If we return to some of the early modern theorists on power, like Bachrach and Baratz (1962), Dahl (1961) and Schattschneider (1960), all summarized in Lukes’s (1974) ‘Three Dimensions of Power’, then we can see how the very denial of Soft Power is – in itself and ironically – an example of Soft Power – where certain aspects of the debate are deemed irrelevant and thus subordinated by those in power. In other words, and to adopt Nye’s terminology again, to deny that any other option exists (e.g. Soft Power) is itself an ideological claim – for example, Soft Power, and not simply a claim to the truth. While Soft Power seems appropriate to Leadership with its requirement for persuasion, debate and ideological attraction, Hard Power clearly fits better with Command, but Management sits awkwardly between the two rooted in both or neither, because coercion is perceived as inappro- priate within a free labour contract, while ideological attraction can hardly explain why all employees continue to turn up for work.
Keith Grint, Problems Problems Problems, 2005