(FORTUNE Magazine) – BEYOND THE ISSUES, beneath the whole question of ''leadership,'' Americans are looking for a President who can effectively manage the huge and growing ; business of government and policymaking. What kind of presidential management can we expect from George Bush or Michael Dukakis? There is no fail-safe way of telling how a man will perform in that job, no PAT (presidential aptitude test). But a close look at how the candidates have managed their campaigns, their conventions, and their past jobs provides telling clues. One would think that Bush's broad-based experience in business, government, and international affairs would help in presidential decision-making. His greatest managerial strength is a fine talent for inspiring affection and trust. A warm, personable man who seems genuinely to care about fellow humans, Bush has been a much-loved boss, building team spirit and morale in difficult situations. Still, he is not a manager who intentionally shakes things up. He has tended to avoid controversy and substantive debate, leaving few footprints in the agencies he has headed. That has led to worries that he would not stand up to Congress, though in his rousing acceptance speech he repeated that he would say no and no again (''read my lips'') to any push by Congress to raise taxes. In Washington, Dukakis would be an activist manager, eager to effect sweeping policy change as he did in Massachusetts. As governor he has been an aggressive salesman, tireless cheerleader, and effective bureaucratic and political organizer. His persistent Achilles' heel is his often noted arrogance, a trait he has modulated since being turned out of office in 1978 after his first term. But one Democratic congressional leader still worries: ''Governors tend to condescend to their legislatures. Dukakis could be another Jimmy Carter.'' Dukakis is superambitious, Bush sometimes above the battle. Critics interpret that to mean Dukakis is obsessed, Bush a bit too easygoing. Bush surrounds himself with advisers with whom he feels comfortable. Dukakis prefers people of diverse views. SO FAR Dukakis has proved the better campaign manager. He's had a consistent -- if somewhat vague -- message. He orchestrated his convention masterfully. His choice of conservative Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen as running mate balanced his Northern liberalism. He skillfully handled Jesse Jackson, achieving a new level of party unity. By cleverly lowering expectations, he won raves for a less than substantive speech. By contrast, the Bush campaign has been an up-and-down affair. After clinching his nomination early, the Vice President let his campaign drift. At ; the convention, the success of his acceptance speech was tempered by the tempest over his surprise selection of Dan Quayle as candidate for Vice President. Self-confident managers surround themselves with strong lieutenants; Bush picked Indiana's junior Senator in part because he did not want to be upstaged by somebody more senior and experienced. Can anyone say with a straight face that Quayle would be the man best qualified to become President if Bush were indisposed? Surely Dukakis's emergence from a crowded Democratic field involved some luck. Nationally known contenders like Gary Hart and Joseph Biden self- destructed early. But Dukakis made the most of his breaks. A political organizer since college days, he built a strong campaign operation. From a narrow base in Massachusetts he reached out for financial support from Greeks, liberals, and high-tech entrepreneurs across the country. By June 2 he had raised $27.6 million, including matching funds, the maximum he was allowed by federal law to spend on primaries. Jesse Jackson, the Democratic runner-up, was able to raise about half that. Son of an immigrant father whose watchword was ''economize,'' Dukakis spooned out his cash. While rivals slathered money on all the Super Tuesday primary states, Dukakis concentrated on Texas and Florida, which have large populations of Northern transplants. He won both, and pulled out in front of the pack for good. Bush's behavior during the campaign also tells much about his talent as a manager. His campaign started out looking like a finely tuned machine. Recognizing that he could lose the kickoff Iowa caucus, Bush concentrated on organizing New Hampshire and building what campaign manager Lee Atwater called a ''fire wall'' of support in the South. After a devastating defeat in Iowa early in February, the candidate rallied his shaken troops. He won New Hampshire a week later by a solid ten points. A decisive victory over Pat Robertson in South Carolina on March 5 gave him a boost going into Super Tuesday three days later. He proceeded to sweep 16 out of 17 states, clinching the nomination. But after Super Tuesday, Bush relaxed. Insiders say he argued that the campaign doesn't really start till after Labor Day. In the same period the campaign mismanaged its money. At the end of March, Bush had about $8 million left to spend. By July 1, he was down to under $1 million -- peanuts in modern campaign terms. That limited his ability to take his message around the country. THE MANAGERIAL strengths Dukakis has shown as governor have been his abilities to set clear goals, pick strong people, and delegate well. He keeps track of subordinates through memos and frequent meetings. Woe to the staffer who comes unprepared. Says longtime friend and former revenue commissioner Ira Jackson: ''He's always the smartest guy in the room. And he won't accept a bundle of goods from anyone.'' One hallmark of Dukakis's management style is his coalition-building or ''partnership'' approach to controversial problems. In his first term, the governor had a tendency to dictate to the legislature, earning him a reputation as a know-it-all. His defeat in 1978 chastened him. When he returned to office in 1983 after teaching public-sector management at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, he had a new approach. He would bring together the affected parties and let them hammer out compromises. The tactic has worked fairly well, though sometimes the old Dukakis surfaces. When developers balked at a condo-conversion law being developed by a task force, the governor disbanded the group and pushed through his own law. Says one Democratic legislative leader: ''Is he arrogant? Yes. He can be downright rude.'' Says another Democrat: ''His agenda has succeeded basically because it's our agenda.'' Dukakis's biggest managerial weakness involves budgets. On the campaign trail he likes to say he has balanced ten state budgets. True enough, but he had no choice. Massachusetts law requires balancing the budget. A better measure of his managerial ability is how he balanced the books. In his first term, he did it the old-fashioned way, by cutting spending and raising taxes. During his second term, a growing economy produced a surge of revenues capable of financing his fast-growing budgets. In the last two years, however, the state's economy has slowed, and so has revenue growth. Dukakis has cut some spending. But he has relied on new taxes, windfalls from federal tax reform, and such accounting gimmickry as using trust fund surpluses to pay current bills. IT'S TOUGHER to tell how Bush would operate as Chief Executive because he has not been his own boss for 22 years. In partnership with J. Hugh Liedtke, he started Zapata Petroleum and ran its Zapata Off-Shore Co. subsidiary from 1954 to 1966. He was considered energetic and likable -- even daring. Under his leadership, the company launched a new ''jack up'' rig, one of the first to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Recalls a former director, T. J. Devine: ''The technology was new, and it was risky because offshore drilling then was a play only big companies tried.'' Liedtke, now chairman of Pennzoil, believes Bush's business experience would serve him well in the White House. Says Liedtke: ''Above all, Bush has judgment. He also has a real knowledge of finance and an ability to put together a team of very competent people to whom he will delegate.'' And he wouldn't be a pushover, Liedtke adds. ''A lot of Reagan people who have been slow to turn in their suits would have been out of there a long time ago were Bush the President.'' Still, Bush's company did not exactly boom. New competitors with more money surged past it. When he sold Off-Shore to run for Congress in 1966, Bush's share of the company brought about $1 million. In the political jobs that followed Zapata, Bush showed a warm personal manner and a willingness to forgo personal glory. That enabled him to boost morale in two very difficult situations: chairman of the Republican National Committee during Watergate, and director of the Central Intelligence Agency after allegations that the agency had spied on U.S. citizens. Bush worked well with Congress, defusing attempts to limit the CIA's powers. His gentlemanly ways also served him well as ambassador to the United Nations and envoy to the People's Republic of China. At the CIA former employees say Bush avoided some tough decisions. In an uncommon move, he sent an intelligence report to the President concerning the strategic importance of the Soviet Union's Backfire bomber that contained two distinct views, but no recommendation. He left to his successor such festering problems as what to do about information leaks to renegade former CIA operative Edwin Wilson, and whether to continue a payment of about $750,000 a year to King Hussein of Jordan for providing intelligence. Bush's most renowned decision during the period was to create a so-called B- Team of military hard-liners to provide an alternative estimate of Soviet strength to balance that of the agency's regular analysts -- the A-Team. Many believe the experiment produced a more realistic picture. But critics say it was simply a way to appease conservatives on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. After the fact, Bush reportedly told President Gerald Ford that the B-Team's conclusions had no real impact on the final CIA assessment sent to the White House. In the vice presidency, Bush's performance has been even more elusive. If he had any desires to seize opportunities to stand out, he sublimated them to his wish to be the loyal subordinate. As such, he surely learned much about what a Chief Executive must do. He thus can share in the economic and foreign policy success of the Reagan Administration -- as well as its failures. Friends say Bush often disputed the President in private, but unblinkingly supported him in public. Just what those gentlemanly disagreements were, neither man is saying. This silence on George Bush's real role in the White House has left Americans wondering how much impact he has had on Reagan's agenda, and what will be different if he is No. 1. Bush's convention speech began to answer the latter question. To win, and govern effectively, manager Bush will have to make himself even clearer.