I found “Putt’s Law and the Successful Technocrat” on a dusty back shelf of my company’s library yesterday. I’d never heard of the book or its author (one Archibald Putt, perhaps a pseudonym since he’s apparently never written anything else). I read it last night, and it was sore-ribs, pee-your-pants hilarious. It’s a parody of those ubiquitous and annoying technical management tomes, but it’s much more than that since it posits a highly valuable theory of technical hierarchies. Putt lists many laws and corollaries, but briefly, Putt’s law states that any technical hierarchy will eventually develop a “competence inversion”. This is because the competent would rather continue doing technical work, while the incompetent, who have already had to develop certain “skills” to mask their incompetence, find that those very skills are highly appreciated and rewarded as a manager in a technical organization.
I wrote the following review intending to post it on a certain major internet book retailer’s site, but (a) nobody would have read the review unless they were specifically searching for this out-of-print book and (b) the book strikes me as particularly relevant to many who frequent the SDMB. So I’ll insert the review here instead:
This is, bar none, the funniest book I’ve ever read - it’s in the same vein as the “Dilbert” comic strip, which I used to like, but much more deadpan and insightful, and it predates “Dilbert” by at least a decade. I discovered it on a dusty shelf in my company library. Anyone who works in a technical hierarchy will appreciate Putt’s “research” on why technical people not only rise past their level of incompetence, but why the least competent people are found at the top levels of management.
The fictitious professional history of Dr. I.M. Sharp is a deadly accurate take on the technical manager class. Other archetypes, such as Alex Highmind, Mr. Bottomley and Bob Plodder will be instantly recognized by working engineers who take an interest in the psychology and motivations of themselves and their fellow workers.
The book is most valuable to technical staffers who feel they may be ready to make the leap into management. Putt shows why the competent engineer should recognize that a leap into management is as desirable as stepping in dog filth, unless one is ambitious and/or greedy. Putt’s laconic style can make one wonder whether he is being serious. He is. One is reminded of the inherent ridiculousness found in large bureaucracies, which lends itself to serious analysis which is at the same time hilarious, when viewed from a certain perspective.
The book could have been 20 pages shorter without losing any of its zing. The last few sections, on the impact of computers in the technical workplace are true and probably original, but at this point in history, computer humor is a pretty dead horse.