News Release

Clinical Organizational Science proposes a structural explanation for why organizations resist change

Peer-reviewed conceptual analysis in Frontiers in Psychology introduces COS, a testable framework from Tokyo-based DroR Corporation that reframes organizational transformation as a problem of structure, not only behavior

Peer-Reviewed Publication

DroR Corporation

Conceptual overview of Clinical Organizational Science

image: 

Conceptual overview of Clinical Organizational Science (COS), a framework for structural organizational intervention integrating complexity science, organizational psychology, behavioral science, and neuroscience-informed theory.

view more 

Credit: Makoto Yamanaka and Masaya Nakamori, Frontiers in Psychology

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — No embargo

Tokyo, Japan — May 7, 2026 — Why do organizations often return to old patterns even after leaders invest in culture change, training, and transformation programs? A peer-reviewed conceptual analysis published in Frontiers in Psychology by researchers at Tokyo-based DroR Corporation introduces Clinical Organizational Science (COS), a framework that argues that organizational stability is often held in place by the way people interact every day.

The article, published on 30 April 2026 in the Organizational Psychology section of Frontiers in Psychology, is a conceptual analysis rather than an empirical study. It introduces what the authors call the emergence bridge: a proposed explanation for how repeated individual behaviors may, over time, become stable organizational patterns. The paper also sets out propositions that other researchers can examine empirically.

COS reframes organizational transformation not primarily as a matter of changing individual attitudes or skills, but as a structural intervention problem. In this view, old organizational patterns persist because the way meetings are run, feedback is given, and routines are repeated can keep producing the same results.

The framework integrates complexity science, organizational psychology, behavioral science, and neuroscience-informed theory. The authors emphasize that COS does not involve neural measurement, neuroimaging, neurostimulation, or covert manipulation. In other words, the paper draws on neuroscience to think about habits, trust, and sustained behavior, but the interventions themselves take the form of organizational practices such as meeting design, feedback design, and recurring team routines.

Psychological safety is one of the clearest examples of the paper’s argument. Rather than treating psychological safety only as a climate outcome to be cultivated, COS proposes that it can be studied as a structural condition shaped by recurring practices, interaction designs, and feedback architectures. The question COS raises is whether psychological safety can be built into how an organization actually operates, rather than merely hoped for as a cultural outcome.

COS describes three intervention concepts: Neural Base Design, which builds recurring behavioral rhythms that support trust and habit formation; Field Gradient Theory, which uses structured interaction patterns to perturb entrenched dynamics; and Loop Conversion Design, which redesigns feedback so that criticism and defensiveness do not become self-amplifying loops.

“What became clear from working inside client organizations is that organizations do not simply fail to change because people resist,” said Makoto Yamanaka, lead author of the paper. “Old patterns are often regenerated by the structure of everyday interactions, even when people sincerely want something different. COS is our attempt to describe why that happens and how structural conditions for change might be designed ethically.”

“The important point is not that COS is already an established empirical science,” said Masaya Nakamori, co-author and the researcher who led the manuscript development. “It is that the framework makes specific claims that other researchers can test. We hope the emergence bridge will be challenged, refined, and investigated independently.”

The paper also addresses the ethical questions raised by bringing neuroscience-informed ideas into organizational work. It proposes four governing principles: autonomy, transparency, participation, and revocability. The authors present these principles as safeguards against confusing structural organizational intervention with direct intervention in neural states or covert influence.

Directions for future research

The paper highlights three propositions for independent investigation.

One concerns timing: whether autonomous behavioral self-sustenance may emerge after sustained intervention over a period of months, with approximately six months presented as a provisional hypothesis rather than a guarantee.

A second concerns mechanism: whether structured positive feedback may support cognitive broadening, making developmental feedback easier to process constructively.

A third concerns structure: whether triadic interaction configurations may produce more attractor-disrupting dynamics than dyadic configurations.

The authors welcome independent investigation by researchers in organizational psychology, implementation science, complexity science, and related fields.

Publication details

Article title: Clinical Organizational Science: an integrative framework for structural intervention in complex organizations
Authors: Makoto Yamanaka and Masaya Nakamori
Journal: Frontiers in Psychology
Section: Organizational Psychology
Article type: Conceptual Analysis
Volume: 17
Article number: 1827324
Published: 30 April 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1827324
Full text: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1827324/full

Disclosure

COS was developed through practice at DroR Corporation, and both authors are employed by DroR. The article is a conceptual analysis and does not report original empirical data. The authors declared that no external funding was received for the work or its publication. The published article includes conflict of interest, funding, and generative AI statements.

About DroR Corporation

DroR Corporation is a Tokyo-based research-practice firm developing Clinical Organizational Science (COS), a framework for structural organizational intervention. DroR works at the intersection of organizational practice and scientific theory, with a research program focused on complexity science, organizational psychology, behavioral science, and neuroscience-informed ethics. The Frontiers in Psychology article marks the first peer-reviewed publication from the COS research program.

Media contact

Makoto Yamanaka
Lead Author
DroR Corporation
press@dror.co.jp
https://dror.co.jp

Research contact

Makoto Yamanaka
research@dror.co.jp


Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.