I have been interviewing people for many years, in fact, my last position, most of the other managers would make sure that I was part of the interviewing process for their groups. I think more important than the present credentials (though that is important) the candidates attitude about continuous improvement and constant learning. To uncover this requires a certain line of questioning. Also, when it comes to testers, in my opinion, you must have people that are hardcore fact based. We need to know "the truth" and not have a bunch of sugar coating or political intrigue associated with the fault reporting. The manager of the test group will likely require some political tact, but at the core, a true accounting of what is witnessed must be articulated as clearly as possible. Then again, these perspectives from working on automotive applications wherein a software problem in the system may cause great harm to the driver, other drivers and pedestrians. To that end, the tester must be able to hold a strong conviction - be brave. It is not about being offensive, it is about standing your ground. It is no offensive, just factual, and tell it like it is without personal attacks.

This may be a difficult road to walk - to clearly tell it like it is. I find I could easily keep the relationships with the developers - after all, that is why we test, to find defects/ bugs and other things and keep that from impacting our customer. Management on the other hand, sometimes likes to hide things, cover up, obfuscate, make look like something other than it is. There is where I have had my strongest disagreements - and must work diligently at maintaining the relationship while being clear on the level of risk or uncertainty or the impact of the defect on the entire system and the customer.

We are all working to identify the risk. We would not want a risk come to fruition, hit the customer where the customer requires redress If we are going to make a risk reward decision, we should understand the risk, along with the reward.