Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior

The study of power in organizations has been both plagued and blessed by the multitude of theories and approaches that have been offered. Although the variety of approaches makes convergence difficult, consideration of its subtle complexities leads to a more comprehensive overview of the phenomenon of power. However, the proliferation of conceptual subtleties has also resulted in a fragmentation of empirical research (Astley & Sachdeva, 1984). Nowhere is this more evident than in the research agendas of organizational psychologists, who take a micro-level view, and organizational sociologists, who take a macro-level view. Micro research has focused on the behavior of individuals, macro research on the larger organizational context. In investigating power in organizations, the micro-macro split is exemplified in the distinction between potential power and power use.

For example, many definitions of power involve the ability of one actor to overcome resistance in achieving a desired result (House, 1988; Pfeffer, 1981), or, simply, the ability to affect outcomes or get things done (Mintzberg, 1983; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977). Although these summary denitions produce some conceptual agreement, distinctions exist in the focus of particular authors on "ability" or "use." Some authors suggest that power lies in the potential, and others suggest that power is only present in its use. Macro researchers focus on sources and bases of power, and micro researchers investigate bargaining techniques and political tactics.

Further, some authors have emphasized the distinction between potential and enactment, but others have argued that the two components cannot be separated. For example, Thibaut and Kelley (1959) explicitly distinguished fate control and behavior control, Wrong (1968) noted differences between potential power and actual power, and Bacharach and Lawler (1980) argued that they are distinct phenomena. On the other hand, Emerson stated that "to have a power advantage is to use it" (1972: 67). Dahl (1957) equated power with influence and suggested that unused potential is not power. Mintzberg (1983) and McCall (1979) argued that the separation of potential from use is unrealistic.

The distinction between capacity and use is most evident in the structural and behavioral streams of research on power. Pfeffer's (1981) argument that power is first and foremost a structural phenomenon exemplifies the structural approach to intraorganizational power. Although research adopting a structural perspective had previously...