Studies using social power theory constructs (French and Raven, 1959) to analyze compliance attempts in field settings show that the power bases are not consistently related to any subordinate outcome variables such as job performance or attitudes. A study was undertaken to test key hypotheses derived from the social power theory concerning outcomes arising from power base use by managers in organizations. It was hypothesized that: (1) Expert and Referent powers, the bases framing the least obtrusive compliance attempts, would be positively correlated with job performance of subordinates; (2) Coercive and Legitimate powers, where the compliance attempts are the most obtrusive, would be significantly correlated with both role ambiguity and conflict; and (3) Reward power, the power most constrained by organizational systems, would show no significant relationship with any outcome. A scale drawn from French and Raven definitions was administered to supervisors in a large organization. Supervisors indicated how often they performed each behavior described on the scale. Subordinates described their role ambiguity and role conflict perceptions using a role stress scale. A measure of their job performance was also obtained. Support for the hypotheses was found. These results appear to indicate that unobtrusiveness and nonthreatening compliance attempts may lead to better group performance on the job. More traditional work motivators such as Reward and Coercive power do not appear to have comparable beneficial effects. (Author/NB)