On Motivation, part 1

I recently wandered into a neighborhood coffee shop for a little defocusing - and some of their Kenyan roast coffee and a fresh scone. While in line to place my order, my friend the unicorn walked in.

We had not intended to meet, it was just a happy chance. We sat down with our respective coffee and began talking. As happens sometimes, the 'catching up' developed into talking about something of interest. In this case, we found ourselves talking about motivation. We quickly set aside the stuff about "motivating people" and turned to forms of motivation - what motivates, maybe inspires, people to do work.

Most technical people we know who seek advancement and promotion into leadership or management positions fall into a few groups. Now, this isn't a terribly scientific study, just what the unicorn and I have seen.

There are the folks who really don't want to manage people and like having their hands dirty - they like the technical challenges that come with bigger titles and pay-grades.

Then there is the other major group - They want to lead beyond a technical perspective. They want to be "in charge"

The first type - These are the same type you find in very technical enlisted roles in the military - they soar through ranks at lightning speed. They display astounding prowess at tasks that others cannot comprehend. They show others how to do things, then dive in next to them in the doing - teaching their juniors what they are doing, how and why. They leave officers shaking their heads at how astoundingly well they do their jobs.

Until they get to the level where they "supervise" others. Then they don't get to do what they really like doing. Then they watch other people do what they want to be doing. And the longer they are in, the higher the rank they achieve and the further they get from doing what they truly want to do. So they leave - they don't reenlist.

In Corporate-Land, these same people, if they get assigned or promoted beyond "getting their hands dirty" and doing what they like doing, tend to resign and take another job. 

The second type - These are the folks who want to get into "leadership" positions. They are the movers and shakers and the up-and-comers in the organization.

Some folks have a negative view of everyone who is in this second, broad group. Neither the unicorn nor I can really fault people for having ambitions or desires. Nor could we really find fault with people wanting to get ahead and move up the ladder.

After all, if they are reasonably competent in technical roles, maybe - just maybe - they will remember what it was like in those roles as they move up in the organization chart.

For me, when dealing with managers or directors or other boss-types, I find it helpful if they have some appreciation of the challenges of the work done by technical folks, be it developers, DBAs, testers, whatever. While they may not be able to help from a technical perspective, they may be able to offer assistance in other ways, for example, running interference with other, less technical managers or functionaries.

People growing into roles that challenge them is an excellent thing. It is a desirable thing in my mind. Granted, the roles I have moved into have not been management ones. My forays into management have convinced me that I do not have the right "makeup" for managing others.

I salute those who do have that makeup and make full use of it. Indeed, I salute those managers who are motivated to manage others well, and help those they manage discover what it is that motivates them.

A third type - These folks who want to get into "leadership" positions for reasons I find to be less than honorable. Maybe you have heard that "Power Corrupts." I find the question of why one seeks power to perhaps shine a light on just how true that is, or is not.

Some people have something less than altruistic motives. Some desire high rank for achieving their own ends - their own self-aggrandizement. In these instances, I suspect the corruption has already occurred - and the quest for power is, in fact, the motivation.

The unicorn blinked at me.

He said something to the effect that people have their own motivations. He chuckled (a scary sound, frankly) at the thought that some of these sounded like Death Eaters. I did stop a moment and consider.

I was reminded that individual people are motivated by different things and these generally are internal to each of them. Their motivation drives their choices and how they work, just as mine do.

I can accept or reject those motivations and actions based on my values and what I hold important.  I can also choose to not associate with those whom I find I can not support.

On Service, Servants and Software

A few weeks ago, I was having a glass of wine with a couple of colleagues one evening discussing the role of Software Testers in developing good and well-performing software. There were some of the oft-stated lines about "not running the project" and "not owning quality" and "you can't test quality in" and so forth. We dismissed them as trite and irrelevant.

Where we landed was:

Software Testers serve the needs of the project and support other participants and stakeholders.

This brought up ideas around how the above can be interpreted. One person made an observation of a distinction between "service and servants" - one apparently triggered by something he heard or read and could not recall the source.

This sent us into the question of what "service" meant. Being who we were, we wandered off to distant times to discuss this idea. Of old, the Samurai of Japan were in service to others - at least in theory. In Europe, knights held their position through service to their lords. In both cases, it was possible to lose one's station - that bit often gets left out of the romantic stories. The romantic stories tend to overlook some parts and emphasize others. Reality was never as neat and tidy as stories, books and movies would have it.

Still, we looked at the idea of serving others.

Testers are in service to others. 

Then again, software developers are also in service to others. As are others in the various roles around software development. As are those whom we develop software for. The needs being addressed usually are problems that need to be addressed to support those whom they, in turn, serve.

People serve people who serve people.

Most folks, in their working life, serve someone else. We don't want to admit it, but unless we who are paying others - who serves whom? How do we get the money we earn?

The simple fact is, being in service and serving others are closely linked. I find people who object to being "servants" are people I cannot completely understand. When they object to being "servants" I look to see how they treat those who serve them.

It dawned on me in that discussion that there was much some people could learn about service, servants and servitude from people who are in service. Most Americans don't really know what that means or entails, to be "in service."

Perhaps that is part of the problem.

Some people see people who serve others as some form of lower life than they are. They have adopted a Victorian or Edwardian view of "station in life" - maybe they watched too many episodes of "Upstairs/Downstairs" or "Downton Abbey."

They see the films or shows where the household staff (servants) turn and face the wall when the family in the house, the ones they are "in service" to, pass them in the hall or stairway.

So now these folks treat waitstaff at restaurants as inferiors. They also tend to look down on hotel staff, flight attendants, sales clerks, construction workers, the simple minded, physically (and mentally or emotionally) handicapped, emotionally damaged, traffic cops, TSA agents, teachers, administrative assistants, clerical staff, med techs, nursing assistants, gardeners, Mexicans, Asians, Indians, or any other they see as beneath them.

I suspect, when one has such a superior opinion of themselves and a low opinion on lesser beings, that it is easy to look down on others - that the thought of being looked down on by others is repugnant.

If we, as testers, serve others, does that make us lesser beings?

Does that make us inferior?

Hardly - unless your ego is so fragile that it can't handle the simple idea stated above.

I've been in software for longer than some folks with such attitudes. I know as a developer, business analyst, project manager or software tester, my role exists so I can be of service to... someone else.

As a person in software development, I am a servant to a broader purpose. My purpose is to aid the project, make the software better, and by extension, make the company better.

Yes, Testers provide a service.

We are in service.

We are servants.

We serve for the betterment of our organizations, our craft and ourselves.

We are second to none.