By Tony Samson
PERIODICALLY, the media report the latest survey on the approval rating of the leader and other public servants on prime time and on the front pages. The quarterly exercise by two survey companies is intended to rate government’s performance, as perceived by the governed. A high approval rating is presumed to indicate wide popular support for the accomplishments and programs of the ratee.
A shrug of the shoulders is how the subject of a low or negative rating reacts to the number. The lowly rated subject gives a statement on how he will not be distracted by outside noise — we need to do our job and communicate more on what we’re doing.
Historically high numbers of positive ratings for the incumbent are grist for the spokesman’s press briefing (we are encouraged by the people’s trust), even as he smiles like the grim reaper. It’s just the way he looks.
But what is an approval rating?
The percentage is referred to as a net approval rating. The metric is based on the responses of a sample, maybe a 1,200 respondents, theoretically a cross-section of socio-economic income groups dispersed by regions, to represent the population of over a hundred million. Their approval (He has a way with words that makes my heart beat faster.) is reduced by the disapproval score (seeing him on TV disrupts my digestive process) to come out with the net rating.
It is safe to assume that the registered perception is not necessarily based on a personal encounter with the subject. It is a secondhand evaluation based on conversations with neighbors, taxi drivers, barbers, and media reports. There are also coverages of live events, which can be edited down into sound bites, usually the colorful bits, like passing sentence on certain sectors of society.
The negative rating is premised on the belief, nay conviction, that all the travails being personally experienced like joblessness and the shrinking disposable income after rice and gasoline and all the attendant disruptions are caused by public figures. Positives like improvements in public safety are limited to the personal experiences of respondents.
Other public institutions like the legislative body and the courts are subjected to the same rating and given scores on how they are perceived. Is it surprising that the ranking of trust and approval favor the least covered in the news? With the recent release of prisoners and the onslaught of swine fever, the agencies concerned are sure to get black marks in the next survey.
What if the pollsters included a fictitious government entity? Let’s say they insert a non-existent office, say the “Bureau of Uninfected Livestock & Lotteries” (BULL) in the survey. No respondent will put a question mark on this organization to indicate that she has not heard of this new bureau and cannot therefore render an opinion. Instead, since this heretofore unheard-of agency, BULL has not been in the news cycle at all, it may end up with a positive approval rating. It must be doing a good job, as it has not been in the news at all.
Corporate executives undergo performance ratings too. Certain targeted results like reduction of headcount or increase in market share are pre-agreed beforehand as the basis for rating and salary adjustment or promotion. The metrics are in place and verifiable. If targets are met, fine. If they are not, a variance analysis, or justification process, kicks in to finalize the rating. Media coverage does not figure at all in this scenario.
Still, in family-controlled companies, especially when the principals are feuding and fractured, the metrics become irrelevant and loud voices can prevail. This is aggravated by the drifting concentration of the still living paterfamilias manipulated by whispers and hectoring from different sides. Ratings can shift and become meaningless.
For public figures, media play a significant role in affecting ratings. The quarterly number is seen by the ratees as a grade for their PR apparatus. Maybe the achievements are not getting to social media — he has a pile of recycled envelopes.
If CEOs of large corporations are subjected to quarterly approval ratings by their employees, suppliers, and shareholders, will this have any influence in the voting at the stockholders’ meeting? Not at all. The absence of outsider perception or even understanding of corporate goals favors the incumbent.
For publicly listed companies, only the stock price is the true barometer of determining if the CEO is doing a good job… or has a good investor relations team.
Tony Samson is Chairman and CEO, TOUCH xda.
