The Relationship Between Credibility and Influence And What This Means For Testers
For Testers, credibility and influence is a chicken and egg problem
Which one comes first? I'm thinking about this thanks to some timely and helpful feedback from my new pal, Iosif Itkin. In early September I created my first digital product The Credibility Playbook for Testers . Iosif bought a copy, went through it, and left me a thoughful review.
One of the things Iosif said, really got me thinking, and that's what this post is all about.
What Did Iosif Say?
Here's the part that caught my attention:
…the content focuses less on credibility itself and more on influence, interaction, communication, and relationship-building…
I'm glad to get this feedback — thanks Iosif 🙏🏾
For the record, I think he's right. I didn't do the best job connecting the concepts of credibility, influence, and sales to each other. I definitely mentioned some things, then didn't revisit them at all.
Let's see if I can clear that up!
What Credibility Do Testers Have?
We have a lot of credibility when it comes to testing.
And by testing, I specifically mean interacting with the product to look for bugs. Manual or automated, it doesn't matter. If we're producing tests, test cases, scripts, bug reports, etc, people are generally happy.
The trouble is, we evolve.
The Work Behind The Work
Looking for bugs is fun!
But it doesn't take long before we start to think to ourselves, "This would be easier if…
- creating data wasn't so hard
- the requirements were clearer
- the product was more testable"
And so on and so on.
We realise if we change that stuff, we'll supercharge our testing work!
But changing that stuff doesn't look like creating test cases. Or reporting bugs. Or writing GUI automation. It's a different kind of work altogether.
Luckily, it has a name already!
Getting Access To The Levers
To change the system, you need one of two things.
- The ability to change the system yourself
- The ability to get others to change it
In other words, you’re either empowered to pull the lever directly, or you’ve built enough trust and influence that others will pull it for you when you ask. Whichever path you take, that’s leadership: the ability to change systems, whether directly or through others.
One tiny snag… Testers rarely have formal authority, we rely on influence instead.
Join The Conversation
We want to amplify the things surrounding testing to get the maximum leverage.
- Creating data wouldn't be hard if you could access testing or prod environments yourself
- Requirements would be clearer if you could shape the discovery process to make it more inclusive
- The product would be more testable if it wasn't drowning in technical debt
But don't misunderstand me.
The issue isn't that those conversations aren't happening, because they are. Senior leadership from across the business discuss those things. Often!
The issue? You're not in the room!
And that's where the playbook comes in!
So how do we turn credibility born of testing into leadership credibility?
Credibility is about competence and trust. Influence is about impact and visibility. Meaning you need to make your competence and impact harder to ignore.
That's exactly what the playbook is for. Curious? Go grab a copy 😉