The ability to communicate well is rated as one of the top traits Americans want to see in their president, according to the recently released "A National Study of Confidence in Leadership" conducted by the Center for Public Leadership (CPL). (John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.)
Ninety-one percent of those surveyed felt the ability to communicate was either extremely or very important.
Makes sense to me. But some of the other rankings are questionable.
Now far be it for me to challenge the methodology or conclusions of a study done by so illustrious a group as the CPL. After all, I'm still trying to understand p-values. But some results don't ring true. Let's face it, some study participants
prevaricate. They say what they think interviewers want to hear. Others
deceive themselves. They sincerely think they believe something, but their
actions indicate the opposite.
For example, the study lists two traits higher than communication, but both are suspect.
Honesty and Integrity at 97% was first, but it's the PC answer. Of course we value honesty and integrity. You think I'm going to be the one who says on the survey, "Nah, I don't care about honesty?" No way.
Intelligence came in at 95%. Of course we want the president to be intelligent. But its impact on a voter's choice of candidate is negligible. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards backers have not picked their candidate because they thought he or she was more intelligent than the others.
Communication ability, however, does affect the vote. But the very fact that it does brings into question another trait rating.
Twelfth on the list is Being Likeable. Only 46% admitted to that being an important trait. "Likeability? Nah, that's not really very important. I focus on substance. By the way, did you hear what Paris Hilton just did?"
Come on, folks! For U.S. politicians what's the main result of being able to communicate? It's Likeability! And likeability plays a huge part in electability.
So this section of the study isn't especially insightful. But at least it wasn't paid for with taxpayer dollars. (In fairness, the section on the public's perception of the news media's coverage of campaigns is very much on target.)
Comments