The question of whether it is better to be loved or feared as a leader is often raised in discussions around leadership development, however this is not a new debate. It was first posed 500 years ago, in 1512, by Niccolò Machiavelli.

When the Medici family gained power in Florence, during the Italian Renaissance, Machiavelli - who was a civil servant in the Florentine Republic - was accused of conspiracy and imprisoned. To win favour with Lorenzo de Medici, he wrote a book called The Prince, which was essentially a guide to creating and holding onto a principality. The book has been a source of controversy and inspiration ever since.

In The Prince, Machiavelli says that it is desirable to be both loved and feared as a leader. However, as this is difficult to achieve, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved. Above all, he claims, a prince should strive to avoid being hated. He states:

"Because men are ungrateful, fickle and 'greedy of gain', a prince who relies on their words without other security is ruined. So long as you shower benefits on men, they will offer you their blood, provided the necessity for it is far off but when it is near at hand, they revolt. For friendships that are won by rewards - and not by greatness and nobility - cannot be depended upon in times of adversity. Men have less hesitation in offending one who makes himself loved than one who is feared. For love holds through a bond of obligation, which can be broken whenever it is in the interests of the obliged party. But fear holds by the apprehension of punishment, which is something that never leaves men."

It should be remembered that Machiavelli wrote The Prince 500 years ago - in an age of corruption and brutality - as a handbook for an ambitious ruler who wants to quell the population, enhance his empire and keep aggressive powers at bay. However, the issue is valid for today's leaders because whether you are loved or feared will sit at the heart of your leadership style and it will affect the culture of the entire organisation.

Machiavelli was in favour of leading with an iron fist. He claimed that a few 'displays of severity' - by which he meant ordering some timely executions - are better than allowing disorder which damages the whole community.

In modern leaders, ruthlessness and boldness - qualities described as desirable by Machiavelli - may be required at certain times. But is it really possible to lead through an environment of fear? It depends on the circumstances.

The military consider fear and intimidation to be an effective means of motivation. Think of a typical drill sergeant. Hannibal and Genghis Khan were successful military commanders who were renowned for their cruelty. Their enemies were terrified of them but so too where their own men. Yet their armies were still prepared to follow both leaders with some degree of loyalty and devotion.

A dictatorial management style based around fear and control can be effective for some teams or departments. For example, for those working in a set and specific role in a highly structured environment. If you want to control people and get them to undertake certain tasks, through orders and instructions, then fear and intimidation can work as a way of getting people to do what you want.

However in a customer-driven organisation, this approach will be less effective. Being 'loved' as a leader has its advantages when you want to empower people with freedom and responsibility so they can take initiative and be creative. People will only dare to perform to the best of their ability, or go the extra mile for you, if they feel trusted and respected.

Fear and intimidation create mistrust. In an intimidating environment - or where people are fearful of losing their jobs - they may work hard but they won't deliver to their real capability because they'll want to ensure that they don't make mistakes. They won't rock the boat or take risks because they won't want to get punished. As soon as they feel that there will be consequences if they don't succeed, they'll stop performing.

Leaders usually find that people are more productive when they enjoy their work environment and when they feel supported and respected. They'll be more willing to show initiative and to take risks in an atmosphere of trust, where smart mistakes are accepted as the price of progress.

Leaders should aim to create this kind of productive environment. If they are loved, as opposed to being feared, they are more likely to foster a climate of trust and collaboration in which people can give their best.

This is not to say that Machiavelli was wrong. He wasn't writing specifically for leaders of organisations. His uncompromising account of how to seize and retain power was written to gain the attention of a ruler of a totalitarian regime, for whom being liked by the population was not a necessary political investment.

As well as debating whether it is better to be loved or feared, Machiavelli expresses other contentious ideas in The Prince on issues such as ambition, manipulation, propaganda and choosing advisors. His thinking may be 500 years old but it remains absolutely compelling for today's leaders.