Greg Djerejian suggests that George Bush gets back to work, real work, hard work. And there were many other voices this week that argued for a “hands-on” approach of America’s CEO, the first president with an MBA degree in his pocket. The problem with that is that Bush never really executed the role of president as CEO. The presidency is an anomaly in the western world as it comprises two functions, head of state and head of government, a separation that in the business world would find its analogy in the separation between Chairman and CEO, more or less. The chair is usually hands-off when it comes to the day-to-day running of the business, gladly leaving the detailed execution of the grand vision to the chief executive who is increasingly supposed to get his hands dirty in the trenches these days.

George Bush despite his rumored business acumen never filled the presidential shoes as a CEO, although some media were more than happy to replicate that notion once he entered office. Sure, a chief executive delegates to his sub-ordinates and holds them accountable one way or the other, but the laid-back style, the 9 to 5 routine, the inability to talk about policy details left the impression that in actual fact Bush had comfortably retreated to his role as head of state, the distant chairman. Although debunked by hardcore Bush adherents, the theory of Cheney acting as a de-facto head of government or prime-minister gained ground rapidly. Some even pointed to the message behind the now famous Vanity Fair cover where the wise leader is sitting, surrounded by his team.

Now, there is nothing that prevents a president from putting more weight on the Chairman-like aspects of the office. Reagan was made to fill the presidency that way and he was experienced and shrewd enough to weigh in on matters of execution if required. If he missed certain points, he could fall back on an excellent staff to ensure that he would balance the dual requirements of the job appropriately. When a thoroughly restructured staff without sufficient ties and knowledge of the Gipper started managing affairs during his second term, things went off the rails dramatically. But even then Reagan had enough weight and credit to let his skills as Chairman of the Board carry him into the realm of one of America’s greatest presidents. There’s not a lot of evidence that Bush’s skills as an inspirational orator can disguise his failures as leader of a very complex organization, or for that matter that his unique management style can compensate for his failure to articulate a vision.

The reason for that is simple. George Bush came to the presidency with neither the imagination that a visionary head of state should carry with him, nor did he seem to be the managerial wizard that some had projected him to be. And while trying hard to unravel it, there’s still no explanation for his poor communications skills. His credit on all these fronts was wafer thin and it was only 9/11 that propelled him into a leadership role that enabled him to reach out across party lines, unify a nation and define a grand strategy to protect America and spread freedom.

It obscured the fact that his management style, if there was one, was deeply flawed. The terrible weakness of his opponent and the strength of the war on terror message allowed Bush to claim a second term, but already doubts were raised - righty or wrongly - about the many mistakes made in post-war Iraq. The inability of Bush to hold his staff directly accountable deprived him of the most basic of tools any CEO needs: firing the incompetent. His loyalty is commendable, but it isn’t a trait that you would normally find among effective CEOs and certainly not among Chairmen who are increasingly held accountable by skeptic shareholders.

The Katrina debacle brought all of this into sharp focus. The White House staff was holidaying and failed to resurrect the man that can unite the nation, the de-facto head of government was away in Wyoming and the president himself failed to grasp that it was upon him to be both the Chair and the CEO at this critical juncture. Bush doesn’t have enough weight in either department to compensate for a shortcoming in the other like a Reagan or even a Clinton. As discussed earlier the affair has put his very presidency on the line and to lead the nation both as Chairman and CEO he will need to roll up his sleeves and get at it. It requires a lot of work, a revamped team and time. He has three years to do it.

UPDATE: A reader comments:

I've read your blog for months and have seen the passes that we all give to Bush. He's tired, he's overwhelmed, he's busy with the important stuff. Well, I'm sick of it. I've been a supporter of him since 1999. I just cannot stand the incompetence now. I expect this of Democrats. I'm glad you have come to the conclusion that the rest of us have: he is not managing properly and somebody, anybody needs to point this out. You can't just be continually cute and compassionate for all the world to see. We demand results. Damn it, we're Americans.

FINAL UPDATE: The debate continues at the Moderate Voice.