In order to be a successful leader, is it better to be loved or feared? (example of a question designed to evaluate reasoning skills- TSA/ Ox Philosophy Test style)

To answer this question it must first be established what it means to be a good leader. The concept of leadership entails the execution of the goals of those led on their behalf. The function of a political leader shows this; for example the function of the prime minister is that they supervise the wishes of the country which are expressed through their voting in of the prime minister on the basis of their political party. A political party is a way of grouping a body of people who have the same outlook and desires for society. People vote for a party based on that party’s manifesto being the most in consensus with their own because it should follow that a good leader of that party will execute these. To execute these there is the necessity of a leader having certain qualities and abilities; the leader will have to be sensitive to the needs of the people it is leading so it knows what it needs to execute. The leader will also have to be fair and just so that the objectives are fulfilled legitimately. The leader will also have to have some established authority so that they are taken seriously and respected which ensures that the goals are established effectively (they need to be in a position such that they are listened to). To establish whether it is better to be feared or loved then, is to decide whether being feared or loved are most conducive to these three fundamental necessities of effective leadership. To be sensitive to the needs of the led means that there needs to be a meaningful and open relationship between the leader and the people. I think that it is clear that this is best achieved if the leader is loved; one can see this on the basis of other relationships that exist between people. When we interact with people who frighten us, we are often unable to truly disclose our thoughts or feelings because we worry about the consequences of doing so. This is because to be feared often means people are concerned about the reaction of such a person to them being to their harm. The best teachers tend to be ones who are liked because they have access to unrestrained views and therefore needs of the students so on this stipulation it seems they should be loved. Secondly, a leader needs to be considered fair and just. It is difficult to imagine being afraid of someone who is fair and just because to suppose this of a person is to suppose they will act in line with justice which is definitionally what is right. As long as justice is preserved to be this, it could not be the case that a leader is feared since they would be considered as acting in accordance to what is right. The case of authority is probably the most contestable regarding love and fear. We all probably remember from schooling that some teachers were able to generate obedience by shouting and coming across altogether imposing. However I would question whether this means that they had true authority. A dictator does not have true authority; people do not listen to them; they are forced to listen to them. Though this may be in the short term effective for executing goals, this does not work for two reasons: a) authority from fear can only benefit the views of the one who is not feared so it does not fulfil the needs of those led fully, and b) history has showed us that authority through fear tends to last until people become sick of living in such suspense and repression leading to a revolt. It seems here that being loved is a better way to have authority because it avoids these problems; a loved leader is respected and thus people choose to follow them. Therefore, it seems overall it is better for a leader to be loved to be considered good because it ensures that the function of the leader is fulfilled most effectively which is the measure of a good leader.