Power as Multidimensional
Power is multidimensional. Cromwell and Olson (1975) identified three dimensions of power: power bases, power processes, and power outcomes. First, power bases are sources of power; they refer to resources that provide power to people.
The amount of power a resource provides is related to the value people assign to it; if others do not value a resource, the person who possesses the resource derives little power from it. Second, power processes include behavioral choices people use during an interaction to gain or maintain control, including level of assertiveness, compliance-gaining techniques, and negotiating strategies. Finally, power outcomes focus on what results from the interaction, including who makes the final decision or gains control (McDonald, 1980). When a conflict ends, the person who gains what s/he wants can be viewed as the “winner” or the person who used his/her power to control the interaction and overcome the resistance of the other person. This indicates that the person who ultimately makes the final decision is, at least at that moment, viewed also as being more powerful. Of course, how that person responds to the possession of power and control affects how the other person feels about both the interaction and the person.Another multidimensional way to view power is to categorize power as manifest, latent, and invisible. Manifest power refers to the ways people display their power through their verbal and nonverbal actions and behaviors. During a discussion, the president of a company conveys his/her power through confident posture, a strong speaking style, and effective eye contact. When these nonverbal indicators of power are coupled with clearly stated orders and ideas, the impression of power becomes even stronger and clearer. In contrast, latent power is not directly expressed; rather, people with less power understand the power a person has and anticipate the demands or needs of the more powerful person even before the person says or does anything. Excellent administrative assistants are valued for this skill to anticipate their bosses’ needs; they build this skill over the years they work for and get to know a supervisor.
Last, invisible power results from societal or psychological influences that people may be unaware of because they are simply taken for granted. Cultural norms define one group as more powerful than another. Examples include the culturally accepted relative power of men and women or of parents and children, differences in power that are simply accepted by members of the society (Komter, 1989).Coleman (2000), who refers to power as an ambiguous and abstract idea that has real consequences, explains yet another multidimensional approach that includes four perspectives of power common in the social science research. First, he defines “power over” as a competitive and coercive view ofpower that conceives ofpower as a finite resource so that the more power one person has, the less power another person can have. Coleman next explains “power with,” proposed by Mary Parker Follett in the 1920s, as power that people share. This type is not coercive or competitive; rather it is collaborative. Coleman (2000) points out that “power with” usually focuses on people seeing conflict as a mutual problem that both people should work to solve. This understanding of power leads people to minimize power differences and work to enhance the power of the other person so they can work together most effectively. The third perspective considers powerlessness and dependence. Coleman explains that when people experience powerlessness, especially for an extended period, they also tend to become dependent on others. These relationships can be positive and rewarding or negative and even abusive. The final perspective is the opposite ofthe previous one and includes empowerment and independence. People with power have resources to achieve their goals and to act independently.