CAN RATINGS of political performance be accomplished with a small sample size to evaluate how the leader and his agencies are doing? How are the respondents chosen? And who really checks the results?
Periodically, the media come out with the approval ratings of the incumbent leadership. These quarterly exercises, previously conducted by just two established survey companies, now with unknown ones popping up with eye-popping numbers, are intended to give a reading of the government’s performance rating and popularity.
Bad numbers (when they come out) are met with a disclaimer from some designated spokesperson — we cannot be distracted from our mission by these ratings. We are not after popularity but results. But, if the numbers are favorable, the grabbing of credit is swift — we thank the respondents for their love and affection.
But what is an approval rating?
The final number expressed in percentages is a result of subtracting negative disapprovals from positive approvals. Thus, it is called a net approval rating. The statistics are based on responses of a sample, maybe a thousand respondents, theoretically a cross-section selected to represent the population of over a hundred million. Their approval comments (we really love him and his barong) are tallied. (Each time we see him going abroad, our pulses race with wild anticipation of what he has brought home from the trip.) These positives are then adjusted downwards by the negatives. (He’s never where you expect him to be.)
Perceptions and comments are seldom based on any personal experience with the subject. (I don’t have regular breakfasts with him.) It is secondhand information based mostly on social media, including posted and reposted pieces swirling around Viber groups and tweets, like dregs in a coffee cup.
Media, both traditional and its troll-driven online counterpart, play a significant role in influencing nationwide ratings. The quarterly rating is often understood by the palace occupant as a grade for his PR apparatus and robots. The negative ratings are reduced to a case of incompetence on the part of the spin masters — the good news is not getting out there. Let’s rock them, guys.
Respondents for surveys usually base their answers on personal joys (aid benefits in the pandemic) or travails personally experienced like joblessness, scarcity of onions, rising fuel prices, and icing smeared on waiters’ faces that are somehow linked to the establishment.
Other public institutions like the legislative body and the courts are also subjected to these same amorphous perceptions as bases for scores on how they are rated. Is it surprising that the ranking of high trust and approval are bestowed on agencies with the least encounters with the public?
What if we include in the survey a non-existent bureau like “Office of Formal Weights” (OFW)? Those who haven’t heard of this fictitious agency are not going to demur from giving an opinion (NA). They are likely to give it a high rating — it never harmed me. The least intrusive agency then gets high grades. And if it does not even exist, so much the better.
Corporate organization routinely employ an annual performance review of its executives. This is supposed to guide decisions on compensation, promotions, or even exits.
A set of “deliverables” expressed in numbers and timelines are either agreed on or imposed. Numbers are objective and follows the management dictum that “what cannot be measured, cannot be managed.” They include such metrics as market share, return on investment, customer complaints, and revenue objectives. These are all expressed in numerical targets and timelines. Such unquantifiable characteristics as popularity with the rank-and-file and embrace of the corporate culture are ignored, and can even become a liability — why is he so friendly with the waiters?
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 a rating. Excuses are usually brushed off.
What if CEOs of large corporations are subjected to quarterly approval ratings by their employees, suppliers, and shareholders? Will it be a distraction from running the company efficiently and catering to customer needs? Will this process raise the importance of internal communications?
The consent and approval of the governed forms the basis of public ratings. As in all surveys, the results can be tweaked…without any call for a recount from the respondents.
Tony Samson is chairman and CEO of TOUCH xda
