Spad And Orginizational Transformation

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. be feeling?

What do you imagine you would

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. process is not fixed.

However, the b-

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 (ab)= emotional state. is present (elation).

If the a is greater than b an a-state 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. Roller Coaster.

This graph is entitled Riding the

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 & JosseyBass.

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. the b-state is dynamic.

Remember,

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. speak to this very well.

The SPAD graphs

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). Boundaries and Frontiers.

Psychology:

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).