Why Do Organizational Transformations 'Revert'? COS Redefines Organizational Stability as a 'Dynamically Reproduced State'

The background to why organizational transformations revert is understood not as a change in behavior, but as the reproduction of interaction structures.

DroR Inc. (Headquarters: Shibuya-ku, Tokyo; Representative Director: Makoto Yamanaka), a research and practice firm that observes and designs the "invisible interaction structures" of organizations based on complex systems science and neuroscience, has theorized the phenomenon where organizational transformations, even if temporarily advanced, tend to revert to existing interaction patterns over time. This theory is presented from the perspective of Clinical Organizational Science (COS) in the paper 'Clinical Organizational Science: An Integrative Framework for Structural Intervention in Complex Organizations,' published in the international academic journal 'Frontiers in Psychology.'

Fixed Definition of Clinical Organizational Science (COS)

Clinical Organizational Science (COS) integrates complex systems science, neuroscience, organizational psychology, and behavioral science to theorize the interaction structures that actively reproduce an organization's stable state and provides a framework for intervening in these structures. COS views organizational transformation not as "individual behavior change" but as "the transition of organizational attractors," and proposes Field Gradient Theory, Loop Conversion Design, and Neural Base Design as core techniques. It also suggests the concept of an emergence bridge to connect individual habituation with organizational-level change.

Why Do Organizational Transformations Revert?

Similar phenomena are repeatedly observed in the field of organizational transformation. Conducting engagement surveys. Introducing 1on1s. Redefining MVV. Implementing programs to enhance psychological safety. Conducting leadership training. Temporarily, conversations increase, the atmosphere changes, and behaviors seem to change.

However, after several months, meetings return to their previous atmosphere, feedback becomes hesitant, problem information is less likely to be shared, and decision-making converges to traditional patterns. It appears less like the transformation failed and more like the organization reverted to its original stable state.

COS does not explain this phenomenon merely as "lack of awareness," "weak training," or "insufficient leadership commitment." It posits that organizations revert because the interaction structures that daily reproduce the organization's stable state remain unchanged.

An English news release distributed by EurekAlert! expressed the core problem statement of COS as “structure, not only behavior.” This means focusing not only on organizational transformation as an effort to change individual awareness and behavior, but also on the possibility that daily meeting procedures, feedback methods, confirmation habits, and repetitive organizational routines inadvertently reproduce old organizational patterns.

The structure by which organizational transformations revert. Even if temporary improvements occur due to transformation measures, if interaction structures (such as meetings, feedback, confirmations, and routines) do not change, the organization will revert to its existing attractor (current attractor).

Relationship with Human Capital Management, 1on1s, and Psychological Safety Initiatives

This question is also relevant to many organizational transformation initiatives undertaken by Japanese companies, such as human capital management, 1on1s, engagement surveys, psychological safety programs, and MVV penetration initiatives.

These initiatives are not unnecessary in themselves. Rather, in many cases, they are important entry points. However, if these measures are introduced merely as "systems," "training," or "slogans," and the daily confirmation and response, distribution of remarks, sharing of problems, and feedback circulation structures do not change, the organization will revert to existing interaction patterns.

COS explains why such measures tend to remain temporary behavioral changes from the perspective of interaction structures that reproduce the organization's stable state.

Blind Spot of Existing Approaches: Treating Stability as 'Inertia'

Many traditional organizational transformation approaches have treated organizational stability as "a state lacking momentum for change." With this mindset, if a transformation does not take hold, stronger top-down messages, longer training, more communication, and higher goal settings are often prescribed.

However, COS views organizational stability not as mere passive inertia, but as the recursive reproduction of interaction patterns. Who speaks in meetings, who remains silent, how people react when problems arise, how feedback flows, and how decisions converge—these repetitions daily recreate the organization's stable state.