Re: The end (of idiots) is near

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Gregory Alan Bolcer (
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 15:10:34 PST

BTW, Thos didn't give me permission to repost this here, so
I left out a couple of words.


Managers love a good quotient. Here are
                just a few to choose from.

                There are too many quotients. There's
                IQ. There's EQ, a measure of
                emotional intelligence, popularized by
                Daniel Goleman. James O'Toole, a
                leadership expert at the University of
                Southern California, talks about LQ, a
                measure of one's leadership quotient.
                Somewhere I heard about an AQ--I
                think it was adaptability, but can't remember for certain. It
                might have been adversity. Or I might have heard both. There
                are too many to remember.

                Or perhaps there are too few. I can think of several whose
                absence I feel keenly. There's the MQ, for example. This is the
                Machiavelli Quotient, a measure of one's ability to attain his
                goals divided by how many scruples one has.

                The RQ is similar: This is the Richard III quotient, and is a
                special case of the MQ used when goals are enormous and the
                divisor is less than one; it's plotted on a log scale.

                The MQ and the RQ measure the behavior of bosses. The
                response of subordinates is revealed by the QQ, or quantum
                quotient, a measure of the abiity to leap, as in "Jump!" "How
                high, Sir?"
[Or to be seen, but not observed? To be in two places at once? To
 always never be observed in the same place as one's boss? GAB]

                The VQ--vagueness quotient--is an excellent measure of
                aptitude for a career in consulting, particularly technology
                consulting. The VQ is the ratio of the number of words used by
                speaker to the comprehension of his or her audience. The more
                words and the less comprehension, the higher the VQ. The
                higher the VQ, the longer you can go before people figure out
                that you haven't solved their problems. Or, as I read on a
                t-shirt in Singapore a few months ago, "If you can't convince
                them, confuse them."

                Speaking of Singapore, the SQ is the Singapore Airlines'
                quotient: It measures the ability to arrive on time or otherwise
                meet deadlines, provided you're on the right runway. In a least
                squares analysis, this talent turns out to be positively correlated
                with the ability to look good in batik.

                The GQ is interesting. It refers to men's fashion--G as in
                gabardine- but also to the unpleasant practice of leering at
                women, in batik or not--G as an gawking. The name comes
                from a men's magazine that combines the two.

                The CQ is an Internet productivity measure. It reveals what
                part of employees' time online is spent working versus chatting.
                The BQ, or bullshit quotient, is so well known in corporate life as
                to need no explanation.

                As for the FQ, I quite agree.

Gregory Alan Bolcer        |    | work: 949.833.2800
Chief Technology Officer   | | cell: 714.928.5476
Endeavors Technology, Inc. | efax: 603.994.0516     | wap:  949.278.2805

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 15:28:23 PST