Respect and Power: there are two types of each, don’t confuse them.

Several times I’ve seen a post online that says something like this:

There are two very different types of respect; respect for a person as a human being, and respect for a person as an authority. But because we use the same word for these two different things, people often talk as if they were the same thing. So for example, when someone in authority says “If you don’t respect me, I won’t respect you.” What they’re actually saying (and justifying) is “If you don’t respect me as an authority, I won’t respect you as a human being.”

This point about the two meanings of the word “respect” is important, and I’m glad to see that it is getting some attention. Especially since there are currently a number of public authority figures who are using exactly this approach to justify their appalling treatment of people who don’t “respect” them enough.

The same point can be made about power, though. I have seen many (too many) discussions about power and empowerment, but there are two very different types of power, which, like the two types of respect, are often not distinguished and often talked about as if they were the same thing. They are “power to” and “power over”.

From what I’ve seen, most of the time when people are talking about power, they are referring to “power over”. This is power over people and over resources; the ability to control and influence people, the ability to decide budgets and allocate resources. “Power over” is the power to make other people do what you want them to, either directly or indirectly.

“Power to” is more personal, more subtle, and in many ways more dangerous for those seeking “power over”. It is the power to decide for yourself, the power to do what make you happy, and makes you feel fulfilled. It is also the power to object to other people having power over you.

It is “power to” that is usually referred to when someone is talking about “empowerment”, which makes sense, as that is the power that is more fulfilling long term, and makes us personally and professionally happier. But the last instance I gave of “power to” is also why most corporate initiatives to “empower” their employees have done little except annoy everyone — giving someone “power to” means that someone else has less “power over”, and that person usually doesn’t want to give it up. It’s a slippery slope; as soon as you start giving people more “power to”, it becomes less and less easy to exercise “power over” them.

The really big deception, the reason why pretending that “power to” and “power over” are the same thing is a problem, is the source of the power. “Power over” has to be given to you, one way or another. You have to be given the job by someone higher up in the organization, or you have to have people willingly give you “power over” by voting for you in an election. “Power to” on the other hand, is claimed, rather than given. You already inherently have the power to decide, the power to go after your own happiness and fulfillment, you have the power to object to other people exercising power over you, especially if they are abusing that power, or have gotten it illegitimately.

But when people talk as if they are the same thing, we can accidentally convince ourselves that “power to” must be given to us, just like “power over”. That we need permission, that we need approval, that we need to have won something, in order to exercise our “power to.”

But just like respect for authority is not the same as respect as a human being, the power to do what fulfills you is not the same as power over someone else.

Go out and use your power to do something.