Putt's World

PUTT'S LAW AND THE SUCCESSFUL TECHNOCRAT: How To Win in the Information Age, by Archibald Putt, Wiley-IEEE Press, 2006, 171 pages, $24.95 (ISBN 978-0-471-71422-4)

"Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand." This is Putt's law, the first of many such aphorisms in the book "Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat: How To Win in the Information Age," by the pseudonymous Archibald Putt.

This satirical book about how to get ahead in one's career was first published in 1981, and it was a success among scientists and engineers engaged in applied technology. As the years progressed, several of Putt's colleagues who knew his true identity persuaded him to revise the book to include current technological challenges. He finally acceded to their wishes and has now come out with the second edition.

Putt inserts corollaries throughout the book to support his overarching point about the politics and inner workings of technical organizations. Each corollary is subset within the surrounding explanatory text, just as a chemistry or physics book would indent an equation within the text. The difference is that Putt explains the theory of hierarchy and innovation in a high-tech company through these statements, whereas an academic textbook explains the scientific theories.

Sometimes Putt does create a formula to support an exaggerated claim. For example, the value to a customer (V_c) of a discussion with a consultant is explained as V_c= P_uI_g, where P_u is the price per unit and I_g is the information given by the consultant. The formula becomes more complicated (and more ridiculous) as Putt elaborates on the nuances of the consulting situation and the possible variations that can occur.

Who is this Putt and why is he mocking technical hierarchies? Archibald Putt, as an electrical engineer, is obviously a technocrat and a leader in a technical hierarchy himself. His anecdotes spread throughout the book are so detailed that they surely aren't entirely fictitious.

"I agonized over whether or not to use a pseudonym, but this proved to be a good decision," Putt confided to me by e-mail. "It gave me the freedom to develop my humor in ways that some might have thought inappropriate for a man in my position." He thinks the new edition will reach a larger audience than the first edition, in part because there are now so many more people involved in the development and use of high technology, he added.

Putt's satire is created from the machinations of technical organizations, reminiscent of the "Dilbert" comic strip. He starts with a discussion of competence. Often, according to Putt, technical organizations filter incompetent workers into management, leaving behind the workers with technical skills. Currently, these organizations would include biotechnology, pharmaceutical, software, and electronics companies. The competent workers often find satisfaction in performing the technical tasks at the bottom of the hierarchy. A worker who is confident and skilled technically is often not motivated to execute the techniques that a less competent worker must resort to in order to advance in the hierarchy.

One of these techniques is to create logic from confusion. This is often done by verbal persuasion, which can be accomplished by making conclusive assertions that suggest confidence. Confidence is the first attribute of a decisionmaker. Another crucial skill of an effective decisionmaker is to be convincing, even when relating something that's untrue.

These attributes are demonstrated when the ambitious technocrat turns a stale project into a success story, a phenomenon that Putt deems an "innovative success." This action can stimulate energy and enthusiasm in an otherwise failed circumstance. Since no one understands all of the nuances of a project that is dependent on many different technical specialists, decisionmakers often can point the blame or attribute the credit for a project in the direction that most favors their own objectives. This technique falls under another corollary of communication: "Decisions are justified by benefits to the organization; they are made by considering benefits to the decisionmakers."

How do these decisionmakers propel themselves up the technical hierarchy? Oftentimes, someone who can communicate effectively can solidify a relationship with his or her manager. Subsequently, that person is remembered by the manager during the next round of promotions. The highly skilled technical worker, on the other hand, may be unappreciated by his or her manager because the manager is unaware of the difficult problems this worker independently solves. This skilled worker makes his or her job look easy and remains unrewarded, unrecognized, and at the bottom of the hierarchy.

To further illustrate his points about communication and fabricated success in hierarchies, Putt sets up a scenario of a group of technical managers who fabricate a success out of a faulty project to build a scientifically impossible apparatus. The originator of the idea, the vice president, a man with a long résumé of achievements, suggests the project. Then his management team carries it out, knowing all the while that the project is technically impossible. I have experienced this situation myself, when once a chemistry group I was part of was led-or rather misled-by a legal expert in an intellectual property department.

The management team realizes the importance of support for the decisionmaker with regard to their own future with the company, so they carry out his faulty plan. Despite the expected problems they encounter in the preliminary stages of the project, the managers continue to carry out the plan of their superior and make the project appear successful. This, in turn, stimulates a genuine interest in research of this type at the company, and the vice president is soon promoted to the president's role.

His success as an innovator of a highly technical and original project allows him to take the helm of the company while a couple of his middle managers take over his old role as vice president. This promotion allows the managers (now vice presidents) to finally turn the faulty project over to an engineer they both dislike. By doing this they have a scapegoat to blame for the ultimate failure of the project. This, according to Putt, is typical of hierarchical management within a technical organization.

Knowledgeable scientists will not have the willpower or the political savvy necessary to influence the organization, according to Putt. In fact, Putt claims that it's not the true success or failure of a scientific or technical project that matters within such an organization, but how the project appears to the general employees within the company. Therefore, someone with charisma can manipulate a failed technical situation to appear successful through crisis management, allocation of money, and effective decision-making.

How about the actual technical skills and knowledge required for the basic functions of a technology company? This type of talent is minimally rewarded, if at all, and is relegated to those who find their satisfaction in the raw technical analysis. Thus the inversion of competence hierarchy is fulfilled, according to Putt.

Julie A. Kinyoun is a freelance writer and musician who works as a quality/regulatory specialist in San Diego biotechnology organizations.