As President George W. Bush begins his third month in office, the media has seized on the "corporate model" of his administration, dubbing Bush--the first president to hold an M.B.A--the "CEO in Chief."

But despite the straight-forward comparison the media and some political analysts have set up between the corporate model and the Bush presidency, Harvard Business School (HBS) professors say there is no single "CEO model."

Though Bush at least superficially displays characteristics typical of some business leaders, professors say this does not mean that he should automatically be considered a good manager and emphasize he has not yet been tested by crisis.

Changing Of The Guard

Weatherhead Professor of Business Administration D. Quinn Mills says he thinks reporters are assuming that because Bush has a business degree, his behavior must reflect his education.

"The people who are writing the articles don't really know what they're talking about," Mills says. "It's a political writer's thought of what a CEO is like."

Others say the strong interest in Bush's managerial style may be due to its contrast with former President Bill Clinton's detail-oriented approach.

"Bush's style may seem notable because it differs from the looser, more casual, and, on occasion, frat house approach of his predecessor," says Shad Professor of Business Ethics Joseph L. Badaracco. "But wasn't Bush supposed to be the frat boy?"

Ultimately, professors say, while many of Bush's traits may make him suited for success, it is difficult evaluate his leadership against that of business executives.

"The truth is there's a lot of ways to manage an organization," says Robinson Professor of Business Administration Jay O. Light.

Delegation Or Abdication?

The media has pointed to the authority given to Vice President Dick Cheney, whom they call Bush's chief operating officer, as indicative of Bush's ability to effectively delegate responsibility.

Professors say this may be an effective way to lead, but does not necessarily show that Bush is a good manager.

"[Bush] may not want to be in control," Mills says. "He may want to be a party president for big occasions, in which case other people will be running the government."

There is a fine line, experts say, between stressing the details and sacrificing critical control.

"There's a difference between delegating and abdicating," Mills says. "It's a question of whether he's going to stay so far away from things that he doesn't know much of what's going on and doesn't have much power."

James P. Pfiffner, editor of The Managerial Presidency, agrees.

"That is an important distinction to make," he says, pointing to the Iran Contra scandal as negative example of abdication.

Pfiffner's book argues that presidents have the right to pay close attention to anything in the executive branch, but risk losing sight of the big picture if they are too focused on details.

Associate Professor of Business Administration Clayton M. Christensen says he feels that the way in which Bush assigns power is not as important as whom he chooses to trust. After all, Christensen says, Bush's advisers are among the most respected Washington insiders.

"Just click through Bush's senior management team and you'll get a sense for how good a manager Bush is," he says. "All of the other issues are trivial compared to this."

Super Efficient?

Bush supporter's have pointed to the amount of time he devotes to his job--far less than Clinton, the media notes--as indicative of his efficiency.

Bush spent "in the neighborhood of five hours" on the national budget, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. told the New York Times article on March 10.

According to Little Professor of Business Administration David E. Bell, this is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on how the time was spent.

"If you told me Bush sat doodling through the five hours I might be worried," Bell says. "He should be asking pointed questions, not only to form his own opinion of the decisions involved, but also to assess the quality and compatibility of the people to whom he is delegating."

Steve Grossman, former chair of the Democratic National Committee and possible Masschussetts gubernatorial candidate in 2002, also holds an M.B.A from Harvard. He says he is skeptical of Bush's minimalist style of leadership.

"Efficiency's fine, but not if you sacrifice the end product," Grossman says. "The bottom line of the last two months has been the dismantling of some significant programs from the last eight years."

A Matter Of Time

One area where professors say Bush deviates most from the CEO norm is in his attitude toward time and sleep.

The Baltimore Sun reported that in Texas, Bush worked from about 8 a.m. to 11 a.m., took two hours off for a run and lunch, worked from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. and then went home--a schedule he has tried to maintain in the White House.

"If he [works eight-hour days] he's the only manager I know who does," says Assistant Professor of Business Administration Steven Spear '85.

And though Pfiffner says maintaining this schedule is probably impossible, he says he feels it is a "healthy tendency."

"You can get burned out and your judgment is affected," he says. "It is a good example he sets through exercise."

And the same charm that Bush uses to kick people out so that he can go to bed, professors say, is useful in creating political capital in Washington.

"Bush tries to be likeable to his opponents as individuals while hitting the opposition as a group hard," Mills says. "This was Reagan's approach, and it worked for him beautifully in Washington. I think Bush is simply copying it."

Other professors say courting the adversary in business is not typical.

"Sometimes reaching out to the opposition is against the law in business," Assistant Professor of Business Administration Thomas Eisenmann says.

The Bottom Line

Fundamentally, Bush's method of running his administration may be more attributable to his party affiliation than to his educational background.

"Republicans in general tend to be more managerially oriented and run the White House more tightly," Pfiffner says.

And, professors say, those in the business world do not support Bush because of his management style, but rather for his political stance.

"I would say that the faculty and the students and most of the alums [of HBS] would be more favorable to the policies than the style," Mills says.

Democrats say they care far more about what comes out of the White House than what happens within.

"You can use all the tools of modern business practice, but if you don't use them with compassion, you're not best serving the American people you were chosen to represent," Grossman says.