The way software testing as a job is formally described is to provide information to decisionmakers so that they can make better decisions. Testers are fundamentally adversarial as they are essentially an auditor sent by management to evaluate whether the product an internal team produces is worth buying.
Things don't usually work out this way. The job is actually quite different in practice from it's (aspirational) self-image. It turns out that the reason testers are not paid well and generally looked down upon in the industry is because of this reality. This is due primarily to the organizational realities of the modern corporation, and is reinforced by various macroeconomic and policy factors. Most of these situational realities are ultimately caused by deeply ingrained emotional needs of our species.
Adversarial processes are not morally or ethically wrong. It is in fact quite useful to take an adversarial approach. For example, AI researchers have found that the only reliable process to distinguish lies from truth in a dataset is precisely through adversarial procedure. However, the usefulness of an adversarial approach is compromised when a conflict of interests exists. This is why Judges recuse themselves from trials in which they even have the appearance of outcome dependence in.
Herein lies the rub. Modern software firms tend to be a paranoid lot, as their (generally untalented and ignorant) management don't understand their software is in no way unique. They seem to act like gluing together 80% open source components is somehow innovation rather than obvious ideas with good marketing. In any case, because of this paranoia they don't want to expose their pile of "innovation" and it's associated dirty laundry to the general public via leaks and so forth. They mistakenly believe that they can secure this most reliably with direct employment of testers rather than being careful with their contractors.
This forgets that the individual employee usually has nothing whatsoever that could be meaningfully recovered in the event of such a breach, and is practically never bonded against this. On the other hand, a contracting business stakes everything on their professionalism and adherence to contract and have far more to lose than a tester paid peanuts. This lead me to the inescapable conclusion: The incentives encouraged for the vast majority of employed testers are the opposite of what is required to achieve the QA mission.
It turns out this happens for the same reason that Judges (paid by the state) don't recuse them from judgement in cases wheir their employer is the defendant or prosecutor. Because the job is not actually what it is claimed to be.
As if to rub this cognitive dissonance further in the face of the tester, modern organizations tend to break into "teams" and adopt methodologies such as scrum to tightly integrate the product lifecycle. Which means you as a tester now have to show solidarity and be a team player who builds others up instead of tearing down their work. To not do so is to risk being considered toxic.
The only way to actually do this is to prevent issues before they happen, which to be entirely fair is the cheapest point to do so. The problem of course with this is that it means in practice the programmer is basically doing Extreme Programming and riding shotgun with a tester. If the tester actually can do this without making the programmer want to strangle them, this means the tester has to understand programming quite well themselves. Which begs the question as to why they are wasting time making peanuts testing software instead of writing execrable piles of it. I've been there, and chose to write and make more every single time.
Everyone who remains a tester but not programmer is forced to wait until code is committed and pushed to begin testing. At that point it's too late from an emotional point of view; it's literally in the word -- commitment means they've emotionally invested in the code. So now the tester is the "bad guy" slipping schedule and being a cost center rather than the helper of the team. That is, unless the tester does something other than invalidate (mistaken) assumptions about the work product's fitness for purpose. Namely, they start validating the work product (and the team members personally by extension), emphasizing what passed rather than failed.
This is only the beginning of the emotional nonsense getting in the way of proper testing. Regardless of whether the customer wants "Mr. Right" or "Mr. Right Now", firms and their employees tend to have an aspirational self-image that they are making the best widget. The customer's reality is usually some variant of "yeah, it's junk but it does X I want at the price I want and nobody else does". I can count on one hand the software packages that I can say without qualification are superior to their competition, and chances are good that "you ain't it".
Neverthless, this results in a level of "Quality theatre" where a great deal more scrutiny and rigor is requested than is required for proper and prompt decisionmaking. This is not opposed by most QAs, as they don't see beyond their own corn-pone. However, this means that some things which require greater scrutiny will not recieve them, as resources are scarce.
Many testers also fall into this validation trap, and provide details which management regards as unimportant (but that the tester considers important). This causes managers to tune out, helping no one. This gets especially pernicious when dealing with those incapable of understanding second and third order effects, especially when these may lead to material harm to customers. When time is a critical factor it can be extremely frustrating to explain such things to people. So much so that sometimes you just gotta say It's got electrolytes.
Sometimes the business model depends on the management not understanding such harms. At some point you will have to decide whether your professional dignity is more important than your corn pone, as touching such topics is a third rail I and others have been fried on. I always choose dignity for the simple reason that customers who expose themselves to such harms willingly tend to be ignorant. Stupid customers don't have any money.
It's all these emotional pitfalls that explain why testers still cling to the description of their job as providing actionable information to decisionmakers. The only way to maintain your professional dignity in an environment where you can do everything right but still have it all go wrong is to divorce yourself from outcomes. Pearl divers don't really care if they sell to swine, you know?
Speaking of things outside of your control and higher-order effects, there are also market realities which must guide the tester as to what decisionmakers want to know, but will never tell you to look for. Traditionally this was done by business analysts who would analyze the competitve landscape in cooperation with testers, but that sounds a bit too IBM to most people so they don't do it. As such this is yet another task which it turns out you as a tester have to do more often than not. It is because of this that I developed a keen interest in business analysis and Economics.
The Iron Law of Project Management states that you have to pick two of three from:
That said the people who want to hire testers are looking to transition from fast/cheap to fast/well by throwing money at the problem. This tends to run into trouble in practice, as many firms transition into competing based on quality too early, eating the margins beyond what the market and investors will bear.
The primary reasons for these malinvestments are interest rate suppression and corrupt units of account being the norm in developed economies. This sends false signals to management as to the desirability of investing in quality, which are then reinforced by the emotional factors mentioned earlier. Something will have to give eventually in such a situation and by and large it's been tester salaries, as with all other jobs that are amenable to outsourcing to low-cost jurisdictions. Many times firms have a bad experience outsourcing, and this is because they don't transfer product and business expertise to the testers they contract with first. There is no magic bullet there, it's gotta be sour mash to some degree. Expertise and tradition take people and time to build.
Also, price is subjective and it's discovery is in many ways a mystical experience clouded by incomplete knowledge in the first place. It should be unsurprising that prices are subjective given quality itself is an ordinal and not cardinal concept. The primary means by which price is discovered is customer evaluation of a product and its seller's qualitative attributes versus how much both parties value the payment.
This ultimately means that to be an effective tester, you have to think like the customer and the entrepeneur. Being able to see an issue from multiple perspectives is very important to writing useful reports. This is yet another reason to avoid getting "too friendly with the natives" in your software development organization.
Speaking of mystical experiences, why do we care about quality at all? Quality is an important component of a brand's prestige, which is the primary subjective evaluation criteria for products. Many times there are sub-optimal things which can be done right, but only at prohibitive costs. Only luxury brands even dare to attempt these things.
Those of us mere mortals will have to settle for magic. In the field of Carpentry there's an old adage "If you can't conceal it, reveal it. Perfect joinery of trim to things like doorframes is not actually possible because wood doesn't work that way. So instead you offset it a bit. This allows light and shadow to play off it, turning a defect into decoration.
The best way to describe this in software terms is the load bearing bug. Any time you touch things for which customer expectations have solidified, even to fix something bad, expect to actually make it worse. This is because nobody ever reads change logs, much less writes them correctly. You generally end up in situations where data loss happens because something which used to hold up the process at a pain point has now been shaved off without the mitigant being updated. Many times this just means an error now sails through totally undetected, causing damage.
These higher-order effects mean in general that "fixing it" is many times not the right answer. Like with carpentry you have to figure out a way to build atop a flawed reality to result in a better finished product. This eventually results in large inefficiencies in software ecosystems and is a necessary business reality. The only way to avoid this requires great care and cleverness with design which many times is simply not feasible in the time allotted.
Assisting in the identification of these sort of factors is a large part of "finding bugs before they happen" especially in the maintenance cycle. It's also key to the brand, as quality is really just a proxy for competence. Pushing fixes that break other things does not build such a reputation, and should not be recommended save in the situation where data loss and damage is the alternative.
The only way to actually have this competence is to not have high turnover in your test and development department. Unfortunately, the going rate for testers makes the likelihood that skilled testers stick around quite low.
I have spoken at length about the difference between Process and Mission-Driven organizations. To summarize, Mission-driven organizations tend to emphasize accomplishment over how it is achieved, while process oriented organizations do the opposite. Mission driven organizations tend to be the most effective, but can also do great evil in being sloppy with their chosen means. Process driven organizations tend to be the most stable, but also forget their purpose and do great evil by crowding out innovation. What seems to work best is process at the tactical level, but mission at the strategic and operational/logistical level.
The in-practice organizational structure of the firm largely determines whether they embrace process or mission at scales in which this is inappropriate. Generally, strong top-down authority will result in far more mission focus, while bottom-up consensus-based authority tends to result in process focus. Modern bureaucracies and public firms tend to be the latter, while private firms and startups tend to be the former. This transition from mission to process focus at the strategic and operational level is generally a coping mechanism for scaling past dunbar's number.
In the grips of this transformation is usually when "middle management" and "human resources" personell are picked up by a firm. Authority over the worker is separated from authority over product outcomes, leading to perverse incentives and unclear loyalties. As a QA engineer, it is unclear who truly has the final say (and thus should recieve your information). Furthermore, it is not clear to the management either, and jockeying for relative authority is common.
The practical outcome of both this is that it's not clear who is the wringable neck for any given project. The personell manager will generally be unininterested in the details beyond "go or no go", as to go any further might result in them taking on responsibility which is not really theirs. Meanwhile, the project manager will not have the authority to make things happen, and so you can tell them everything they should know but it will have no practical impact. As such, the critical decisionmaking loop of which QA is a critical component is broken, and accomplishing the mission is no longer possible. The situation degenerates into mere quality control (following procedure), as that's the only thing left that can be done. For more information on this subject, consider the 1988 book "Moral Mazes: The world of corporate managers".
To actually soldier on and try to make it work simply means the QA is placing responsibility for the project upon their own head with no real authority over whether it succeeds or fails. Only a lunatic with no instinct for self-preservation would continue doing this for long (ask me how I know!), and truly pathological solutions to organizational problems result from this. It's rare to see an organization recognize this and allow QA to "be the bad guy" here as a sort of kayfabe to cope with this organizational reality. IBM was one of the first to do it, and many other organizations have done it since; this is most common amongst the security testing field. The only other (pathological) thing that works looks so much like a guerrilla insurgency for quality that it inevitably disturbs the management to the point that heads roll.
Ultimately, integrating test too tightly with development is a mistake. Rather than try to shoehorn a job which must at some level be invalidational and adversarial into a team-based process, a more arms-length relationship is warranted.
Testing is actually the easy part. Making any of it matter is the hard part.