Standard Pattern 1

Running head: SPAD IN ORGINIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION

The Standard Pattern of Affective Dynamics

and it’s Role in Organizational Transformation

Troy S. Knapp

John F. Kennedy University

 Standard Pattern 2

Abstract

In the large spectrum of individual motivational

theories the Opponent Process Theory has very strong

parallels to the patterns we find in organizational

transformation. This parallel becomes clear when one looks

at the striking similarities between the Standard Pattern

of Affective Dynamics as explained by the Opponent Process

Theory and the numerous yet similar graphs used to explain

organizational transformation. The Opponent Process

Theory, as developed by Richard Soloman, creates a pattern

that can explain learning and motivation at the individual

level (Soloman & Corbit, 1974; Soloman, 1980). The pattern

is called the Standard Pattern of Affective Dynamics

(SPAD). SPAD states that for every emotional experience

there is an opposite emotional experience that maintains

equilibrium between emotional and motivational states.

These two sates are commonly referred to as the alpha and

beta state (Buskist & Gerbing, 1990). These states create a

consistent and recognizable graph. Interestingly, this

graph strongly resembles the graphs that appear frequently

in organizational transformation. This paper will look at

what Opposition Process Theory and SPAD say about

individual motivation, how this relates to the group level

dynamics found in organizational transformation, and what

 Standard Pattern 3

the implications of this similarity are for organizational

transformation.

Opponent Process Theory

Psychologist Richard Soloman developed the Opponent

Process Theory and the Standard Pattern of Affective

Dynamics in the mid 1970’s. The basic premise of the

theory is that for every emotional experience there is an

oppoiste emotional experience that maintains equilibrium

between opposing emotional and motivational states (Buskist

& Gerbing). This assumes the individuals are inherently

motivated to maintain a relatively stable emotional state

(Rudy, 1997). To better understand this lets look at a

classic individual example used by Soloman and how this

example fits the SPAD (Fig. 1).

The classic individual example is based on a

parachutist. Assume you are about to jump out a plane and

float to the ground below. What do you imagine you would

be feeling? You are most likely highly aroused, perhaps

your knees feel weak and your palms sweaty. Once you are

nudged out the door and complete the jump you will most

likely find your self on the ground in a highly elated

state. In fact, you will be looking forward to jumping

again. What’s happening here is that you first felt a

great amount of anxiety around making the jump; however,

 Standard Pattern 4

once the jump was complete you felt a great sense of

elation. This elation is so great that you are considering

jumping again. Soloman’s point is that the anxiety you

feel before the jump is compensated by the elation you felt

after the jump. The most salient factor here is that the

opponent emotion (elation) that develops in response to the

initial emotion (anxiety) may persist longer than the

initial emotion thereby reducing the strength of the first

emotion (Buskist & Gerbing). Simply stated this means that

the fear of parachuting will diminish with every jump but

the elation with each safe landing will persist. It is

extremely important to point out that this theory makes no

assumptions and provides no answers as to why the

parachutist jumps in the first place. The graph

representing this is called the Standard Pattern of

Affective Dynamics and is seen in the bottom half of figure

1. Notice how closely this graph resembles those of ‘The

Flow of Transformational Development’ (Gemmet, 2000),

‘Riding the Roller Coaster’ (Weisbord & Janoff), figures 2

and 3, respectively.

Lets go back and look for a moment at what creates the

graph we see in SPAD. Then we will look at how the graph

created by SPAD strongly parallels others found in

Transformational Development.
 Standard Pattern 5

The Opponent Process Theory has three ideas that we

need to understand in order to see this parallel. First,

lets develop a more concise summary of what we already

stated: any stimulus that produces an emotional effect

also produces a later effect that is opposite in direction

of the initial effect. On figure 1 the initial effect is

called the alpha process (a-process) and the opposite

effect is called the beta process (b-process).

Second, as we have seen in our parachutist example,

the magnitude and duration of the a-process is fixed. No

matter how many times your experience the stimuli the graph

of the a-process will remain the same. However, the b-

process is not fixed. The more exposure you have to

stimuli the earlier and stronger the b-process will be.

This has a profound impact on the SPAD. The first few

times a subject is introduced to the stimuli the a-state is

very large. As the graph shows, after several

presentations the a-state is much smaller. This is because

the actual emotions experienced by the subject are the

difference in magnitude between the a and b process, or (a-

b)= emotional state. If the a is greater than b an a-state

is present (elation). If b is greater than a we find the

b-state to be present (anxiety). This net result is

graphed out in the bottom of figure 1. Third, the actual

 Standard Pattern 6

emotions experienced by the subject is the difference in

magnitude between the a and b process, or (a-b)= emotional

state. If the a is greater than b an a-state is present

(elation). If b is greater than a we find a b-state

present (anxiety). This net result is in graphed in the

second two panels of figure 1. This explains why, over the

course of several jumps, the parachutist feels much less

anxiety over the jump but has the same amount of elation at

the end. Interestingly, if you do not experience the

stimuli for a long while the b-state will diminish. For

example, if our parachutist took a year off from jumping

upon his return much of the anxiety he felt the first time

would return.

Figure 3 is a graph form the book Future Search by

Weisbord and Janoff. This graph is entitled Riding the

Roller Coaster. A participant of this conference noted,

“[The conference] was an emotional roller-coaster in a

sense. You come in expecting great things and hear some

things that are really discouraging…Then you see people

come together and start working on solutions to problems

that are identified.” It is very easy to see the

similarities in the emotional states felt by this

participant of a transformational process and our

parachutist used to illustrate the Opponent Process Theory.

 Standard Pattern 7

In the Future Search example the parts of the graph that

drive the a-state would be ‘getting aboard’, ‘hope’, and

‘action’. The parts driving the b-state would be ‘despair’

and ‘reality/dialogue’. As opposition theory suggests it is

the interplay between this a-state and b-state that creates

the graph we see in figure 3.

Another similar graph based on similar emotional

states can be found in “The Flow” of The Transformational

Change Process by Rich Gemmet (figure 2). Here the a-state

and b-state are much more clearly definable, however.

According to Opponent Process Theory the a-state is driven

by the elated emotions surrounding the visioning process.

The b-state is driven by the sense of the “reality of the

situation” after the visioning is complete. Here the shape

of the graph is also the difference between the a-state and

the b-state. It is the strength of the vision (a-state)

that overpowers the reality of the situation (b-state).

This interplay between competing emotional states can

be seen in the work of Tichy and Ulrich as well. Though

they have not graphed out the emotional states of their

work it can easily be anticipated by their flow chart of

Organizational Dynamics (figure 4). Here the a-state is

seen in the middle of the flow chart as the creation of a

vision and transforming leadership. The defensive

 Standard Pattern 8

leadership and no change or inadequate change anticipates

the b-state. The same interplay can be gleaned from the

work Deep Change of Quinn and Bass, 1996 as presented by

Gemmet, 2000(figure 5). Here the a-state is again driven

by the vision created during the course of their work. The

b-state is driven by two parts of the uncertainty phase.

These are the illusion and panic as shown in the figure.

I believe that the case has been made for a strong

similarities between the findings of Soloman in his work on

Opponent Process Theory of individual motivation and the

subsequent findings of Weisbord, Gemmet, Quinn & Jossey-

Bass. If these similarites are in fact grounded there a

three strong implication for organizational transformation.

First, for transformation to occur the vision must be

strong enough in scope to overcome the sum of all other

negative emotions present in the group. The vision is the

a-state and the negative emotions surrounding the

organization are the b-state. If the vision is not

sufficiently strong the b-state will become the dominant

state. In fact, it is this dominate b-state that drives

the need for transformation in the first place. Remember,

the b-state is dynamic. Every negative event creates

another opportunity for this state to expand and become

more pervasive in the organizational culture. In a sense,

 Standard Pattern 9

when one of these consultants walks into an organization

they are walking into a situation much like panel D on

figure 1. Here we find the a-state depressed and the b-

state very large and robust. The vision created by these

consultants must be strong enough to overcome the

negativity inherently present in the b-state.

The second implication is that you really only get one

opportunity to transform an organization. The SPAD graphs

speak to this very well. Just as our parachutist will see

a deminished a-state and expanded b-state with each jump,

we will find the same in transformation. Each successive

transformation attempt will diminish the a-state (power of

vision) and grow the b-state (discontent of the reality of

the situation). Therefore, if the created vision is not

strong enough to overcome the inherent negativity the first

time it is highly unlikely that, due to the dynamic nature

of the negative b-state, the vision will ever be strong

enough. Remember the b-state diminishes the strength of

the a-state. If the power of the vision (a-state) is not

strong enough to overcome the negativity of the

organization (b-state) the first time the vision is created

it will be severely diminished in subsequent attempts.

The third implication is perhaps the most encouraging.

According to further research on Solomon’s work the

 Standard Pattern 10

opponent process is associative (Schull, 1979). This means

that not only will the initial stimuli (the vision) produce

the effects of the a-state but so can other stimuli that

have been associated with it. This means if an individual

employee associates the positive change in the work

environment with the vision created they will be able to

associate other positive changes in their lives as to this

vision as well.

As we have discussed here, the Opponent Process Theory

and Standard Pattern of Affective Dynamics is an individual

motivational theory that seems to easily fit prevalent

patterns of organizational transformation. This fit has

strong implications on organizational transformation.

First, the vision must extremely strong in scope.

Secondly, you only get one real opportunity for affect a

transformation. Third, the Opponent Process Theory suggests

that the transformational work in the organization can

easily carry over into other areas of an employee’s life.

 Standard Pattern 11

Figures and Captions

Figure 1. Opponent Process Theory. The top two panels

depict the a and b process. The a process begins with the
onset of the stimulus and ends with its offset. The b
process begins some time after the stimulus begins and ends
some time after it ends. More important, the b process
becomes increasingly pronounced with repeated stimulus
presentations as can be seen by comparing panels a and b.
The bottom two panels represent the a and b states that
result from interactions of a and b processes. Comparison
of the bottom two panels shows that as repeats stimulation
increase the b process, this results in a substantial
decrease in the a state. (After Solomon, 1980.)
 Standard Pattern 12

Figures and Captions

Figure 2. (Gemmet, 2000). Notice the similarities between

the form of this curve and that in figure 1.
 Standard Pattern 13

Figures and Captions

Figure 3. Riding the Roller Coaster (Weisbord, p. 23).

Again, notice the similarities between this curve and that
of figure 1 and figure 2.

Figure 4. (Tichy & Ulrich, 1983)

 Standard Pattern 14

Figures and Captions

Figure 5. Deep Change. (Quinn & Jossey-Bass, 1996)

 Standard Pattern 15

Works Cited

Buskist, W., Gerbing, D. W. (1990). Psychology:

Boundaries and Frontiers. New York: Harper Collins

Publishers.

Gemmet, R. (2000, October). Organizational

Transformation. Lecture presented at John F. Kennedy

University, Campbell, CA.

Rudy, J. (1997, November). Psychology of Learning.

Lecture presented at the University of Colorado, Boulder,

CO.

Schull, J. (1979). A conditioned opponent theory of

Pavlovian conditioning and habituation. In G. H. Gower

(ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 13).

New York: Academic Press.

Solomon, R. L., Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent

process theory of motivation: The temporal dynamics of

affect. Psychological Review, 81, 119-145.

Soloman, R. L. (1980). The opponent process theory of

acquired motivation. American Psychologist, 35, 691-712.

Weisbord, M., Janoff, S., (1998). Future Step.

(Publisher unknown).