Candidates cannot be adequately “primed” in rehearsal for a true debate. If we observed the candidates last night we can find evidence of this. One can observe the cause and effect relationships that are presented by the candidates and the interrelationships between social, economic and foreign and domestic policy. The candidates drew some complex relationships among sustainable energy, reliance on foreign petroleum products, and their effects with current economic conditions and domestic security.

From a transcript of the debate last night one could derive an assessment of the CIP employed by the candidates. My intuition is that both Barack Obama and John McCain are Stratum VI candidates. I would suggest that Obama’s current capability is higher within that stratum than McCain’s and obviously Obama’s mode is higher than McCain’s due to the differences in age. I will venture that Obama is mode 8. Perhaps Cason and Brause will validate this intuitive assessment. Consequently, I would also predict that Obama will win the presidency.

In the small town where I live (50 000 inhabitants), we have two full-time politicians, i.e. they are paid by the local council. As the majority shifts at elections they change chairs, but we still have the same two guys election after election. I don’t think they are corrupt, just incompetent, so the corruption lies in getting a wage for that. At times I wish I could find such an easy income flow.

At times I wish that we had more dynamics so that they either had a real fight instead of cosying up to each other or even better getting them both kicked out. But then on the other hand a town with 50 000 inhabitants does not have a great talent pool.

For an interesting view on why American politics is different, Michael Bates recently linked to an article in Asia Times that describes
Hockey moms and capital markets.

Considering how modern presidential candidates seem to be “primed” before debates it must be difficult to assess what is true thinking from the candidates side and what is conditioned learning.

Please note that I am not questioning the validity of CIP itself. As I am doing research in this area I am interested in published peer-reviewed articles validating methodology.

I agree that MBTI does not prove anything, particularly as research has shown that respondents reply differently and get different results depending on the context they are doing it in.

The 2004 controversy is regrettable and did not create positive interest in what we do. In retrospect it can only be seen as either ill-judged or a determined political act.

CORRECTION: I made it seem like Alison Brause was a part of the research of the 2004 election. That does not seem to be true. It appears that Dr. Cason did the work on 2004 and released it to the press without Dr. Brause’s assistance. I regret the error.

If you’ve been following this, some links follow at the end.

CIP has been shown to match with manager’s judgment in consulting work by PeopleFit and others. CIP interviews have been tested against Career Path Assessments by PeopleFit, too, and they have seen only small variance. It may be that none of these are measuring what is theorised, but it does seem that they are all (CIP interviews, CPAs, & managerial judgment) measuring the same thing.

As for the science, it’s at least better than that for Myers-Briggs

1. Press release on Alison Brause’s PhD work. Includes a link to a summary of her research.
2. New Yorker “Talk of the Town” short article on Cason as the one saying Kerry will win. (Brause is not mentioned.)
   

   ason is prepared to make a scientific prediction, on behalf of the institute: John Kerry will beat George Bush. How confident is she of this? “One hundred per cent.”

3. PeopleFit’s republication of Brause’s summary [PDF]
4. Earlier post of mine on the Boston Globe article on the 2004 controversy

The original development curves, up to mode 6 have been verified in Jaques work, other studies at Bioss and by independent researchers. CPA has been verified as a method of measuring Current Level of Capability and in longitudinal studies has been verified in predicting Future Level of Capability. I am not aware of any published or independent research validating CIP methods.

However, I do assume that CIP works. In order for Cason and Brause to make their claim they would need to point to some study where assessment of speeches is validated against interview-based CIPs of the same persons. Without that proof in place their postulations have to be rejected.

However there is probably something in the statements that (some?) people make intuitive assessments of capability. In party-based systems members select and prioritize their listed candidates for elections. According to my Danish colleague, both politician and CPA-practitioners), selections are based on “electability”, making sense of policies and as a result many, or even most, of those selected as parliament candidates have level 4 capability. Very good for a small Nordic country.

The postulations of Kathryn Cason and Alison Brause with respect to presidential debates cannot be rejected out of hand. There is sufficient data to attract strong statistical inquiry. How do you otherwise account for the “coincidence”? If we entertained for a moment that CIP is significant in the evaluation of the electorate and that the majority of times the voting democratic populace gets the assessment right (we could cite examples of misjudgment of CIP in the workplace) then it stands to reason that the constituents would elect the most capable president. Granted some voters will vote party lines regardless, and some will vote the incument out for the sake of change, however the decisive swing vote would more often than not go to the most capable candidates. The swing voter is inclined to evaluate candidates and policy ahead of party lines and rhetoric. By their nature these voters may be among the most capable voters within the general populace.

Incidentally, executives at some level promote policy. They put forward policies that support their strategies and foster intended cultures within their organizations. The distinction is only whether one is engaged in creating an organizational culture at work or a societal culture.

I have a RO-colleague and friend who is involved in party-based Danish politics. He notes that the parties select people with high capabilities. The only times the system does not work is when a party expands too quickly for it’s talent pool.

In both party and person systems the amount of spin has increased significantly over the years, and spin, particularly about persons is highly detrimental. I forever astonished about the amount of insult, lies and mud-slinging in politics, particularly in the US. I keep asking myself what drives a person to endure all that – are they narcissists or is politics so personally profitable?

My personal opinion is that this drive away from policies to mud and spin is negative for democracy, as it probably drives sensible and capable people away from politics. I feel that the elections in the US has moved dangerously close to some mix of Gladiators, American Idol and Jerry Springer.

The problem with Cason and Krause’s piece was that it seemed to be put forth as more than speculation. I don’t believe that in America it is considered particularly unethical that they did it but it surely was unwise. It certainly didn’t help to legitimize their viewpoints nor did it help the Kerry campaign. It was considered uppity and almost anti-American. If lump it with the Smile Rating (most pleasant person in the debates wins) or the Height Rating (tallest guy wins), then it can be seen as part of a long and ignominious history of “expert” predictions.

Ethical issues aside, it is certainly true as you point out that the validity of anything coming out of debates is questionable, for the reasons you cited. Interviews where the person ranges far and wide are more interesting, as are situations where the interviewer asks probing follow-up questions. They give you a general feel, especially of which is bigger, this person or that.

But it still doesn’t tell you who is more qualified to govern or for whom people will vote. I have always voted for the war vet, which seems like quite an irrational thing to do. Others vote on single issues like gun ownership, abortion or ecology. Still others vote on race or sex. Democracy is not rational, thank God. Totalitarianism is rational.

I’ll stick with the statement that there is no level of work prerequisite to get into office. In the US, the requirements for president are pretty simple: you have to native US citizen, over 35, resident of the US for the last 14 years, and get on enough state ballots that you can get the electoral votes necessary to win. After that it is just convincing people to vote for you. Our parties have little power and have gotten saddled with candidates the party powers didn’t really like.

Nor do I think that the job itself has any real requirements of work level, knowledge or skills. I’m not even sure what skills or knowledge would be helpful or detrimental.

But I’m getting pessimistic about the ongoing decline of the American democracy so maybe I’m just being cranky.

Right now I’m simply impressed that so many Americans even consider that a man of color can be presidential quality. Another wonder was that Obama ran for the senate against another African-American, Alan Keyes; this when there had only been four black senators in American history.