Bxdty

I work as a software engineer of significant seniority at a software company. One of our customers is one that we have had for a very long time; a decade or more. They are very happy with us and our product, and we have a very productive working relationship with them.

Recently, work assignments among our team have shifted significantly due to an increase in work that needs to be done. As a result, I was given this project as the engineer who was previously on it was assigned to another project. A few months after this happened, I was assigned to another project as well, and development on project became the responsibility of a new employee, who we will call Alice. Alice is a new hire, but has previous experience as a software engineer; I show Alice the ropes and provide guidance on what she should do, but I am not her manager. At the same time, the Quality Assurance tester for this project also changed, from the previous tester to Bob, who is the most junior tester on our team but has worked here for 2 years.

The latest release for this customer went poorly; the software had many more bugs in it than is typical. Some parts of it did not even work at all. There are several reasons for that, but to me it appears as though Bob did not do the required quality assurance testing, and that Alice may not have been able to realize that is the case because of her inexperience with our team. Bob claimed that he did not know what testing was required, yet I know with certainty that Alice and several of the engineers who were previously involved with the project sent Bob very detailed notes on what must be tested and what the expected results of the testing are.

Since then, Alice and Bob have worked together on a few more releases for this customer and one release for another customer, and I have worked directly with Bob on several releases for other customers. I am convinced that Bob does not actually do the required testing and that he deliberately misleads the rest of the team about the progress of testing and the thoroughness of what is tested. Based on comments I have heard him make, I think this is because he simply does not care to do his job properly.

Alice, Bob, and I report directly to Charlene. I have expressed my concerns about Bob to Charlene. Charlene is of the opinion that Bob is merely young, that this is his first job out of college, and that this is something he will basically grow out of. I think Charlene is incorrect, and even though it is true that Bob is young, he has worked here for 2 years and cannot complete simple tasks that new hires of similar background now do with no trouble at all. If Charlene is acting on this feedback, I do not know about it (nor would I typically expect to). I know other employees have complained about Bob to Charlene.

Charlene reports to David, who reports directly to the CEO. David had a meeting with me and Charlene to plan future work for the customer who had the especially bad release. As of now, it is expected that Alice and Bob will work on this again, and I may or may not work on it also depending on what the situation is when this work starts. As part of this meeting, David asked me directly if there were any problems with staffing on this project. I repeated the assessment that Charlene and I both agree on, that the problems were caused by relatively inexperienced people taking over the project from relatively experienced people, but I did not state my reservations about Bob that I believe Charlene does not share. I was not comfortable disagreeing with Charlene in front of David.

Did I do the correct thing by not disagreeing with Charlene in front of David? If so, why? If not why not?

In general, how should I handle potential disagreements of this type in the future?

I think you should have been honest with David.

You stated he asked you directly. That means he wanted your assessment, not Charlene's. After all he could have also asked Charlene directly.

However, you don't have to throw Charlene under the bus to do it. Stick to the facts and let David make a decision.

Well David, Bob did not perform well when testing on Project X. He
failed to identify key testable functionality before we delivered
Project X to the customer. In the interest of ensuring new Project Y
doesn't have the same issues, I think we might want to pair him with
someone more experienced or increase the lead time so I can spot
check some of his work or ...(whatever you think should be done)

I don't think it would have gone well if you tried to undermine Charlene by undermining Bob. In my opinion the only one who would look bad in that situation is you.

If you believe that Bob is not up to the task alone (and as a person early in his career he quite possibly isn't) then a more constructive way of addressing this might be discussing the team structure and processes rather than the individuals in the team.

For example it sounds like you have one junior person responsible for all testing and test sign-off, with no assistance or oversight. A way to improve quality might be to suggest that a second, more experienced, person review the tests and test evidence. This would give Bob an opportunity to improve by learning from someone more senior, and give you, Charlene, and David more confidence that the testing tasks are being completed appropriately. Two pairs of eyes will catch more things than one pair will as well, allowing your team to fix issues before they turn into problems that are visible to your customer.

By informing your direct supervisor "Charlene" of your concerns about the quality of "Bob"'s work, you have done your professional duty. By answering "David"'s questions about staffing honestly, you have done your duty there as well.

Keep this in mind: when supervisors are confronted with negative information about an employee, they don't smack their foreheads and say "you're right! He's a lazy idiot! I'll sack him now!" They need time to think it over. If they take some sort of remedial action, they need to keep it confidential.

"David" asked you about the staffing situation. That probably means "Charlene" has had more than one conversation with him about the situation already.

You're right to be worried about satisfying this customer, but dealing with the people problem is above your pay grade (for now). Let "David" and "Charlene" handle it.