>What does this mean? I think it indicates power over someone else. I
>empower you to ...
>
>[Host's Note: Lynette, you've hit right on the essential contradiction...
>
>"Empowered" means you have the power, not me.
>
>If I can empower you, then I can take it away and you are not "empowered."
>Thus, the usual use, "I empower you to..." has a built-in contradiction.
Interesting insight by Rick.
It seems true that if I have the power now, and I wish to empower Rick
(for example) the act of empowering him is yet another use of my power. It
is however a necessary first step if a transfer of power is going to take
place (if we are assuming some orderly transition - there are other ways
to achieve the same end result).
Once I take the first step, then if I am to remain faithful to
empowerment, Rick has to have the latitude to fail (the good try that
misses the mark), I must support that failure and be willing to guide Rick
(but not control him or sabotage his decisions) toward a better decision
the next time.
In the long run, if I make the decision to empower Rick, and other people
(with power) in similar position make like type decisions, all in good
faith, after a period of time, the power granted takes on a life of its
own, is dispersed through the system and is not easily pulled back.
Perhaps we are talking the power and the necessity of shared vision here
(the shared vision that power should be dispersed).
Bill Braun
--Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>