Etgar, in his interesting comment, Conflict and Use of Power [4], states that my original article [5], Sources of Power: Their Impact on Intrachannel Conflict, (1) fails to acknowledge the nature of [4, p. 2731, (2) lacks clarity as to the direction of the relationship between the use of power sources and channel conflict [4, p. 273], and (3) assumes that the use of power is a cause of intrachannel conflict [4, p. 273]. I shall show that (1) a careful reading of my article will reveal all three of the preceding statements to be false, (2) the authorities cited by Etgar actually disagree with him, and (3) the preponderance of evidence in the literature does not suggest that the use of power is the end result rather than a cause of conflict. First, Etgar states that I fail to recognize the dynamic nature of and cites Pondy [6] and Rosenberg and Stern [8] as support for the notion that is a dynamic process. However, in my article I also cite [5, p. 383] Pondy [6] and Rosenberg and Stern [8] as support for the notion that is a process. I am in agreement with the theoretical frameworks of Pondy and Rosenberg and Stern on this point. Second, Etgar suggests that my research lacks clarity as to the direction of the relationship between the use of power sources and channel conflict [4, p. 273]. A careful examination of my article will reveal that I clearly state the direction of the relationship between the use of power sources and conflict. More specifically, I state that . . threats of coercion as a response to tend to intensify and increase the frequency of conflict [5, p. 383]. Importantly, in this statement I recognize that threats of coercion come after (i.e., a response), but also tend to heighten the level of conflict. Finally, Etgar believes I assume that the use of