Qfinity and Beyond
Quotient mania must be stopped. Sometime during the last few decades, business leaders and psychologists made a seemingly concerted decision that every human characteristic should be paired with “quotient” or “intelligence” and neatly packaged into a Q-based acronym. We no longer discuss an employee’s integrity and decision making, but rather their MQ (Moral Intelligence) and RQ (Rationality Quotient). Yes, these are both factual examples. How did this happen? More importantly, can we stop it immediately?
Since I now have most of you nodding in unified agreement, please allow me to provide historical context. IQ seemed like a harmless acronym when it was coined by psychologist William Stern in 1912…so harmless that it enjoyed only-child status for over 50 years until the introduction of Emotional Intelligence in 1964 by another psychologist named Michael Beldoch. Even then, EQ existed in relative obscurity until 1995 when yet another psychologist, Daniel Goleman, wrote his book Emotional Intelligence, which served as the Pulp Fiction to EQ’s Samuel L. Jackson, catapulting the middle-aged concept to unprecedented fame and popularity. Emotional Intelligence and its catchy acronym took the business world by storm.
And so began the quotient craze. From Adversity Intelligence (AQ) to Zest Quotient (ZQ), we have now managed to utilize the entire alphabet. That’s right…every single letter has been used. I’m sure your wheels are spinning right now and you’re thinking “I doubt there is a QQ”. Well, clearly you are unaware of Question Quotient. UQ? That’s reserved for You Quotient because “self-awareness” is just too damn hard to verbalize. YQ? That’s Why Quotient, which is most certainly a first cousin to QQ. Surely, there isn’t an XQ! You would be wrong again as there are actually at least two XQs. Since Emotional Intelligence is the undisputed OG (Original Gangster) of the quotient underworld, it will forever dominate the letter E, so both Execution Quotient and Experience Intelligence have been forced to find refuge with XQ.
Business leaders…enough is enough. It’s time to allow attributes to stand on their own without being trailer-hitched to a Q. For starters, “quotient” implies that math is happening, and we all know this isn’t true as most of the Qs are nothing more than subjective drivel. Secondly, it’s critical to emphasize that the cleverness is played out. Quotient attributes are now as predictable as the menu naming convention at McDonald’s. At this point, blatantly borrowing from Mickey D’s would demonstrate a more creative approach. “Henry’s McCulture is flawless, but his McJudgment is questionable” would interest us more than a conversation about CQ and JQ.
Let’s rethink how we communicate. My proposal (emotional plea) is that we continue to respect the legacies of IQ and EQ but firmly end our deference there. Beyond the two original quotients, I request (beg) that clarification now be a requirement. This line in the sand may seem unreasonable, as you could be thinking “everyone knows that PQ is Positive Intelligence, right?” Wrong. Physical Quotient has now moved into the PQ duplex so I wouldn’t know if you were addressing my attitude or my abs, and this is a potentially disastrous disconnect…and just one of many examples. If financial acumen is a concern, then discuss without mentioning FQ. If a contact list needs to be expanded, then dialogue can surely transpire without criticism of Networking Quotient. Talent evaluation is complex enough without overcomplicating the topic with this epidemic of silly initialism. It’s time for change.
