Power Resource Management Theory

Power resource management theory is founded on the assumption that those who have control over [Page 633]resources (also known as stakes) have differing degrees of power over one or more of the following: decision-making processes, resource recognition and/or allocation, criteria building, interpretation of events or communication, agenda setting, issues management, and the like. In essence, there are as many resources as there are economic, political, and social contexts. Definitions of what might be considered resources and the values assigned to them are largely a phenomenon of social construction. Resource definitions and values can be frequently characterized as states instead of traits. Definitions of resources as well as assigned values can and often do change through ideological discussions or contests over what is or what should be.

Traditionally, however, public relations resources are those “things” that have the potential to accomplish organizational goals. In the arena of activism, for example, Robert L. Heath suggested that

Barry Barnes wrote that power resource management theory conceptualizes power as being “embedded in society as a whole” (1988, p. 61); however, not everyone or every organization has the discretion to use power. “The possession of power is the possession of discretion in the use of that power. When one person [or organization] is said to have more power than another it is a matter of the one having the discretion over a greater capacity for action than the other” (p. 61).

Considerations of power and the discretionary use of it in public relations can be interestingly contextualized among three levels of power. The first, and most traditional, conceptualization of power assumes that one has power over another to the extent that one can get the other to do something he or she (or it) would otherwise not do. This is the most obvious presence of power. Persuading members of a public to contribute to a new philanthropic effort or to adopt a specific interpretation of an organization's intended identity over an alternative one are examples of the first level of power.

The second level assumes that power comes from the mobilization of bias, meaning the ability to represent sectional interests as the interests of the masses within a given population; the definitions and values of a few are made to take precedence over the definitions and values held by the majority. For example, when public relations strategies and tactics are used to develop consensus around economic, political, or social issues (regardless of party lines) to favor one group of the public over others that have stakes in the outcome, they are being used for the mobilization of bias. It is important to note, however, that this process is rarely a conscious one in the minds of the majority participants.

...