Basically the idea is this (a now corrected paraphrase of his post):
A = Number of problems you see
B = Number of problems you don’t have the power to solve
B / A = Victimization ratio.
So if you work in an environment where you can point out 10 problems, but are only capable/empowered to solve 4 of them (you are powerless for 6), your victimization ratio is 6 / 10 = 60%
I think this should be modified to include C) problems you can get someone else to solve for you. If you have a good manager, or even a good team of peers or reports, they may have the power to solve problems that you can’t.
I’d argue that a good manager solves problems for their team all the time that the team doesn’t have the power to solve on their own (e.g. poltical/upper management issues).
Then of course there’s D – Problems that initially you don’t have the power to solve, but can obtain if you ask for it, fight for it, or prove you’re worthy of. There’s going to be a trend line for D – how easy is it to demonstrate you’re worthy of more, and how fast is it granted to you? I think that’s more important than how much you start with.
I’d invert the value and call it The empowerment ratio. And call D the rate of empowerment.