This dissertation examines how individuals unlock their personal power by investigating individual differences in self-regulation, in particular, how situational conditions interact with the personality dispositions of action versus state orientation. Action-oriented individuals are well able to regulate their affective states and to bridge the intention–behavior gap, showing initiative, implementing demanding intentions, and resisting temptations. State-oriented individuals, by contrast, often struggle to regulate affect and experience difficulties enacting intentions, especially under demanding conditions, tending to hesitate and ruminate. While extensive research has highlighted the advantages of action orientation across various domains such as education and health, this thesis challenges the prevailing one-sided perspective that presents action orientation as inherently superior and frames state orientation negatively. Drawing on Personality Systems Interactions theory, the dissertation adopts a dynamic view that understands these dispositions as context-sensitive rather than fixed. The central assumption is that action and state orientation each require different kinds of situational conditions to fully unlock their potential. Across six empirical studies (overall N = 1,067) using a multimethod approach that combines experimental and survey-based research in diverse populations and contextual settings, this dissertation examines (1) action and state orientation as distinct dispositions, (2) their dynamic interaction with situational factors, and (3) ways to support each in mobilizing personal power. Overall, the findings show that each disposition offers unique advantages - they simply require different situational conditions for their potential to unfold.