Isn't "authorized designee" redundant?

Question

I write and revise policy at work, and I often see the phrase "authorized designee," as in "The Chief Executive Officer or the authorized designee is responsible for ensuring . . ."
This, to me, seems redundant because designating someone to act on your behalf means that you have given them authority to do something. However, this wording is found not only in old policies we developed internally but also in policy templates we have paid for.
Would I be justified in arguing that we should instead write "The Chief Executive Officer or designee is responsible for ensuring . . ."?

Xanne · Answer

Authorized implies a formal relationship that is not casually reversed:

Definition of authorized

1 : endowed with authority

an authorized representative

2 : sanctioned by authority : having or done with legal or official approval

an authorized biography

an authorized translation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authorized
The term designee does not in itself suggest an official or legal or demonstrable delegation of decision-making responsibility, and thus the adjective “authorized” is not obviously redundant.
As @WeatherVane says in a comment: “ Authorized" means that the appointment has followed the rules and procedures laid down in a constitution or code of practice, and perhaps given in writing, rather than an informal "you can represent us." Suppose a contract is signed: the signatory must be legally authorized to sign the document for it to be valid.”

Isn't "authorized designee" redundant?

One Answer

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question