Power in organizations is then, according to this theory, used to overcome conflict, and cause other individuals to act in a constructive manner to bring about a desirable outcome (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974, pp. 453-473).
The above concept of organizational power is often referred to as overt power. The existence has been suggested of a second form of organizational power, which is referred to as unobtrusive power. The application of unobtrusive power within organizations may prevent the development of organizational conflict, and may be used to attain organizational objectives as effectively as they may be attained through application of overt power (Hardy, 1985, pp. 384-399).
It is conceivable, therefore, that managers who perceive and apply the concept of power in significantly different ways within organizations may achieve comparable outcomes. Depending upon the character of individual managers, the applications of different types of power or a combination of both types of power may be appropriate.
It is useful, therefore, to define overt and unobtrusive power. Overt power use "refers to the ability to secure preferred outcomes in the face of competition and conflict among declared opponents (Hardy, 1985, p. 388). Within organizations, overt power derives from an ability to "control . . . scarce resources and resource dependencies" (Hardy, 1985, p. 396). Unobtrusive power, by contrast to overt power, "refers to the ability to secure preferred outcomes by preventing conflict from arising" (Hardy, 1985, p. 399). Within organizations, unobtrusive power is "derived hegemonic and symbolic sources which are brought into play to legitimize outcomes . . . ." (Hardy, 1985, P. 396).
The literature indicates that a variety of factors may be implicated in the application of power within organizations by managers. The quality and style of organizational leadership may be a major cause of organizational conflict, and ...