OBJECTIVES OF EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION 3 
under various seemingly less favorable circumstances), the youngster 
may have the power to determine the matter. It is true, of course, 
that the words authority and power are used in many connections 
where they are practically interchangeable. In legalistic usage the 
term authority is more often preferred when it is desired to indicate 
that the person in whom certain authority is vested possesses such 
authority because others have decided, or tacitly admit, that, in the 
interest of the whole community, he should exercise it. Thus a 
traffic policeman has authority to direct me to halt my car when, in 
his judgment, order or safety requires that I do so. His power to do 
so is another matter, and may be dependent upon whether his eye- 
sight enables him to see my car approaching, whether his whistle or 
lantern or semaphore is in proper condition so that he can transmit 
an intelligible signal, and possibly upon several other considerations. 
Power in this sense is a fact which may be objectively observed. 
Authority, on the other hand, is a right; and rights imply their recogni- 
tion by persons other than those who possess them. 
The unionist’s use of the term is perhaps more legitimate than the 
executive’s but it ignores the possibility of developing joint power 
by management and employees working together toward the ful- 
fillment of a common purpose. 
We have an unfortunate precedent in the use of such phrases as the delegation 
of power, etc. Many writers on government say that the power of the state should 
be divided among various groups; many tell us that power should be transferred 
from one group to another; many that it should be conferred on the smaller nations. 
Hence it has been natural for many economists who write of something they call 
“industrial democracy” to tell us that the power now held by owners and managers 
should be shared by the workmen. These expressions, while containing indeed a 
partial truth, nevertheless at the same time kide an important truth, namely, 
that power is self-developing capacity. . . . . Power is not a preéxisting thing 
which can be handed out to someone, or wrenched from someone. We have 
seen again and again the failure of “power” conferred. . . . . The division of 
power is not the thing to be considered, but that method of organization which 
will generate power. The moral right to an authority which has not been psycho- 
logically developed, which is not an expression of capacity, is an empty ethics.!8 
8 Follett, M. P., “Power,” in Metcalf, H. C., ed., Scientific Foundations of 
Business Administration, pp. 184-5. 
7K