CHAPTER 2
A Model for Understanding Covert Processes

This chapter introduces a multidimensional model that explains the sources and dynamics of all covert processes. Instead of addressing each of the five covert dimensions separately, the model reveals what they have in common. This model addresses three critical questions:

1.Why and how do things become covert?

2.What are the different types of covert processes?

3.How do different covert processes interact and manifest themselves?

This chapter provides a conceptual foundation for thinking about covert processes and how they may impact any change initiative.

The Covert Processes Model

A number of years ago, Judith Katz and I developed the Covert Processes Model to help us better understand, diagnose, and deal with the complex dynamics involved in all covert processes (Marshak and Katz, 2001). The model shows the fundamental sources and types of covert processes for individuals, groups, and organizations (see accompanying illustration). It is eclectic, drawing on a diverse set of psychological, sociological, and social-psychological theories to bring together in one framework a range of covert processes that are normally discussed separately. It is presented in everyday language and organized around a metaphor used almost everywhere to connote overt and covert dynamics in organizations.

The model uses the imagery of what’s on-the-table or putting things on-the-table for overt processes. Consistent with that basic metaphor, things that are covert are located elsewhere (under-the-table, above-the-table). This allows the model to incorporate a complex understanding of covert dynamics while retaining the readily understood framework. We have found that the on-the-table and under-the-table imagery allows us to explore covert dynamics in workplace settings without having to use much psychological jargon.

The model assumes that covert processes can emerge from conscious, unconscious, and out-of-awareness dynamics. The multifaceted sources of covert processes led us to two critical realizations. First, no matter how hard you might try or how much you might wish, some things will always be covert in any social system. The second critical realization was that covert processes, despite prevailing sentiments to the contrary, are not inherently bad or evil.

Things may be hidden or out-of-awareness for a variety of reasons. In other words, covert processes simply “are,” and involve anything that is not overt for whatever reasons. No negative value judgment is implied or assumed. Things may be hidden for good, bad, or unknown reasons. These two insights, as will be discussed later, have a fundamental impact on the way we think about and deal with covert dynamics during organizational change.

The Focal System and Field of Experience

The first step in understanding covert processes is to consider what the focal system is, and then consider its field of experience. Focal system is the term for the social unit on which you are focused. Are you focused on what’s happening in the organization, in one of its work groups, in a specific individual, or in all three? As you use the model, you will sometimes find it necessary to shift your attention from one focal system to another.

The model is equally applicable whether you are working with an individual, a work group, or the organization as a whole. Sometimes your inquiry will be individually focused: What’s going on under-the-table with Jane? Sometimes it will be work group focused; What’s going on under-the-table in Jane’s sales team? Finally, it could be organizationally focused: What’s going on under-the-table with respect to the sales function?

The field of experience helps to define what is known and unknown to the focal system. Every individual, group, and organization is defined by its life and historical experiences. No individual, group, or organization will have been exposed to all there is to know, so there will always be hidden possibilities simply because they have not been part of the system’s experience or knowledge base. For individuals, the field of experience is defined by such factors as age, education, religious training, race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, professional identity, or family experiences. For groups and organizations, analogous factors might include age, type of business, demographics, and types of products or services provided.

The field of experience sets the limits that initially determine what is open (overt) or closed (covert) to consideration by the focal system. For example, a work group with a field of experience that includes a long history of autocratic bosses may find it difficult to work with any other leadership style. In such a case your attempts to introduce a different style may fall on deaf ears or be completely misunderstood. Likewise, an organization with a hundred-year history in a regulated industry might find the requirements of a deregulated and highly competitive market literally inconceivable—and hence “hidden” from consideration.

The Prism and Its Contents

What we actually perceive and how we make sense of the world is further filtered through a prism composed of individual, group, organizational, and societal lenses. The notion of the prism is drawn primarily from cognitive psychology, which asserts that all social experience is interpreted through internal belief structures. The contents of the focal system’s prism thus become a primary determinant of how things will be seen and interpreted. Whether the glass is half full or half empty depends on your prism and not on the actual quantity of water in the glass. There are also a number of belief components that exist within the prism, as seen in the accompanying illustration. Each component plays a part in defining how things will be seen and interpreted by the focal system.

Childhood Lessons Learned

These include “tapes” and messages from parents, teachers, and other authority figures about what is right and wrong and how you should behave. For example, we were all told when we were young how to be a good little boy or a good little girl: Always play nice. Don’t get dirty. Take care of your brother. Do what you’re told. Don’t get into fights. In addition, we were taught ways to navigate successfully in the world: If I take care of others, people will be nice to me. Often these early lessons remain unexamined in our prisms, but they still influence our adult behavior. Consider how we learned to look first left and then right when crossing the street, and how difficult it is to break the habit when we visit other countries where they drive on the opposite side of the road!

Beliefs, Assumptions, and Values

Beliefs, assumptions, and values comprise the broadest array of concepts that order, judge, link, and explain events. This array also encompasses such things as biases, prejudices, and habitual thought patterns. And, while some beliefs, assumptions, and values were carried forward from childhood, some are of recent origin. All have the impact of both organizing and limiting your experience and responses. Consider the power of the values learned by the Depression-era generation about thriftiness and how that shaped the way they engaged the world. For many of that generation, debt and credit cards were never an option.

Formal Theories and Systems of Thought

These include all aspects of what you have learned through formal education, as well as exposure to religious, philosophical, and professional ideals and concepts. Theories and systems of thought help shape the way you look at the world and your beliefs about how things are related to each other. What someone learns in business school about the duty to provide shareholder value, for example, can have a profound impact on later managerial choices about meeting the needs and interests of employees (Ghoshal, 2005).

Paradigms

Paradigms are out-of-awareness conceptual models that guide the way you organize and think about some classes of phenomena. Formal theories and systems of thought develop within the framework of a particular paradigm. It is virtually impossible to “see” something that does not exist within your operating paradigm. A change in paradigm can be so powerful that it is usually considered revolutionary or transformational in impact. Currently many organizations are shifting from industrial-age paradigms about management and organization to newer paradigms involving virtual organizations, telecommuting, and off-shoring, for example.

Organization and Societal Cultures

Culture includes taken-for-granted assumptions about the most basic aspects of life in the organization and society: Are people inherently good or evil? Is competition or cooperation best? Is directive or participatory leadership better? How do we define success in this organization? What is taboo around here?

Until you encounter another culture, these aspects of your prism generally go unquestioned. The familiar change theory of unfreeze-movement-refreeze, for example, assumes change happens through an episodic, linear process, whereas in some traditional cultures change is assumed to be both continuous and cyclical.

Impacts of the Prism

It is primarily through our prisms that a number of covert processes begin to take shape. Anything your prism defines as legitimate, proper, acceptable, and reasonable will become overt and can be placed on-the-table for open discussion and engagement. Anything your prism defines as either unacceptable or too good to be true will be un-discussable, will then become covert, and will be kept off-the-table. If a group’s prism defines something as unacceptable, then even if someone puts it on-the-table it will be quickly knocked off or ignored.

R.J: Hey, we didn’t discuss the criteria for bonuses.

H.D: Now that we have finished with bonuses, let’s move on to another topic.

In short, the contents of our prisms help us to interpret and deal with the world, but they also serve as blinders and filters covertly preventing us from considering or discussing certain possibilities.

If the unexpressed beliefs in a work group’s prism prohibit open discussion of emotions as unacceptable, then most feelings will need to be disguised, denied, or expressed covertly, perhaps through passive-aggressive behavior. Likewise, an organization’s culture may imply that win-win collaborative relationships between the union and management is pie-in-the-sky and therefore too good to be true. If so, then in that organization contrary beliefs or courses of action will become covert or go unconsidered.

Overt Processes: What Goes On-the-Table

What will be overt, or on-the-table, therefore, includes anything that the individual, group, or organization prism(s) defines as acceptable, proper, reasonable and legitimate. The range of what’s permitted on-the-table will vary from individual to individual, group to group, and organization to organization, depending on what is valued in that focal system and on the tacit agreements among the members of the system.

In a work group where examining the team’s strengths and weaknesses is considered appropriate behavior, you would expect a team review meeting to include open discussions of areas of success and areas to improve. This would be different from a work group where discussing strengths is considered to be somehow inappropriate or unacceptable, perhaps because it is “not needed.” If the work group’s prism questioned the value of acknowledging strengths, people would think to themselves: Why talk about what people are doing well? Focus on what needs to be improved. Any attempts to discuss strengths might then be knocked off the table in favor of discussing individual and team weaknesses. Likewise, in many organizations, discussions related to the bottom line are always overtly on-the-table, but discussions about values are sometimes considered to be too “airy-fairy” to be discussed for very long, if at all.

Covert Processes: What Stays Off-the-Table

Topics, thoughts and behaviors that cannot be put on-the-table for open discussion become hidden. They do not, however, go away. Instead they continue to exist and are often expressed covertly. The five principal manifestations, or places to look for, covert processes are: (1) things that are out-of-awareness and located in the prism, such as mindsets; (2) things that are denied and located under-the-table, such as negative emotions or politics; (3) things that are unexpressed and above-the-clouds, such as inspirations; (4) things that are repressed and buried in the subconscious, such as deep fears and anxieties; and (5) things that are untapped and in the superconscious, such as “the farthest reaches of human nature” or our “higher selves.”

Out-of-Awareness, In the Prism

Significantly, the existence of the prism and its powerful influences is itself covert to most people. People don’t usually think about the implicit mindsets that guide their day-to-day thoughts. When the contents of the prism are left unexamined, however, the focal system’s behavior will be controlled, and limited, by unseen and untested constraints. Despite the power of the prism, people are often unaware of its pervasive impacts.

Meanwhile, outsiders with different prisms may be confused as to why relatively obvious possibilities are systematically ignored. The members of the focal system may not be able to get their thinking out-of-the-box, but an outsider may see that everyone is struggling to push open a locked door while ignoring an open window. Finally, the ways in which a focal system’s prism is guiding and limiting how it thinks about and deals with organizational change is usually completely out of awareness unless someone questions the tacit assumptions.

Things Denied and Under-the-Table

Hidden under-the-table are those topics, thoughts, and behaviors considered too risky to address openly. These become covert because of the fear of punishment for openly engaging in something believed to be inappropriate or unacceptable. People in a work group, for example, may refer to difficulties with another department but feel it is inappropriate to talk about them openly in a negative way. Likewise, an obvious flaw in a plan may not be raised if the prism of the powerful boss includes a belief that challenging feedback from subordinates is unacceptable. Consider also an organization whose prism includes the belief that leaders worthy of their positions are supposed to have all the answers. In such organizations, elaborate covert processes will evolve to keep spontaneous issues off-the-table and protect senior managers from appearing stupid or incapable. There will be “no surprises” and things will be worked out before meetings.

When all members of a focal system have an interest in keeping something hidden for fear of the consequences, there is likely to be covert collusion. Covert collusion is especially common in settings where there is a high degree of suspicion. Members of a work group who withhold needed information or maneuver to ensure that certain topics are not fully addressed in a meeting are two examples of this type of covert process.

Another manifestation of denied processes occurs when the focal system, or some of its members, believe their purposes can best be achieved when not everyone knows what is going on. This often occurs in focal systems where there are competitive dynamics related to power, rewards, and resources. In such settings, individuals may act secretly to advance their own agenda. Individuals or groups acting in this way are considered to be “out for themselves” or engaged in “politics.” Although this is only one type of covert dynamic, it usually comes to mind first when people think about covert processes.

Unexpressed and Above-the-Clouds

A third, often-overlooked, covert process involves the focal system’s secret hopes and wishes that are hidden above-the-clouds. The prisms of individuals, groups, or organizations often contain tacit beliefs that it is inappropriate to express positive or optimistic thoughts. Consequently, desires to reach new heights, to express pride in accomplishments, or to express altruistic values or hopes for great achievements will be kept off the table. A focal system’s most optimistic hopes and wishes—and anything considered to be too good to be true—will be kept covert out of fear of ridicule. People who enthusiastically express positive thoughts and ideas risk being labeled naive, unrealistic, or a stargazer.

In many work teams and organizations, attempts to create and express inspirational visions routinely fail because they are considered to be “too far out” or “not grounded in reality.” Altruistic values may be ridiculed for having little or nothing to do with the bottom line. The unexpressed “too good to be true” aspect of covert processes is a reminder that not everything covert is bad. People hide their valuables as well as their vulnerabilities and vices.

Repressed and Buried in the Subconscious

At a deeper level, hiding in our unconscious, are things that are unacceptable to acknowledge. Psychoanalysts, beginning with Freud, described the unconscious as including powerful needs and drives that are so unacceptable they have been repressed, buried, and locked away, but still have a strong hold on our day-to-day behavior. Focal system defense mechanisms such as projections and compensatory behaviors are common manifestations of this type of covert process.

Groups that claim everything is fine while they drive themselves relentlessly, with no acknowledgment of the emotional, psychological, or physical toll, are likely to be under the influence of unconscious covert processes. For example, work teams operating in dangerous situations may take unnecessary risks as a show of bravado to compensate for their very real, but repressed, fears.

Individuals and groups may also project onto others their own unacceptable-to-acknowledge attributes. For example, the undesirable characteristics attributed to another work group (They are selfish, ruthless, and only out for themselves) may be nothing more than an unconscious defense mechanism wherein an unacceptable aspect of your own work group is projected onto someone else. In reality it may be your work group, not the other, that has needs for power and competitive victory at all costs.

Things Untapped in the Superconscious

This aspect of the Covert Process Model is based on the idea of a positive unconscious in which a focal system is in denial about, or repressing, its positive attributes. It is described in psychosynthesis, a spiritual psychology developed by Roberto Assagioli, who was a contemporary of Freud and Jung. To distinguish the positive aspects of the unconscious from the more negative aspects associated with the subconscious, it is called the superconscious. Both represent unconscious or psychodynamic phenomena. The superconscious contains creativity, talent, and as-yet-undiscovered dimensions that could help the focal system realize its full potential or its spiritual and higher purposes. Hidden away and not fully tapped are the outer limits of the focal system’s creativity, synergy, and abilities.

The untapped possibilities, even though involving positive attributes, stay covert because it is simply unbelievable or unacceptable to imagine that such things could be true. For example, the possibilities of creating collaborative, synergistic alliances between producers and suppliers, supported by just-in-time inventory systems, were unimaginable not very many years ago. Similarly the possibility that a work team could have the competencies to be both innovative and self-managed is a relatively recent awareness for many teams and organizations.

All of these covert processes have several things in common. They are generally hidden from public discussion. They limit choices, block creativity, and can trap the focal system in repetitive and self-defeating behavior. They are not easily identified unless you know where to look. They are ubiquitous, always impacting what is said and done.

The Model in Action: A Case Illustration

The Covert Processes Model integrates a wide range of behavioral science theories to explain the dynamics of covert processes in individuals, groups, and organizations. It can help you to see how and why covert processes exist in all social systems, and where to look for them. Although the model is a static representation of different elements organized around the “on-the-table” metaphor, in use it invites dynamic consideration of covert processes at work. The case of the Whiz Tech Corporation illustrates this.

Applying The Covert Processes Model

Let’s look at the Whiz Tech situation through the Covert Processes Model. The primary focal systems are the WTC executive team and the total organization. First, we note the rational discussions that led to the decision to commission a task force to reexamine the corporate vision. In the prism of Whiz Tech executives, delegating the development of a new corporate vision to a cross-sectional task force was a legitimate thing to do. Having a task force meet in a retreat setting was also clearly acceptable. At the retreat, the operating prism of the task force became somewhat different from the normal WTC prism. The various exercises and norm-setting activities they engaged in together led the task force to adopt working beliefs and assumptions that included: It’s OK to have fun; Tapping into employees’ pride is more important than anything else; Have no limits, anything is possible; We are saving the company; People will really get behind what we are doing because this is what they really want. Thus the new setting and activities helped create a different operational prism to guide their work as a task force. This allowed new ideas to be put on-the-table, engaged, and ultimately embraced.

When the vision was brought back to the sponsoring executives, however, the normal Whiz Tech prism took over to guide what would happen next. Thus the prism of the executives reviewing the task force’s effort had different contents that were less accepting of the new vision. The executives’ collective prism included such beliefs and assumptions as: Work is serious business and fun is frivolous; We are charged with making money for our shareholders, not making people happy; Inspirational visions are silly, it’s hard numbers and goals that matter; If we implement this vision, I am not sure I will know how to manage in the new ways it calls for; This whole task force thing was Pat’s idea, not mine; Never publicly criticize a fellow executive; If we commission something we are expected to endorse and support it; If I raise any questions about the vision I will be attacked for not supporting the team.

From the perspective of a top team with these assumptions and beliefs, the proposed vision raised a number of serious doubts and concerns. However, their prism also included beliefs that prevented open discussion of their doubts, so many concerns were un-discussable and thus had to remain covert.

Some of the doubts that were openly raised by the executives in the meeting had to do with the vision being too good to be true: Isn’t it too “airy-fairy” for a high-tech company of information technology geeks? Can we really run a company on values and inspirations? Could this really be the answer to our corporate problems?

Other doubts that were not openly discussed had to do with questionable or unacceptable thoughts and feelings. These were concealed or denied in the meeting, but expressed privately and confidentially: This was Pat’s idea and I don’t like Pat. I’m afraid I wouldn’t be able to fit in if the new vision became a reality. Did we really let these crazy people go off in the woods and come back with something as soft and squishy as this to be the answer to our problems? I’m angry at what we got back but afraid to speak up.

Because the operating prism of the top team could not allow open expression of these kinds of comments, they were not put on-the-table and fully engaged: Never publicly criticize a fellow executive. If we commission something we are expected to endorse and support it. If I raise a question about the vision I will be attacked for not supporting the team. Instead of working through the issues, the executives’ concerns and feelings became covert and were expressed indirectly. As time went by there was less-than-enthusiastic support from some of the executives for the new vision, a few became very busy with other things, and still others tacitly waited for the whole thing to die for lack of commitment and resources.

When implementation of the vision moved to middle managers and their work groups, similar doubts and concerns emerged through the prisms of the people impacted. In addition, the middle managers—as many of them privately complained—did not have the skills to handle the challenges and emotions coming from their employees. The managers kept this under-the-table in fear they would be seen as not measuring up. The middle managers also picked up on the subtle and not-so-subtle signals that top management was not fully committed to the new vision. Many of them interpreted the vision as another “flavor of the month,” believing it was still most important to follow the rules and make your numbers. Thus, downplaying or avoiding the implementation meetings was a sensible, although covert, strategy to deal with the mixed messages they were receiving.

Learning from the Whiz Tech Case

A quick lesson from the Whiz Tech case is that simply developing, and trying to implement, a new vision will not lead to change if the prisms of key people or the entire organization don’t support the new ideas. The new vision may get special attention initially, but ultimately the change effort will be knocked off-the-table because prevailing mindsets simply do not allow it. Note that the absence of real commitment may never get openly expressed if beliefs and norms exist that don’t permit it. Instead the reactions and responses will stay off the table, become covert, and leave the change advocates wondering what is going on.

You cannot take something that is “too good to be true” from above-the-clouds, put it on-the-table, and expect it to stay there without further support. You need to account for any under-the-table concerns that may be seen as too risky to discuss. You may also need to examine the focal system’s prism to see if there are any beliefs and assumptions that need to be challenged or modified in some way. Chapters 7 and 8 discuss how to do this.

Conclusion

No matter how much a focal system seeks to change (that is, the overt message, on-the-table, is the desire to change) often covert processes work to maintain the status quo. Because all significant change involves covert processes, it is critical to consider what is overt and covert on all levels. What is in the prism, what is on-the-table, what is under-the-table, what is repressed and buried, and what lies in the unexpressed or untapped hopes, dreams, and potential of individuals, groups, and the organization? The more you develop your understanding of the nature of covert processes, recognizing how they operate, and develop skills to better address them, the more effective you will be in leading organizational change efforts.