Hello, Habr! My name is Zhenia. Ten years ago I started an outsourcing testing agency "Quotations". In our company, there is no and never has been a division of testers into Juns, Middle and Seniors. Although there were attempts. I'll tell you why it happened and how you can live without grades.
Spoiler alert: to live is not to grieve
Disclaimer
Many IT companies use grades (they are also gradations, ranks, classifications, etc.) - this is a way of finding, evaluating and motivating people. Ok, the system looks pretty logical. If you are middle - you should know this, be able to do this, and your salary fork is like this. And everyone would be happy if it really worked.
Even at the start, I realized that in my company it will not grow together with grades. No matter how much I came across this, they did not turn out to be something intelligible, except as a line on the resume. It is still worth making a small note here: we are engaged in outsourcing testing and work with different projects. In our case, grading turned out to be useless. Perhaps for companies that develop only their own product with the help of an internal team, this story will work.
Whether to introduce grades or abandon them - everyone decides for himself. I was convinced from personal experience that without them you can develop and grow steeply. And I want to tell you how to build teamwork without grades and what to expect from this. If my experience is useful to someone - great. For this I write. If not, that's fine too.
Where foot Grady grow or slightly lyrics
By the 20th century, corporations had become more interested in effective team management. At that time, there was no single and clear scheme of how to determine the relationship between the value that an employee brings to the company and his salary. There was such a psychologist and the owner of a consulting company - Edward Hay. When he once again assessed the client's employees, his bright mind came up with the idea to develop a methodology to calculate these indicators.
Incomprehensible schema or lookup table example (by Hay Job Evaluation and Profile Method)
This is a point-factor system for evaluating posts in the form of tables. All job requirements are divided into factors and measurable parameters. Points are assigned for each parameter. The more points, the higher the grade and salary. This is, if short, and if not short - you can read, for example, here . Over time, from Hay's method (popularly called the salaryanometer), similar methods began to grow and adapt to different types of companies.
In IT, the grading system, according to the classics, consists of a three-tier model - June, Middle and Senior. True, there are also more confused options: junior +, middle +, middle ++ - for noble adherents of grades. Companies often form the required listskills and adjust the grades for themselves. As a result, there are many Juns, Middle and Seniors on the market, but they are all different. And because of this, there are requests for a grade + or ++. Because hell, you can evaluate a specialist exactly in the specified framework. And this is where Ad and Israel begins.
What's wrong with the grades
The first thing I understood is that they don't exist
When I started hiring guys in the state, I was increasingly faced with the same situation. A person with extensive experience comes to the interview - in the last place he was in the position of "senior". He wants a high salary for his work, because he is a senior. Then I ask him to tell me why he wants that kind of money, what can he do? As a result, I realize that I know a lot more, but I work for less money. And at that time I had little experience - about 5 years. Then who am I if I have more knowledge than the senior in testing? Maybe a fool who sells himself cheaply? Or, it turns out that objective gradation simply does not exist for me. Perhaps the level of "senior" should be determined by the fact that a person can solve any problem, because he not only has experience, but also a mindset for solving problems. Let's take a look at this below.
But I'm middle ... or not?
There is another pain with these classifications. Testers in the positions of "junior", "middle", "senior", working in the same company, as a rule, sit on one product. It is difficult to develop versatile skills within the framework of one product. If a tester works with an application only on a desktop, then he is tailored for testing this application. And yes, maybe he is very good in this area - he knows tools, approaches, how to check performance, etc. But if you need to do the same on the web or in a mobile application, it will hurt. Because there is no knowledge about the web, about mobile, about client-server architecture, etc. So who is he then? June?
What we get:
- The grading system is inflexible and biased
Some companies form their own requirements for each grade level. But this system only works within this company and for a specific product. And besides, you must agree that the requirement for solving problems is very vague.
- Grade says nothing about the current level of knowledge
A senior may try to get a job in another place with more complex projects, but will not even make it to June. Because he doesn't have the right skills.
- Grades limit
Companies often use this system to tie salaries to grade and seniority. And thus they restrict a person. To move to a new level, the piggy bank must have a certain length of service. Sit and wait. But does the number of years determine the level of knowledge?
- Grades confuse everyone
When looking for a job, many people consciously choose vacancies not according to the level of knowledge and skills, but according to the size of the salary, which, as it were, corresponds to their grade. Bottom line: both sides are disappointed.
Ok, then how to rate the work
Well, we have given up the grades, what next? If you work according to the model of providing outsourcing services, then there is no point in tying salary to rank and length of service. Because projects with different levels of complexity come to the company, and working on them requires a constant upgrade of skills. Here it is more logical to look at what tasks an employee can take on and how much money he will bring to the company.
What parameters should be used to evaluate an employee:
- the number of tasks he can take on;
- the level of complexity, uncertainty and cost of these tasks;
- demand for the skills that he owns;
- the total profit of the company.
How it works for us: we provide the client with a team of testers for the project. Therefore, during the interview, we look at the skills of a tester and compare on which projects we can apply them and for which tasks. We have a salary range, in the context of which we are ready to discuss the salary. In this range, we determine the fix depending on the projects on which the tester can work.
If a person comes to us with good knowledge, and we understand that we can apply them to the maximum, the salary will be high. But if a middle or senior comes to us, and his knowledge completes tasks for 40 thousand rubles, then the salary will be appropriate. Because you have to invest time and effort in its training.
What about motivation and growth
A company that does not tie salary to position and seniority provides a lot of room for development. If you want to grow and earn more, everything is in your hands: study, take on new projects, work on complex tasks. For example, if our testers want to raise the salary, then we discuss with everyone: what project to go to for this, what tasks to take, what to learn.
For this approach to work, you need to create all the conditions for this. At the very least, it is strange, without offering any opportunities, to expect everyone to rush to expensive courses. The company must have a clear relationship between growth points and opportunities for this:
- To increase your salary, you need to constantly learn, upgrade your skills.
To do this, the company must help its employees - conduct internal training and pay for courses, certifications, trainings.
- To increase the salary, it should be possible to take on a new project or more complex.
It is important to form transparent communication within the company so that each employee can speak openly about their career expectations and new projects.
A person studies, switches to another project, or takes another project, because in the past he has adjusted everything so well that his presence there is required in a smaller volume, and his salary grows with him. It's much better and more interesting than sitting, counting experience, passing tests for professional aptitude and knowledge, which you will never use later. Or completely lose interest in the profession, focusing on one project. And while working hard on one project, hitting the ceiling, people will leave the company.
Somehow everything is too beautiful, where is the pain
Of course, everything is not so cloudless. Sometimes there is a conflict of interest, because this approach is not for everyone. Some employees simply do not take root in the company because they do not understand how to move. If you decide to get away from gradations, be prepared for this.
It is difficult for someone to work without understanding what grade they have. Without clear instructions on what to do; how much work to get to the next level. And there is nothing wrong with that - this type of thinking. But I'm sure that without grading, both the company and the employees can achieve better results than with it. Because this approach attracts goal-oriented and free-thinking people to the team. And they are ready to act without any instructions or framework. By the way, there is an interesting study on this topic.what awaits a company that will abandon a rigid hierarchy and gradation. Returning to the conflict of interest, I see only two solutions: either to find a compromise and growth points with the help of new projects and tasks, or to say goodbye. To each his own.
What else is important or a story about show-off
It may seem that without grades, there is no transparency in growth. I think this is the very system that hinders growth. We are not tied to our rank, title and other "show-off" - this gives us an incentive to develop and grow in our knowledge. We do not think what we have achieved. We are looking for something else to learn. I came across a story when a person with a high grade believed that there was nowhere to develop, because he was already handsome.
"Said a, say b." Okay, here's a story from life:
At a testing conference I met a senior. Throughout the conversation, he bent his fingers, telling how cool he was, how he lifted something on Linux.
"Well, okay, can you do this on Windows?" I asked.
"No, Windows is shit."
"Well, wait, and if the task is such, what will you do?" - I did not calm down.
"I will do it on Linux."
The curtain.
Well, here's how to work with a person who will only do what he likes? How will he develop and learn something new? What difference does it make to me whether he is a senior or not a senior if he cannot do what the project needs?
The profession of a tester is not a profession that is determined by a grade. And in general, IT professions cannot be assessed only within the framework of the position and experience. Our work is determined by knowledge and constant desire to move forward. You need to have a broad outlook, be interested in everything: from behavioral psychology of the user to development. Every year projects become more complicated and require new skills and knowledge. And in this situation, to rest on the fact that you have achieved everything and nothing else is needed is to choose a path to nowhere.