VIEWPOINTS : Presidents as CEOs : Do Any of the Candidates Have What It Takes to Really Lead the Country?

Would George Bush be a good corporate chief executive? Could Richard A. Gephardt inspire a corporate bureaucracy to boost sales and cut expenses?

If they and the other contenders in the Super Tuesday balloting this week are really presidential timber, they should also have what it takes to succeed in the executive suite: leadership skill. Consequently, voters should size up the Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls the same way a board of directors judges contenders for a company’s chief executive post--by measuring their leadership potential.

After a decade of studying corporate leaders, I have identified five qualities that successful CEOs, be they on Main Street or Pennsylvania Avenue, must have. From least to most important, they are: technical competence, people skills, conceptual skills, judgment and character.

Technical competence combines knowledge, broad experience and the ability to do whatever one does as well as it can be done. Technically competent executives have, more often than not, risen through the ranks and have some practical knowledge of and experience in nearly every aspect of their fields. They are smart, insatiably curious and tireless workers.

People skills include an understanding of oneself, talents and flaws alike, along with the ability to eliminate flaws or to compensate for them. People skills also require the capacity to understand and work with others as well as a gift for defining and expressing common needs. The executive with such skills not only recognizes but enjoys the collaborative nature of business.

Conceptual skills manifest themselves in an executive’s viewpoint and vision. Successful executives enter their chosen field because they have a concrete notion of the world and what they want to make of it. It is that viewpoint, more than ambition, that motivates them. As they rise, their viewpoint blossoms into a vision of what can and should be. Equipped with such vision, the able executive capitalizes on existing opportunities and anticipates future ones.

Judgment is harder to measure than technical competence or people and conceptual skills, and it is a lot harder to come by. It is that artful mix of brains and heart that translates into understanding and steadiness. Leaders with judgment see and understand what’s happening and respond decisively and intelligently. They don’t overreact or go off half-cocked. At the same time, they act immediately, rather than leave it to fate or someone else.

Character. Everyone talks about it these days, and we claim to long for it in executive suites, but we have trouble defining it. My definition of character is ambition, ability and conscience in perfect balance.

A leader without character is a contradiction in terms. Executives with character don’t only do things right, they do the right thing and take full responsibility for their own actions and the actions of their organizations.

On the basis of these crucial criteria for executives, is there a leader in the pack? Sadly, not one appears to be the kind of chief executive we need. Not a single candidate has shown surpassing strength in all five crucial characteristics. Here is how they measure up, Republicans first:

Bob Dole--The Senate minority leader, one of the two Republican front-runners, is knowledgeable and a longtime Washington hand but has no real executive experience. His hot temper suggests wobbly people skills and judgment, and his viewpoint and vision seem highly partisan. His character, however, seems unquestionable. The archetypal Type A personality, Dole is a driver, more boss than leader. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, Dole rates a 3.

George Bush--The vice president, the other top contender for the Republican nomination, has extensive experience, having held such jobs as CIA director and ambassador to China and the United Nations. But he hasn’t truly distinguished himself in any one job, ranges from wimp to bully in appearances and seems to borrow viewpoint and vision rather than developing his own. Bush already has assumed autocratic airs, as if America were a mega-corporation and he was the son of the principal stockholder. He gets 2.

Jack Kemp--As a principal conservative theoretician in the House, Kemp gets high marks for viewpoint and vision. But the New York Republican lacks executive experience and has focused almost exclusively on conservative issues. That ideological bias colors his judgment, as exemplified in his enthusiasm for supply-side economics. One-time quarterback Kemp is a better team player than coach. Overall, give Kemp a 3.

Pat Robertson--The former religious broadcaster recently has been given to bizarre statements, such as claiming to know the location of American hostages in Lebanon as well as the existence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. This inspires doubts about both his judgment and character. Though his viewpoint and vision of the church as state are original, they’re also utterly parochial. Unlike his competitors, however, Robertson has enjoyed great success as an executive creating a profitable broadcasting empire. He rates a 2.

Among the Democrats:

Michael S. Dukakis--While contributing to the revival of the Massachusetts economy, Gov. Dukakis demonstrated clear executive skills and proved to be a relaxed, compassionate and imaginative administrator. He seems, too, to possess ample character and judgment, but all of his experience has been at the state level, and the state has been dominated by Democrats for decades. All told, technocrat Dukakis is more of an effective manager rather than a bold leader. Overall, a 4.

Richard A. Gephardt--Missouri Rep. Gephardt, Dukakis’ chief rival at the moment, lacks executive experience and seems less sincere than facile on the stump, telling people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. His vision seems more negative than positive--his protectionist trade proposal, for example--and his ambition outstrips his competence. In trying to be all things to all people, Gephardt is more follower than leader. Rather than challenge constituents, he panders to them, as when he blames other nations for America’s industrial decline. Give him a 2.

Jesse Jackson--More than any other candidate, the civil rights leader responds fully to people at all levels and rouses an audience with his vision of things as they could and should be. But he has always operated as a kind of one-man band and shows a propensity for crisis-chasing. His executive skills, as demonstrated by his work at PUSH, seem to rely more on inspiration than perspiration. While he has shown consummate understanding, he has shown little or no steadiness, calling both his judgment and character into question. Jackson preaches a better game than he practices. He gets a 3.

Albert Gore Jr.--The Tennessee senator lacks executive experience and trims his rhetoric to suit particular audiences, rather than speaking to and for the entire nation. Though he has an impressive agenda of concerns and is particularly impressive in the area of national defense, it’s questionable whether his character and judgment match his intellectual gifts. Give him a 2.

Paul Simon--Though he is short on executive experience, Simon has an extraordinary understanding of and empathy with people. An easy, apparently relaxed hopeful, the Illinois senator has stayed in the race apparently out of devotion to classic New Deal principles. Paradoxically, his viewpoint has stunted his vision as he looks backward rather than forward for answers, but, though his judgment may be questioned, his character is flawless. He’s too nice to survive the contest for the top rung, just as he likely would be in a high-powered corporate showdown. Give him 3.

Gary Hart--What are we to make of a front-runner who trips himself up in the starting gate? Not much. He gets a 0.