ABSTRACT
Q uite a few years have now passed by since John R. P. French first presented our articles (French & Raven, 1959) on the bases of social power that had defined social influence as a change in the belief, attitude or behavior of a person—the target of influence, which results from the action, or presence, of another person or group of persons—the influencing agents. Social power was defined as the potential for such influence (Cartwright, 1965; French & Raven, 1959). It was posited that most forms of social influence, and, in their potential, most bases of power, could be considered as stemming from five different bases of power—reward, coercion, legitimate, expert, and referent power—or six, if we include information or persuasion (Raven, 1965). The formulation was developed inductively, as French and I sat and asked each other questions about various forms of social influence, as related to the manner in which change is induced. We drew on our knowledge of the sociological and psychological literature of that time, especially the experimental social psychology literature, as well as our knowledge and experiences of critical incidents in which social influence had been attempted and exerted. Though there have been some criticisms and suggestions for improvement (e.g., Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985; Yukl, 1989), the resulting typology has been characterized as the most frequently utilized model of dyadic power in the social psychological and industrial/organizational literature (House, 1993; Mintzberg, 1983; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985).
