all have reasonably flexible work hours.

Total Rewards

Another way we get fobbed off is with the phrasing “total reward”. They claim that our benefits are first-rate even though I think our holiday allowance is pretty standard in the industry, and there’s the usual basic discounts like “gym membership”, “cycle to work scheme”, “voucher discounts”, and “free eye test”.

Our reward framework is based on a “total reward” approach. Total reward includes not only monetary rewards such as pay, bonus, incentives and “core” benefits (holidays, etc.), but also recognition (financial and non-financial), development and progression opportunities and work/home life balance. Our total reward philosophy is designed to ensure that our people feel valued, recognised and motivated to give their best at work every day.
HR

This is just HR buzzword spam.

Some of the rewards they hype up, but then it turns out to be rubbish. There was one where they said we could get “discounts on technology” so we could get cheap laptops/PCs/tablets/phones etc. However, when you read into the terms, it was an average saving of 5% from the recommended retail price. Yet you could go into a shop like Curry’s PC World, and find the same items on sale (>5%). Then going through the process was actually more effort because there’s loads of forms to fill in. More effort, and it costs more; brilliant.

Another classic one is Costco membership. I’ve never shopped at Costco, but you need a membership card to shop there. For some reason, they restrict who can sign up, but some Costco representatives would come visit the office, and if you signed up and showed them your work badge to prove you worked here, then you could get a membership card.

Someone asked HR what the benefit is of signing up when the Costco staff come visit the office. The employee could go and sign up directly in the Costco store. The reply was that they often ”bring free cakes” to the office, and you’d have the advantage of “not needing to take your ID badge to the Costco store”. Wow, amazing benefit. Like I said, they hype up a benefit then it turns out to be not much of a benefit at all.

Quiet Quitting

Early on during lockdown, a new term seemed to be trending in articles. I don’t even think it was lockdown-specific, so the timing was probably a coincidence. The term was “Quiet Quitting”.

One interpretation of this buzzword is when an employee deliberately gives the minimum effort in order to avoid being fired. Another interpretation is when an employee is more focussed on avoiding burnout (balancing their work with other interests).

The Coasting Definition

Doing the minimum is not a new concept since there’s always people looking to get out of work – be it: casually browsing the internet, taking breaks away from the desk, talking to colleagues, dragging out tasks for longer than expected, and more. Terms get thrown around like “slacking”, “goofing off”, “coasting”, “cruising”, “staying under the radar”.

Avoiding Burnout Definition

For the second definition, you could interpret that to mean they still care about their job, but are more focussed on consistent performance over time; therefore Quiet Quitting doesn’t really apply.

Quitting at 5pm

I never know what is real or fake on the internet these days . I saw a post apparently from a CEO saying they have a group of colleagues that are good but refuse to do, or think about work after 5pm – so he was asking what can be done about it. It seems ridiculous to have the expectation that employees should want to work outside the terms you pay them for, but it does happen. I’ve had a manager say to me I was overlooked for a promotion because I never did overtime. Yet the reason was that I did my work during work hours, and it was others that were basically “quiet quitting”, then asking for more money to complete the tasks they were already paid to do.

Thinking about work 24/7 probably ain’t healthy, and I find you can be more productive by having free time. Working long hours one day, then being productive for the very next 9-5 day seems impossible to me. So what’s the point working longer to make up time, when you lose time the next day?

There’s been times I have worked hard and didn’t even get a rise to match inflation which is basically a paycut. I’ve then proceeded to do the bare minimum, even cut corners because I’m just doing the job they are paying me to do at the current rate. There’s no point maintaining performance “above and beyond” when they aren’t paying for that level.

Even though you could say your effort is an investment and you will be rewarded in future; in reality – it doesn’t always work that way. I wrote plenty of blogs about Derek who was clearly incompetent and was constantly slacking, often only working half the day – and he got promoted a couple of years before I did.

Creating Healthy Engagement

In recent years, the executives would use terms and phrases like “caring about employees”, “work life balance”, “mental health awareness”. But then when it comes down to it, it might not be reflected in all manager’s opinions.

Where I work, I don’t think it is actually bad – just the occasional moment, or occasional comment from certain managers, and often hints of payrises in the next quarter that never materialise.

I think some people just see the job as a means to earn money, and I’m not sure you can do that much to change their attitude.

Removing stressful elements, overtime culture, and trusting employees to do their jobs could create a culture of “healthy engagement”. If employees see a consistent approach in payrises and promotions, then that can also motivate people to engage and improve. If there’s not much incentive to grow your career from the job you have, then it’s more beneficial to “Quiet Quit” rather than perform high.

There’s going to be times where overtime is required when deadlines loom, or there is “Red Flag” and an urgent fix is required. But regardless of why the overtime is needed, it’s probably better just rewarding the employee with an extra day holiday. As discussed earlier, offering additional money rewards people that create the need for overtime.

References:

Spotify – https://hrblog.spotify.com/2022/09/22/how-to-fight-quiet-quitting-by-creating-healthy-engagement/

Joshua Fluke –

Manager feedback

When it comes to performance reviews, I find it hard to fill in the forms about myself, but it’s even harder to fill them about others. I often think you can write something to describe people’s general approach/attitude to work, and maybe point out a few strengths and weaknesses, but trying to answer specific and sometimes cryptic/ambiguous questions just frustrates me. I always think it should just be:

Strengths
Weaknesses
Other comments

But instead, last year we had to fill in the following about our manager. I think it was generally just scoring 1-5, but with optional comments to justify it. Some questions are easy to answer, but questions with nonsense buzz phrases like “change agent” and “builds internal networks” just frustrate me, and destroy the little enthusiasm I had for filling this in. I would have thought having fewer questions would mean people spend more time thinking about each one, and therefore get more accurate results and better comments.

Mary leads by example aligned to Our Values. Mary exemplifies values within their own teams and organisationally: Collaborative, Responsible, Supportive and Transformative
Mary is responsible for their team and takes accountability for delivery
Mary provides guidance and support in the setting of performance objectives at individual and group level
Mary manages performance of objectives (individual and group level) ensuring achievement of objectives through reviews
Mary builds an environment where people understand, and recognise, the contribution they make and how their role fits into the wider organisation and its performance
Mary is a change agent, leading change to ensure delivery through people with effective communication, support and results
Mary builds people knowledge and business understanding through regular communication with their people and teams
Mary engages with their team, encourages engagement amongst their team and cross-departmentally to drive solutions through collaboration
Mary builds internal networks to drive and collectively deliver through positive relationship-building and understanding
Mary embraces and encourages collaboration within their own team and between teams managing problems directly
Mary is aware of, and responsive to, the changing needs of their people (own team) and their wellbeing at work
Mary supports the engagement, retention and loyalty of key people as well as providing an environment where new people feel empowered and trusted
Mary is solutions-focused not problem-focused bringing all relevant parties together to deliver
Mary provides opportunity for all relevant parties to contribute, build and achieve collectively whether in their own teams or broader cross-department teamwork
What one thing is Mary doing that is having a positive impact on the team?
What one thing could Mary do to have a greater impact on the team?