CAN THERE BE any political discussion without any mention of what surveys are saying? Why are these statistical tools always part of any conversation? Are they even to be taken seriously? Can the credibility of surveys depend on who paid for them? It’s not always independent think-tanks and advocacy groups that have long established their bona fides that announce their statistical findings.
Surveys rest on the belief that a small demographically representative sample can represent a much bigger group. The “universe” here can refer to the voting population or the target market for a product or service. What the small sample size thinks and feels is projected to the larger counterpart.
Surveys can be conducted by media which then come out with approval ratings of public personalities. The latest reading is compared to previous numbers to show if a leader is gaining traction or falling down the stairs of public opinion. (There he goes again. Down the chute.)
But what is the meaning of an approval rating?
The number expressed in percentages is a net statistic. The number is based on the responses of a sample, maybe a thousand respondents, theoretically a demographic cross-section to represent the population of over a hundred million. The approval number (each time she opens her mouth, I swoon) is subtracted from the level of disapproval (my breakfast ends up on my lap when I see her face). The net approval rating can be a negative number.
This indicator of approval or disapproval is seldom based on any personal encounter with a leader or even his lieutenants. It is an evaluation based on conversations with neighbors, social posts in online media, and relatives and friends. (Has she been taking many trips abroad on government funds?)
Surveys have their uses even in the corporate field. Products are pre-tested for acceptability in a focus group using a controlled launch. The results provide feedback on the size of the market and the attributes that need to be tweaked like pricing and distribution to gain market share.
Do companies also need to conduct approval surveys on their leaders? This may not be necessary as ratings of leadership here are not based on mere perception but on quantified targets like market share, revenue growth, and profitability. Even a popular leader who greets everyone in the elevator may be ineffective as a CEO as far as the other stakeholders are concerned.
Corporate executives have certain target metrics like earnings per share, gross margins, and dividend payouts that go beyond qualitative factors — he has a nice haircut. If targets are met or exceeded, fine. If they are not, explanations need to be given. (We’ll try harder next year. If there are no further questions, the meeting is adjourned.)
Besides, corporate leadership qualities are instantly captured with a small enough base of employees (especially direct reports). These don’t need to join a survey as anonymous letters on management styles are quickly communicated — “He’s a sexual predator with his cringe-inducing jokes.”
If CEOs of large corporations are subjected to quarterly approval ratings by their “stakeholders” like employees, suppliers, shareholders, and customers (a better-informed constituency than the sampled respondents in political surveys) one wonders how they would fare. And what practical use will such an “approval rating” provide?
Perception is what drives survey respondents. It is not just the leader’s video posts that sway this view. There are also “influencers” on the net that post their opinions on what is going on.
Media can influence approval ratings. Even though the macroeconomic numbers are good in terms of Gross International Reserves, inflation, and steady GDP growth, approval ratings do not always consider these as relevant.
Political pundits are already looking at an election that is two years away. Is the now seemingly embattled personality feared for her bullying style of leadership really too “popular” to ignore? Are the surveys on her growing strength reliable in their methodology?
Kissinger famously stated that “perception is reality.” This is one reason why politicians employ masters of illusion that can transform sulking into a leadership trait. And their surveys will agree… given the right incentives.
Tony Samson is chairman and CEO of TOUCH xda.
