'Coaching' a test manager

[alreadypacked]

Yep; of course I was only asked this week to coach him, but the guy refused help when offered. I suppose it's an opportunity really, but I'd actually be happier if clientco were to see through him and dump him. Feel like by coaching him I'll be rescuing someone who'll just be a pain in the arse all along.

I would suggest

Never Wrestle with a Pig by Mark H McCormack

[Mich the Tester]

The problem with that approach is that it could back fire big time on MTT.
It would be on record that MTT has coached, the guy failed with his pitch and therefore MTT has done a rubbish job.

Yep; of course I was only asked this week to coach him, but the guy refused help when offered. I suppose it's an opportunity really, but I'd actually be happier if clientco were to see through him and dump him. Feel like by coaching him I'll be rescuing someone who'll just be a pain in the arse all along.

[Old Greg]

I've been in this exact same position and have the solution. Want a poll first.

[FiveTimes]

help him in a passive-aggressive way ie. find out everything he already 'knows' and coach him on what he doesn't - you'll probably find the bit you don't coach him on gets cocked up, then you can swoop in with your move to get rid - but you need to let him fail publicly with a full audit trail to show you did your best to help - also if you have the time knock up a plan for yourself and show them its work you can handle - getting rid to reduce headcount is more likely than getting rid cos he is incompetent...

The problem with that approach is that it could back fire big time on MTT.
It would be on record that MTT has coached, the guy failed with his pitch and therefore MTT has done a rubbish job.

[2BIT]

Playing with fire, may get your fingers burnt.

Also this kind of poltics, always invites more poltics, maybe not when you need it.

Karma.

whilst I agree I had a similar case with a completely incompetent test manager who was only introducing extra risk to the project, having spurred my offer to design some tests for him I let him carry on as is and well it all went tits up and he was removed from the project....

normally I wouldn't get involved but this guy was creating so much extra work for us that it needed to be done, ironic thing has had allowed me to design the tests for him he may not have failed so spectacularly... oh well good riddance!!

[alreadypacked]

help him in a passive-aggressive way ie. find out everything he already 'knows' and coach him on what he doesn't - you'll probably find the bit you don't coach him on gets cocked up, then you can swoop in with your move to get rid - but you need to let him fail publicly with a full audit trail to show you did your best to help - also if you have the time knock up a plan for yourself and show them its work you can handle - getting rid to reduce headcount is more likely than getting rid cos he is incompetent...

Playing with fire, may get your fingers burnt.

Also this kind of poltics, always invites more poltics, maybe not when you need it.

Karma.

[2BIT]

help him in a passive-aggressive way ie. find out everything he already 'knows' and coach him on what he doesn't - you'll probably find the bit you don't coach him on gets cocked up, then you can swoop in with your move to get rid - but you need to let him fail publicly with a full audit trail to show you did your best to help - also if you have the time knock up a plan for yourself and show them its work you can handle - getting rid to reduce headcount is more likely than getting rid cos he is incompetent...

[Mich the Tester]

I would go with the first one while quietly suggesting the second. It's better to appear to be magnanimous if angling for a move up the heirarchy IMO.

Yes indeed.

By the way, said prat is a contractor with the same agent as me. This is an agent who gets me into some seriously good roles without even needing an interview, so I want to maintain a good relationship with him and don't want the agent's good name (not an oxymoron in this case) damaged.

[doodab]

I would go with the first one while quietly suggesting the second. It's better to appear to be magnanimous if angling for a move up the heirarchy IMO.

[Mich the Tester]

Clientco asked me yesterday to 'coach' a test manager of another project (in the same programme) who has never done any test management before. He was supposed to deliver a complete test plan today, and has delivered a piece of tulip that's worse than useless. Now his 'plan' must be presented to CIO on tuesday. Thing is, the guy's been here for weeks, every time I've offered to help he's pretended he know what he's doing, and now he's getting the PM into tulip by not delivering the plan on time, so I have to sit with the guy all day monday to rewrite his plan from start to finish and provide a high level 'elevator pitch' that can be presented to the CIO by the PM. Personally I'm a bit peeved; I've offered to help every day and been told by the guy he needs no help. Now, just before the deadline I'm told the guy really needs some help with this. Do I;

- generously help the guy as part of my job to 'coach people', even though the prat has had plenty of chances to get my help and refused it at each time?

or

- demand that I now be made overall test manager for the whole programme on the rate that goes with it, so I can chuck out this incompetent fool? (my preference at the moment) Plus; advise clientco to only hire test managers with some experience of testing.

or

- throw him out of the window?

or

- any other suggestions?


No Poll coming because I can't be arsed to set one up.