The Evolution of Manual Testing Careers

🚫 Thinking of taking a Manual QA course in the U.S.? Please don’t. A few years ago, I would’ve told you Manual QA was the easiest path into tech for people without a computer science degree. I’ve supported many who took that route—and landed six-figure jobs quickly. But in today’s market, this is no longer a smart move. Don’t get me wrong—knowing how to test software is a valuable skill. I love it. Testing becomes a mindset. You start noticing issues everywhere—from the card reader at the grocery store to the check-in process at the airport. But here’s the truth: ❗ If all you know is manual testing, you will be left behind. The rise of AI-powered automation tools is changing everything. Hiring is down. Budgets are tight. Manual QA roles are being offshored. Companies are investing in AI-first testing platforms that reduce the need for manual intervention. So what should you do? ✅ If you're passionate about quality and want to break into tech: Pair your manual testing foundation with AI automation tools. Learn the tools. Understand the ecosystem. Show that you can evolve with the field. Or be prepared to face a much harder path. This isn't meant to discourage—it's meant to prepare. I want to see more people break into tech and thrive. But we can’t pretend the industry hasn’t changed. #CareerAdvice #QualityEngineering #ManualTesting #AIinQA #TestAutomation #BreakingIntoTech #JobSearch #AITools #QACommunity

Manual Testing: Automation and Renaming Just as AI systems demand rigorous manual experimentation and critical thinking, many testers are preoccupied with rebranding their profession rather than evolving it. The best testers are opting out of their core skillset and into areas where they are far less useful. The irony is striking. Traditional QA has long operated in the shadow of test automation, with managers consistently prioritizing automated testing. Yet AI is now rapidly transforming these automation roles — generating test scripts and even improving poorly written human code. The true value lies in test design and critical thinking, not in the mechanics of automation. Just looks at the latest announcements from the largest frontier AI models — they are building automation infrastructure to enable AI agents to interact with the realworld. Better automation frameworks than page object models crafted by a few testers in a cubicle somewere, or by a few volunteers working on selenium, are coming fast and they will be a commodity. Many manual testers are pursuing counterproductive paths: - Learning just enough programming to write subpar automation code - Missing the opportunity to develop crucial AI testing skills - Frankly enjoying the predictability and monoteny of regression testing - Focusing on tools rather than testing strategy, critical thinking and creativity Worse, many testers don’t seem to be doing much testing these days and like to focus on position themselves or renaming the profession. When simple concepts get rebranded with fancy names, it often signals a sales pitch rather than substance. Current antipatterns include: 1. The Testing Paradox: Many vocal figures in testing barely test real products or services. Instead, they:  — Focus on selling training  — Debate terminology  — Avoid hands-on testing work 2. AI Avoidance: At the precise moment when AI testing is most crucial:  — Testers aren’t learning how AI systems work  — Many avoid using AI in their own testing workflows  — Few are developing methods to test AI systems effectively  — Despite AI being more accessible than ever, many testers still operate as if you need a Phd in Computer Science to apply AI. The industry needs testers who will: - Embrace the challenge of testing AI systems - Focus on developing *real* critical thinking and experimental design skills - Lead the development of new testing methodologies - Actually test rather than just talk about testing The future of testing, software and AI, lies not in automation scripts but in sophisticated test design, critical analysis, and understanding how to evaluate increasingly complex AI systems. Next / Tomorrow: "Manual Testers Not owning Quality"

𝐐𝐀 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬: what will happen to manual testing? 🤔 With AI-driven tools and automation accelerating release cycles, many believe manual testing is becoming irrelevant. But… …what if ignoring it completely is leading to blind spots that automation alone can’t catch? Automated testing is essential—it speeds up regression testing, ensures consistency, and integrates seamlessly into CI/CD pipelines. But even the best automation can’t replace human intuition. Exploratory testing, usability testing, and complex edge cases require adaptability and real-world thinking that scripted tests simply don’t have. Automation thrives on efficiency, but it struggles with frequent UI changes, subjective user experiences, and unpredictable scenarios. Test scripts don’t notice when a workflow feels frustrating, and they won’t raise a red flag when something technically “works” but makes no sense to the end user. The smartest teams don’t see automation and manual testing as an either-or decision, they use both strategically. Automation does the heavy lifting while human testers bring creativity and context. The key is knowing when to automate and when manual testing is still critical. What do you think the future of manual testing will be? 🚀 #ManualTesting #TestAutomation #AITestingTools

Today, I had a 2-hour discussion with my direct reports, brainstorming the factors impacting the QA/Software Testing industry. We were trying to answer one critical question: “What happened all of a sudden to the QA industry, and are there any visible signs of recovery?” What we are experiencing now is unprecedented. It feels as though QA is no longer needed and this perception is rapidly becoming the norm. Interestingly, we didn’t witness this trend even during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic when budgets were drastically slashed across industries. So, what’s really happening? Let me try to summarize: 1. Increased Focus on Automation and AI - Many companies are rapidly replacing traditional QA roles with automation tools and AI-driven testing, believing this approach will reduce costs and accelerate release cycles. Manual testers are being cut drastically, replaced by SDETs, or worse — organizations are investing in overpromised AI tools that fail to match the expertise of the subject matter experts they’ve let go. 2. Budget Cuts and Cost Pressures - During times of economic uncertainty, QA budgets are often the first to be reduced. Many organizations still perceive QA as a cost center rather than a value-adding function, leading to decreased investment in testing processes, tools, and resources. This misperception has resulted in widespread layoffs in the QA sector. Just take a quick look on LinkedIn, you'll find countless experienced QA Engineers and Testers with the “Open to Work” tag. It’s a sad reality that underscores the impact of these budget cuts. 3. Shift in Mindset: "Developers Can Test" and "Business Users Can Test"- Another growing trend is the belief that “developers can test” or “business users can handle testing.” Many organizations now expect developers to take on testing responsibilities alongside their coding duties. While developers play a crucial role in unit testing and early-stage validations, expecting them to conduct comprehensive functional, regression, and exploratory testing is unrealistic — and often leads to poor-quality releases. Similarly, relying on business users to perform UAT (User Acceptance Testing) as the final quality gate often results in overlooked defects and incomplete coverage. This reality is often ignored because, in these scenarios, money talks — and sacrificing quality for cost savings becomes the norm. 4. Failure to Recognize QA as a Strategic Partner - Despite QA’s pivotal role in ensuring product quality and customer satisfaction, many organizations continue to see QA as a “checkpoint” rather than a strategic partner in the software development lifecycle. On a more optimistic note, as organizations increasingly integrate AI capabilities into their products, I strongly believe that they will eventually realize the importance of professional testing. When that time comes, the demand for seasoned QA professionals will resurge, restoring QA to its rightful place. Thoughts?