Presidential Debates:
Not The Best Selection Test
Ira J. Morrow
Pace University
Having had some time to reflect on last years nationally televised
presidential debates, it is useful to consider whether or not these activities
offer the best way to assess future presidential performance. Presidential
debates can be viewed as a human resources selection tool that an employer, in
this case, we the electorate, uses to enhance an employee selection decision,
namely who should fill a very senior leadership position that is about to become
vacant in our executive branch of government.
Keeping in mind the need to use valid instruments for employee or management
selection, serious concerns can be raised about our reliance on debating. It can
be persuasively argued that the act of debating during a campaign is distant
from the reality of being president and that performance in that situation is
not likely to be a good predictor of future job performance. After all, once the
election is over, presidents do not spend much time debating with peers on
television. The president, as the nations chief executive and commander in
chief, often determines the parameters of discussion with others. Debates are
therefore likely to have weak predictive value and should be supplemented by
other, more telling selection instruments.
In order to improve our ability to judge future presidential performance, it
is worthwhile to consider making use of an executive-level assessment center.
Why not have the candidates participate in simulated scenarios of routine and
nonroutine situations, filmed and publicly aired? A nonpartisan body could be
commissioned each election year to design a series of scenarios that would be
broadcast over several weeks. Candidates could be given specified preparation
time after being introduced to the various scenarios. Each scenario would entail
the use of a cadre of trained and coached actors playing various roles (e.g.,
presidents secretary, cabinet members, congressional leaders, military
commanders, White House chief of staff, CIA director, press secretary). The
candidates performance in the scenario would be broadcast live or taped for
subsequent broadcast. Candidates would not be permitted to view each others
performance. Imagine throwing the candidates into the role of the president of
the United States in one of the various episodes of West Wing. Everyone else in
the scenario would be prepped on their roles and have an understanding of what
they could realistically do and sayeveryone except the presidential
candidate.
Scenarios of routine presidential performance might simulate a press
conference, a cabinet meeting, a short speech to an interest group, or meetings
with legislators about supporting a bill. Nonroutine scenarios could include
selecting a nominee for the Supreme Court, dealing with an international crisis
(an act of terrorism against U.S. facilities, a hostage crisis, a coup in a
neighboring fictitious country), handling a financial crisis, or dealing with a
domestic crisis (civil unrest in a major city). We would be able to see more
clearly how the candidates are likely to perform in activities that
realistically reflect what presidents actually do and how they function as
leaders. The critical behavioral dimensions that could be assessed by all
viewers could include such dimensions as leadership, communications skills,
presentation skills, persuasiveness, diplomacy, analytical skills,
decision-making skills, creative problem solving, negotiating, attention to
detail, ability to prioritize, achievement orientation, and ethical behavior.
The list of critical behavioral dimensions could be custom designed for each
televised scenario, and scoring sheets could be distributed to the viewing
public via newspapers or the Internet. Dimension rating scores could be sent
electronically or via the phone, mail, or e-mail within 48 hours for tabulation
with the results being published. Aside from testing our candidates in a more
telling and predictive fashion, the decision of who won the debate would become
more objective and quantifiable. The public could develop a clearer
determination of the candidates strengths and limitations. This process could
also be a powerful tool for educating the public and our nations youth about
how government works, how power is exercised at the highest levels, what
challenges presidents face, and what is at stake when we cast our vote. Instead
of the apathy, cynicism, and disenchantment so prevalent now, the public might
become more engaged in the process of selecting our nations leader.
October 2001 Table
of Contents | TIP Home
| SIOP Home