This study found substantial divergence between a general measure of perceived departmental power and an issue-specific measure, and indicates a conceptual distinctiveness between these two common perceptual measures. Using the assessments of three different respondent groups allowed for the cross-validation of the power measures while highlighting differences in perceptions based on group membership. The findings of this study raise the possibility that different dimensions of power (enacted versus potential power) are not equally reflected in the two perceptual measures when departmental members and top managers are the groups assessing each subunit’s power. Measurement distinctiveness was not found to exist when other departments’ members evaluated each subunit’s power. This investigation suggests that future studies of power would benefit from utilizing more than one perceptual measure and more than one group of respondents.