A lot of companies are trying to invest in Quality Engineering right now, especially in the AI era where shipping is faster and messier.
The intent is right. The execution is where things break.
They open a req for a “QA Manager” like that title means something universal. It does not.
And increasingly, there is a noticeable gap between what is posted and what is actually required when you step into the role.
Because most of these companies are not ready to hire just one QA leader to “run quality.”
They are actually trying to install a quality function that does not exist yet.
Which means what they really need is not always just a hire but someone who can come in and audit of the system first.
To understand what is actually happening behind these QA Manager hires, I spoke with Razeen Ahmad, an engineering leader who has built quality functions from scratch across multiple startups and stages.
Companies do not actually know what they are hiring for
There are two common modes when companies bring in their first QA hire.
1. Too early, no definition of the problem yet
In one case, Razeen was brought in before there was even a product to test. No software engineers. Only ML engineers. No clear expectations of what QA should do.
So the role expanded naturally into everything adjacent to “quality.”
- product conversations
- tooling decisions
- Jira and Atlassian setup
- sprint structure
- release coordination
It was not QA anymore. It was operational infrastructure.
Not because that was the job description, but because the company had not defined what quality meant yet.
They knew they needed something. They just did not know what.
2. Too late, culture already locked in
At another company with 150 plus employees, QA was introduced into an engineering culture already running on a “ship fast, test later” mindset.
Engineers tested their own code. Releases moved the same day. There were no real quality gates.
So QA was not building systems.
It was negotiating for them.
Every improvement such as test coverage, process, and release controls created friction against a system that people didn’t want to change.
That is the difference timing makes. Early QA shapes the system. Late QA fights it.
The real insight, most companies need an audit
This is the part that rarely gets said clearly in job descriptions.
A single “QA Manager” hire is often being used to solve three different problems at once.
- Architect who designs the quality strategy and system from scratch
- IC or doer who writes tests and builds coverage
- Change agent who drives engineering alignment and buy-in
In startups especially, those are not always listed as separate roles. They collapse into one req. And that can be a challenge.
Because no matter how strong the candidate is, you are asking one person to diagnose the system, design the system, implement the system, and politically align the system.
That is not a job description. That is a transformation mandate and you need to be clear about the business outcomes before you take that req to market.
Why recruiters struggle with this req
This is where most recruiting processes break down.
A “QA Manager” title looks standardized on paper. But in reality it can mean:
- We have no QA function at all
- We have QA but it is broken
- We need someone to manage contractors
- We need release stability immediately
- We need engineering to slow down without slowing down
Those are not interchangeable problems.
But they get funneled into the same search.
So recruiters end up vetting candidates against a fake consistency that does not exist in the org.
The companies that get it right start with clarity, not hiring
In one example, a company was explicit about the problem.
- QA contractor team was not performing
- Bugs in production
- they needed someone to own outcomes, not just tasks
That clarity changed everything.
Razeen came in, audited the system, and made a hard call.
The existing structure was not salvageable. They rebuilt.
That is what happens when the problem is defined correctly.
Not “we need a QA Manager.”
But “here is what is broken, fix it.”
What actually predicts success in QA leadership hires
Across these scenarios, one pattern shows up consistently.
Technical ability is necessary, but not differentiating.
What actually matters is:
- comfort with ambiguity
- ability to operate without structure
- proactive communication
- willingness to challenge process and politics
- ability to translate engineering pain into systems
One hire can be technically strong and still fail in three weeks if they cannot operate in chaos.
Another can be imperfect technically and succeed long term because they can build trust and structure in parallel.
How recruiters should actually be approaching this
The biggest shift needed is not sourcing better candidates.
It is bringing the human back into hiring.
A lot of QA leadership hiring breaks down when it becomes procedural instead of conversational. Recruiters rely on structured questions and predefined signals for roles that are anything but structured in reality.
But what came through clearly in this conversation is that the real signal is curiosity.
Not just curiosity about a candidate’s skill set, but about their actual story.
Instead of treating a resume as a checklist, the job is to actually engage with it.
Ask specific questions that only make sense in the context of their experience:
What was the bug you were most proud of finding in this role?
What is a moment where you had to push engineering or product to change direction, and what specifically did you do?
What do you actually enjoy about testing when no one is asking you to do it?
These are not softer questions. They surface how someone actually thinks about quality and what motivates them.
Razeen’s point was simple but important. Even strong structured questions only go so far. The better approach is to ground everything in the resume in front of you and turn it into a real conversation rather than an abstract evaluation.
That is the difference between checking for alignment and actually understanding the person.