Writing in 1959, Robert Michels argued that despite an early emphasis on participatory democracy in unions, their structure ultimately resolves itself into an oligarchy; a growing complexity in organisational structure, including the development of an administrative bureaucracy, results in a division of labour as professional leaders enter the union and as a skilled hierarchy emerges, ordinary members lose control.

Richard Lester, writing at the same time, looked at organised labour in the United States and advanced a similar theory: at first, rank and file participation is high as the union fights for its existence but later, as it wins rights and establishes bargaining institutions, a goal displacement occurs; a larger specialised bureaucracy emerges; and skilled national leaders grow in power and become distanced from rank and file. The union comes to identify more closely with the goals of management than of members. Institutionalised bargaining constrains grassroots participation through the introduction of procedures in order to stave off spontaneous industrial action. Power and influence are wielded in a less conflictual manner and internal democracy is reduced.

Colin Crouch, writing in the 1970s and early 1980s, contends that union power lies in collective action, particularly strikes, but he emphasises labour's weakness in relation to employers and the many factors which can undermine strikes. In the management of conflict, he sees a gap between the national union centre and grassroots membership. Members may accept national participation if it produces direct gains but a strong shop floor movement may also rupture national understandings with government or employers to deliver industrial peace if it cannot see benefits. Members may resist trading wage restraint for other guarantees and rights or a longer-term income rise. Crouch's point is that the national centre acts as a guarantor of members’ long-term interests, while the power of the labour movement may lie in its decentralised, mass participatory character. In this paradox, he sees the failing of the contemporary labour movement.

Theorists have argued over the relationship between power and coercion.