Why Do Organizational Transformations 'Revert'? — COS Redefines Organizational Stability as a 'Dynamically Reproduced State'
DroR Inc. has theorized, through a paper published in an international academic journal, the phenomenon of organizational transformations reverting to existing interaction patterns from the perspective of Clinical Organizational Science (COS). COS redefines organizational stability as a 'dynamically reproduced state' and advocates for the importance of structural intervention.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 7, 2026 at 22:00
- 🔍 Collected: May 7, 2026 at 13:31
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 7, 2026 at 14:13 (41 min after Collected)
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, 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) is a framework that integrates complex systems science, neuroscience, organizational psychology, and behavioral science to theorize the interaction structures that actively reproduce an organization's stable state and to intervene in those structures. COS views organizational transformation not as 'individual behavioral change' but as a '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?
In the field of organizational transformation, similar phenomena are repeatedly observed. Conducting engagement surveys. Introducing 1-on-1s. Redefining MVVs. Implementing programs to enhance psychological safety. Conducting leadership training. Temporarily, conversations increase, the atmosphere changes, and behaviors seem to change.
However, after a few 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 is reverting to its original stable state.
COS does not explain this phenomenon merely as 'lack of awareness,' 'weak training,' or 'insufficient commitment from leaders.' It views the organization's reversion as a result of the interaction structures that daily reproduce the organization's stable state remaining unchanged.
The English news release distributed by EurekAlert! expressed the core problem statement of COS as “structure, not only behavior.” This means that organizational transformation should not be viewed solely as an 'effort to change individual awareness and behavior,' but rather as paying attention to the possibility that daily meeting procedures, feedback methods, confirmation and response habits, and repetitive organizational routines unintentionally reproduce old organizational patterns.
The structure by which organizational transformation reverts. Even if temporary improvements occur due to transformation measures, if the interaction structures (such as meetings, feedback, confirmation and response, and routines) do not change, the organization will revert to its current attractor.
### Relationship with Human Capital Management, 1-on-1s, and Psychological Safety Initiatives
This question also relates to organizational transformation initiatives that many Japanese companies are undertaking, such as human capital management, 1-on-1s, engagement surveys, psychological safety programs, and MVV penetration initiatives.
These initiatives themselves are not unnecessary. In fact, in many cases, they are important entry points. However, if these measures are merely introduced as 'systems,' 'training,' or 'slogans,' and the daily confirmation and response, distribution of发言, problem sharing, and feedback loop structures do not change, the organization will revert to existing interaction patterns.
COS explains why such measures tend to remain as 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 of insufficient momentum for change.' With this mindset, if a transformation fails to take hold, stronger top-down messages, longer training sessions, more communication, and higher goal settings are often prescribed.
However, COS views organizational stability not merely as 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.
### Fixed Definition of Clinical Organizational Science (COS)
Clinical Organizational Science (COS) is a framework that integrates complex systems science, neuroscience, organizational psychology, and behavioral science to theorize the interaction structures that actively reproduce an organization's stable state and to intervene in those structures. COS views organizational transformation not as 'individual behavioral change' but as a '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?
In the field of organizational transformation, similar phenomena are repeatedly observed. Conducting engagement surveys. Introducing 1-on-1s. Redefining MVVs. Implementing programs to enhance psychological safety. Conducting leadership training. Temporarily, conversations increase, the atmosphere changes, and behaviors seem to change.
However, after a few 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 is reverting to its original stable state.
COS does not explain this phenomenon merely as 'lack of awareness,' 'weak training,' or 'insufficient commitment from leaders.' It views the organization's reversion as a result of the interaction structures that daily reproduce the organization's stable state remaining unchanged.
The English news release distributed by EurekAlert! expressed the core problem statement of COS as “structure, not only behavior.” This means that organizational transformation should not be viewed solely as an 'effort to change individual awareness and behavior,' but rather as paying attention to the possibility that daily meeting procedures, feedback methods, confirmation and response habits, and repetitive organizational routines unintentionally reproduce old organizational patterns.
The structure by which organizational transformation reverts. Even if temporary improvements occur due to transformation measures, if the interaction structures (such as meetings, feedback, confirmation and response, and routines) do not change, the organization will revert to its current attractor.
### Relationship with Human Capital Management, 1-on-1s, and Psychological Safety Initiatives
This question also relates to organizational transformation initiatives that many Japanese companies are undertaking, such as human capital management, 1-on-1s, engagement surveys, psychological safety programs, and MVV penetration initiatives.
These initiatives themselves are not unnecessary. In fact, in many cases, they are important entry points. However, if these measures are merely introduced as 'systems,' 'training,' or 'slogans,' and the daily confirmation and response, distribution of发言, problem sharing, and feedback loop structures do not change, the organization will revert to existing interaction patterns.
COS explains why such measures tend to remain as 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 of insufficient momentum for change.' With this mindset, if a transformation fails to take hold, stronger top-down messages, longer training sessions, more communication, and higher goal settings are often prescribed.
However, COS views organizational stability not merely as 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.