In graduate school, I attended a seminar on leadership taught by Lt. General Dave Palmer (one-time commandant of West Point). The issue of "Fear or Respect" came up and the consensus was that it depends on the situation. If one is commanding troops in battle, there is no room for an "intellectual discussion"--orders must be obeyed. If one is an "ER" or "OR" doctor, immediate "life and death" decisions must be made--no time for discussion. If one is a CEO of a company in trouble--hard decisions must be made--for better or for worse. If one is the President of the US and the "3 AM phone call" comes... same thing.

In all of the examples above, I'm sure the General, Doctor, CEO, and President would prefer to be "respected." Given the immediacy and gravity of the situation however, there is not time to worry about it. If they must be "feared" to accomplish what must be done, then so be it.

Personally, in my own career I choose "respect." I can't imagine any case where I would want or need to have my colleagues or students "fear" me. In fact, "fear" would be counterproductive in that it would limit open discussion and inquiry.

Perhaps the best treatise on "fear and love (respect)" was written almost 500 years ago...

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties."

Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted."

Nicolo Machiavelli -- "The Prince"