The Organizational Interstitium: Fluid Dynamics for the Modern Leader

Among the more revealing workshop exercises I’ve run with creative leaders is a simple one: I ask them to draw a visual metaphor of their organization. The results are often entertaining and always instructive, for what they show about individual agencies or firms as much as for the range of images that recur across programs, industries, and geographies. Many participants sketch kitchens, theaters, bicycles, or airplanes (often in flight).

A striking number also draw versions of the elaborately reconceived interiors of the human body. The contrasts between bodily and machine-based or instrumental metaphors were captured well by British/Canadian organizational theorist Gareth Morgan, whose Images of Organization helpfully catalogued some of the most persistent and revealing lenses through which leaders understood the firms they ran (Morgan, 2006). Morgan’s inventory was, however, drawn from a world of an earlier generation in which organizations had relatively legible membranes.

Two decades of platform economics, distributed work, and ecosystem-based competition have produced organizational forms that resist any single-body analogy. Many firms today coordinate thousands of contributors without employing them, open-source communities whose participants span continents and legal jurisdictions, and supply networks whose interdependencies more closely resemble ecological webs than anatomical systems. The body metaphor therefore requires rethinking what the metaphor depicts inside (and potentially outside) the formal organizational boundary.

Yet reading a recent feature by Ohio State University educator and physician Avraham Z. Cooper in The New York Times Magazine, “The Astounding Discovery That Could Link Eastern and Western Medicine,” I found myself both recalling those workshop visualizations of culture and reconsidering what body-minded creative leaders may have been reaching for (Cooper, 2026). I also realized how the evolving understanding of bodies has added complexity to the potential parallels between the internal dynamics and ambient conditions of bodies and organizations alike.

The Times Magazine feature describes the interstitium, a fluid-filled, collagen-latticed network permeating the spaces between the human body’s organs, vessels, and connective tissues. Its prominence raises the provocative possibility that it is a ‘third circulatory system’ that may correspond to the meridian channels through which traditional Chinese medicine understood vital energy to flow, well before Western anatomists had identified the relevant connective tissue structures.

Just as the interstitium went unmapped because histologists prepared their slides in ways that collapsed the fluid-filled spaces they contained, management theory has overlooked the connective medium of organizational life by fixing its attention on the pathways through which formal resources move. Correcting that oversight requires replacing the familiar but impoverished nervous-system metaphor with a richer three-part biological triad, and asking what that substitution demands of the leaders who must work within it.

I. Beyond the Nervous System: A Three-System Lens

Management theory has long favored binary biological metaphors to map the firm, typically pairing the cardiovascular (resource or motivational flow) with the nervous system (command and control). Many of the body metaphors I’ve seen drawn default to this binary, with the “cardiovascular system,” driven by the creative heart of the inspirational creative leader, and the “nervous system” standing in for leadership’s capacity to process information and issue directives. Such a framing implicitly privileges a centralized “heart” or “brain” at the expense of the decentralized reality of modern work.

NYU Medical School professor (and student of Zen Buddhism) Neil Theise’s characterization of the interstitium as a body-wide, pre-lymphatic medium (one that drains into but precedes the lymphatic system) suggests a more sophisticated three-system lens that can correct this bias (Theise, 2023). In Theise’s account, which extends research he and others did previously with Rutgers professor of medicine Petros Benias, the interstitium is an active, pressurized matrix whose collagen-lattice architecture and fluid dynamics regulate what crosses tissue boundaries, at what rate, and under what chemical conditions (Benias et al., 2018). Using those words, the bodily structural description immediately invites organizational translation.

Translated into organizational terms, this triad reveals three organizational registers. The cardiovascular system maps onto the formal capital and budgeting architecture, the high-pressure delivery of explicit resources. The lymphatic system corresponds to the governance and compliance apparatus that identifies and purges cultural toxicity. Each system operates on a distinct temporal logic, the cardiovascular responding to quarterly pressure and the lymphatic to accumulated dysfunction, while the interstitium answers to a slower and more continuous rhythm that neither formal measurement nor periodic review reliably captures.

Operating on a still different register, the interstitium is the pervasive medium that underlies both. It forms a contiguous, pressurized space of social capital through which tacit knowledge, emergent norms, and early-warning signals propagate before they ever reach a formal channel. Replacing the centralized nervous-system metaphor with this triad is more than a semantic exercise; it reframes where a leader should actually be paying attention.

II. The Medium and Its Work

The practical consequences of that reframing depend on understanding what the interstitium actually is, grasped less as a conduit and more as a medium, and the distinction matters more than it might initially appear. In the biological sciences, a medium is the substance in which other substances are dissolved or suspended and through which signals propagate. It determines what signals can travel, how far, and with what fidelity; neither signal nor pipe, it is the precondition that makes both possible. Remove or degrade the medium and the signals distort or cease, regardless of how well the formal infrastructure is engineered.

Whereas official channels carry specified content, the interstitium conditions what content can exist and move at all. Distinguishing between the two is essential for any leader who wants to understand what is being communicated in their organization and, more fundamentally, what the organization is actually capable of communicating. When formal communication appears healthy even as morale and informal coordination are quietly deteriorating, the problem typically lies less in the content of the messages than in the degraded medium through which all content must pass.

Generalized to organizational life, this binding substrate is best understood as that which sustains the full range of what moves through an organization. This includes both content, certainly, and also feeling, belief, identity, and capital – in other words, every current that passes between people working together over time.

Biologically, the interstitium sustains the electrochemical conditions of ionic gradients, osmotic pressure, and pH balance that keep cells energized and capable of response; degrade that environment and the cellular machinery fails regardless of what information reaches it. It carries content alongside the animating charge that determines whether content, once received, can actually move people.

In fact, a healthy medium transmits these currents while preserving their integrity across distance and difference, absorbing shocks that would otherwise distort them, and maintaining the conditions under which informal as well as formal exchange remains possible. Neglect it and the pipes, however well engineered, begin carrying diminished, distorted, or simply false signals. Tend to it, and the organization retains a capacity for self-correction and renewal that no formal system can replicate on its own.

The interstitium’s architecture maps with notable precision onto the dimensions of social capital that organizational scholars have long studied. In the body, the collagen lattice is the bridging structure through which signaling molecules cross tissue boundaries without neural impulse or vascular pressure (Theise, 2023). This corresponds neatly to the bridging ties that connect otherwise disconnected groups within a firm, precisely the informal relationships that Stanford sociologist Mark Granovetter famously identified as “weak ties,” through which non-redundant information travels fastest (Granovetter, 1973).

The gaps between those bridging ties, what University of Chicago strategy professor Ron Burt called “structural holes,” are the primary source of novel ideas and brokerage advantage within organizations, because whoever spans them commands a uniquely non-redundant view of the firm (Burt, 2004). The interstitial fluid itself represents relational social capital, encompassing the trust, shared norms, and reciprocal obligations that allow critical uncodified knowledge to diffuse through a network before it is ever codified, archived, or formally presented. Taken together, these dimensions constitute the organizational interstitium in its fullest sense, as a living condition of organizational life that is generative as well as supportive.

The legendary organizational form that most completely instantiates this description is W. L. Gore & Associates, whose founder Bill Gore called his non-hierarchical structure a “lattice” deliberately, and capped individual facilities at roughly 150 people to preserve the interstitial density on which the firm’s widely observed capacity for innovation appears to have depended (Shipper and Manz, 1992).

III. Reading and Tending the Interstitium

Because the organizational interstitium is generative as well as supportive, attending to it demands something more than periodic diagnostic scrutiny. The interstitium functions continuously, unconstrained by the calendar of crises or formal reviews, and the leader’s attentiveness to its signals must match that rhythm. That attentiveness needs to become a cultivated habit, practiced in the intervals between formal reviews as much as during them.

Cultural mutations can arrive as brilliant cross-unit innovations or as corrosive behavioral rot. They first appear in interstitial spaces, in hallway conversations, in cross-functional group chats, in the relationship between a project manager and a front-line engineer who may rarely appear together in any org chart. By the time such signals reach the lymphatic nodes of HR or compliance, they have often already crystallized into patterns that formal intervention struggles to reshape.

Sustaining awareness of these interdependencies also means attending to what the interstitium is not. The official knowledge management system, the all-hands memo, and the performance-review cycle are the pipes, not the medium. The effective leader, in this sense, is partly a plumber, someone who must know that the pipes are the right size and properly connected and that the surrounding medium remains clear and pressurized enough for anything to move through them at all.

Unglamorous as that maintenance work is, organizations that lack leaders willing to do it tend to discover the deficit at the worst possible moment, realizing it only when the pipes are carrying diminished or false signals and the damage has already set. When organizations pursue structural efficiency to the point of eliminating slack, they effectively desiccate the medium itself. The sociological analog to fibrosis, the pathological hardening that progressively replaces healthy tissue, is an organization in which trust has evaporated, lateral communication has calcified, and the early-warning capacity of informal networks has gone silent.

Few organizations, in practice, read and tend all three biological systems with anything approaching consistent fluency. To be sure, the cardiovascular flows of formal capital are tracked, debated, and optimized almost obsessively. The lymphatic work of cultural governance, meanwhile, receives periodic attention when dysfunction becomes visible. And while the interstitial fabric of social capital is often acknowledged in the language of values statements and engagement surveys, it is rarely monitored as the living, continuous condition it actually is.

General Motors’ NUMMI joint venture with Toyota in Fremont, California in the 1980s illustrates the dynamic with unusual clarity. GM transferred the physical plant, the job classifications, and Toyota’s training protocols intact. But could not transplant the interstitial layer of trust, nemawashi – the Japanese practice of building informal consensus before formal decisions – and reciprocal problem-solving that gave those formal elements their adaptive capacity (Adler, 1993). When the practices were subsequently reimported to other GM facilities, the pipes traveled, but the medium did not (Shook, 2010).

IV. Crossing Epistemic Registers: The Cross-Cultural Leader

NUMMI was, after all, a cross-cultural story before it was an operational one, and that dimension of the case points toward what the three-system biological triad offers beyond organizational maintenance: a richer framework for the increasingly demanding work of cultural translation. The formal machinery of Toyota’s production system traveled from Japan to Fremont intact; what it could not carry was the medium in which that system had been formed. Understanding why requires attending to how different professional traditions constitute organizational knowledge and how leaders might work, simultaneously, across more than one of them.

Traditional Chinese medicine’s meridian network, a system of pathways through which chi, or vital energy, was understood to flow, long preceded Western anatomy’s articulation of connective tissue and fascial planes. Emerging but still contested research raises the possibility that acupuncture’s meridian pathways may correspond to the interstitial fluid networks that Benias and Theise’s team mapped. Studies at the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine found fluorescent dye migrating from one acupoint through interstitial spaces toward a corresponding point, though critics argue that the degree of anatomical alignment remains limited and replication is incomplete (Peeples, 2026; Novella, 2026).

Proceeding from opposite epistemological directions, one empirical and cellular, the other relational and experiential, these two traditions may be orienting toward the same substrate, even if the evidentiary case for their precise convergence has not yet been made. For leaders of distributed and cross-cultural teams, this convergence is more than a satisfying intellectual footnote. It suggests that frameworks for understanding organizational interdependence need not default to a single cultural template.

That Western preference for explicit and codified knowledge, which Japanese management scholars Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi canonically identified in distinguishing explicit from tacit knowing, is itself a cultural artifact, one that systematically undervalues the relational, embodied, and contextually embedded knowing that many East Asian, Middle Eastern, and other non-Western professional traditions cultivate and transmit through proximity and practice (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Treating the interstitium as a space where these different epistemic registers interact and find common ground opens a more generative frame for leading teams whose members bring genuinely different intuitions about where organizational knowledge lives and how it travels.

Haier’s RenDanHeYi model was developed by founder Zhang Ruimin over two decades of deliberate organizational redesign. With a name that literally encodes the alignment of employee initiative with direct user value, the model offers the most architecturally explicit attempt to institutionalize this convergence of traditions. By dissolving the Chinese appliance firm’s vertical hierarchy into thousands of micro-enterprises linked by market mechanisms and informal reciprocity, Haier drew simultaneously on Western market theory and what Zhang described as relational organizational values rooted in Chinese management philosophy, thereby building an integrative structure whose coordinating tissue is, by design, interstitial (Hamel and Zanini, 2018).

That the firm is Chinese in origin but globally operating makes the example particularly apposite, since the model’s logic is intelligible from either epistemological direction. Practically, this means that the cross-cultural leader’s task includes maintaining the quality of informal exchange across cultural and geographic distance, the equivalent of preserving interstitial pressure in a distributed body. Distributed teams face a structural risk of interstitial dehydration, since asynchronous communication strips out the ambient, pre-linguistic signals (tone, timing, physical co-presence) that high-trust informal networks depend on.

Leaders who invest deliberately in the conditions of informal interaction, shared meals before formal negotiations, unstructured time at the margin of scheduled sessions, sustained mentorship relationships that cross cultural lines, are, in biological terms, maintaining the fluid substrate through which organizational intelligence actually circulates.

V. A Fourth System: Digital Infrastructure and the Extended Organizational Body

The structural bias toward explicit over tacit knowledge, which I’ve just discussed in terms of cross-cultural frames, operates at a different magnitude when digital platforms mediate most organizational exchange. Most organizations do not fully reckon with the implications of this effect. Systems optimized for the legible, the measurable, and the transmissible tend to crowd out the relational and the contextual, and they do so most aggressively in exactly the interstitial spaces where cross-cultural meaning-making depends on something more than the efficient delivery of content.

Over the past decade, organizations have acquired a fourth system running alongside the biological three, a digital and increasingly AI-enabled infrastructure through which a growing share of organizational life now moves. These same infrastructures have also enabled organizational forms that challenge the body analogy at its foundation, among them platform ecosystems and distributed communities for whom the question is less how to tend an internal medium than how to maintain relational coherence across a topology with no clear edge.

For such organizations, the interstitial question shifts from boundary maintenance to something more existentially precarious: how to sustain enough relational coherence across a permeable topology to keep any body in being at all. Sustaining that coherence is a challenge the extended four-system frame can diagnose even as the prosthetic body substantially reshapes it.

Digital platforms have created something that functions, in anatomical terms, as a synthetic interstitium, an always-on connective fabric of platforms, repositories, and feeds that expands the surface area of informal and semi-formal exchange well beyond what physical co-presence alone can sustain. Slack threads carry the lateral, pre-lymphatic signaling that once required proximity; shared documents accumulate the sediment of past human judgment in ways that make it partially legible; cross-functional dashboards surface interdependencies that org charts conceal.

The synthetic interstitium does real work. The risk is that it also introduces a structural rigidity that appears fluid but actually routes knowledge along predetermined paths, a kind of structural scarring at the organizational level, gradually substituting the organization’s own map of itself for the territory the map was meant to represent.

Artificial intelligence complicates this further, and the complication deepens in proportion to how widely AI is deployed. Within the governance apparatus that the lymphatic analogy maps, AI increasingly plays an augmentative role: filtering, pattern-matching, and surfacing anomalies that the formal architecture would otherwise miss. That capability is real and, managed well, augments the leader’s perceptual range in ways that would have been practically impossible a decade ago.

Viewed more critically, AI also operates as a new kind of interstitial pressure system that most organizational leaders do not yet have the instruments to monitor. Large language models and agentic AI systems (those capable of initiating and completing multi-step tasks without continuous human direction) circulate today through organizational bodies in ways that parallel the pre-lymphatic, pre-formal signaling of the biological interstitium.

Increasingly, these technologies shape how documents are drafted before anyone reviews them, influencing which ideas surface in research workflows and shifting the register of communications before they reach a human decision point. Most organizations have neither the instruments to see this influence at work nor, as yet, the vocabulary to describe its cumulative effect on the organizational tissue it traverses.

VI. How Digital Infrastructure Erodes Informal Trust

That invisibility is not incidental; it describes a structural condition in which organizational erosion advances precisely where standard diagnostics are least sensitive. Much of this activity is, like the interstitium itself before the publication of the groundbreaking paper by Petros Benia, Neil Theise, and a team of researchers in 2018, simply not visible on the standard diagnostic slides.

When a large language model shapes the first draft of a strategic memo, or when enterprise search algorithms determine which precedents surface in a policy discussion, the shaping of organizational judgment has already begun before any human reviews, routes, or decides. That pre-decisional influence is structurally interstitial: it operates below the threshold of deliberate scrutiny, at the very juncture where tacit judgment and institutional memory once did their most important work.

MIT professor Sherry Turkle’s sustained research on device-mediated interaction documents a measurable erosion of the conversational capacity on which informal trust-building depends, as the ambient availability of digital platforms systematically displaces the slower and more generative exchanges of face-to-face life (Turkle, 2015). The structural damage this implies at scale is confirmed by Longqi Yang and Microsoft colleagues’ study of over sixty thousand employees at the company, which found that the shift to remote work rendered collaboration networks significantly more siloed, reducing precisely the cross-group bridging weak ties that Granovetter had identified as the carriers of non-redundant information (Yang et al., 2022).

This erosion of conversational capacity is not exclusively a product of digital platforms; formal performance architectures can operate with the same pre-decisional logic, shaping which informal exchanges are worth attempting before any specific decision demands them.

The Microsoft case offers an instructive illustration from both ends of the problem. Guided by then HR Chief Lisa Brummel, the company dismantled stack ranking in November 2013, several months before Satya Nadella’s appointment as CEO. This move recognized that a formal performance management system had been desiccating the interstitial substrate for over a decade by rewarding employees for undermining lateral colleagues and so deliberately closing the structural holes through which non-redundant information travels (Wingfield, 2013). Yang and his team’s later study of the same organization found significantly siloed post-pandemic collaboration networks, tracing remote work’s structural analog to the same pathology that stack ranking had produced from within. Put simply, the medium, already thinned, thinned further.

These are not marginal effects. The collagen lattice thins as bridging ties weaken, structural holes close, and the interstitial fluid carrying relational trust and situated judgment slows or stops. They describe, in sum, a structural dynamic in which digital infrastructure, optimized for the transmission of specified content, progressively degrades the relational substrate that determines what content is worth transmitting in the first place.

Coordinating four systems when three of the biological ones remain incompletely understood demands both conceptual clarity and genuine organizational humility. The specific risk that warrants emphasis is displacement, since the digital infrastructure is faster, more legible, and more measurable than the social one, and organizations under pressure will predictably migrate toward what they can see and count. Efficiency gains are real. The amplification of the Western epistemic bias noted earlier is also real, because systems built to optimize the transmission of explicit, codified content will, by design, underweight the relational and contextual currents that the living interstitium carries.

What is lost, quietly and cumulatively, is the quality of trust, relational texture, and embodied attunement between people that no algorithmic system can synthesize. The practical injunction is therefore one of deliberate priority. Leaders who understand the interstitial frame will use digital and AI tools to amplify the living medium: deploying AI to surface informal signals that might otherwise go unread, using digital infrastructure to extend the reach of high-trust relationships across distance, and insisting that the velocity and convenience of synthetic networks never become an excuse for the atrophy of the human ones.

VII. Leadership as Stewardship of the Medium

The four-system frame, precisely because it complicates any simple reading of organizational health, shifts the operative question from “How do we build better pipes?” to “How do we sustain the quality of the medium through which everything moves?” A healthy organizational interstitium acts as a shock absorber, allowing the firm to absorb market volatility, strategic pivots, and personnel disruption without the internal organs (the functions, the teams, the customer relationships) suffering mechanical failure.

This means attending to what Harvard public policy professor Robert Putnam called the social infrastructure of trust, reciprocity, and norms of cooperation as a core operating condition (Putnam, 2020), cultivating it with a constancy that neither quarterly reviews nor annual culture surveys can provide.

Ongoing awareness, in this sense, is itself a leadership competency, and one that grows harder to sustain as the synthetic body becomes more elaborate and its signals more insistent. The cardiovascular flows can be read in a spreadsheet; the lymphatic can be audited; the digital-AI layer produces its own dashboards and diagnostics. The interstitial itself resists all of these instruments. The leader capable of reading financial flows, monitoring compliance health, tracking digital network patterns, and still making time for the unscripted conversation preserves a perceptual range that each system, taken alone, cannot provide.

Its condition shows up in the quality of an unscripted conversation, in a junior colleague’s willingness to volunteer a dissenting observation before a mixed group, in the trust that those closest to a problem extend to those with authority over it. These are the signals that matter most and travel least well through prescribed pathways, which is exactly why the leader who neglects them in favor of the measurable will be caught, time and again, by what the medium was carrying all along.

That two traditions so distant in method, time, and cultural orientation could illuminate the same living substrate is itself a model for the cross-cultural leader who must hold multiple registers of knowing, valuing, and relating to others and to oneself simultaneously. Benias and Theise’s science and the traditional knowledge frameworks that the The New York Times Magazine places beside it point toward a common practical imperative whose logic those early classroom drawings were already reaching toward.

That call is for leaders to practice systemic awareness continuously in the spaces that no instrument fully captures, attending to what flows between the structures they can name, sustaining the pressure, and keeping the medium clear. Tending that circulation of energy remains, finally, the work that Eastern and Western traditions alike have mapped but neither has fully mastered.

References

Paul S. Adler (1993) “The ‘Learning Bureaucracy’: New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.,” eds. Barry M. Staw and Larry L. Cummings, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, JAI Press, pp. 111-194.

Petros C. Benias, Rebecca G. Wells, Bridget Sackey-Aboagye, Heather Klavan, Jason Reidy, Darren Buonocore, Markus Miranda, Susan Kornacki, Michael Wayne, David L. Carr-Locke, and Neil D. Theise (2018) “Structure and Distribution of an Unanticipated Interstitium in Human Issues,” Scientific Reports, 8(1), 4947; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23062-6

Ronald S. Burt (2004) “Structural Holes and Good Ideas,” American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399; https://doi.org/10.1086/421787

Avraham Z. Cooper (2026, May 11) “The Human Body’s Hidden Pathways,” The New York Times Magazine; https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/05/11/magazine/interstitium-anatomy-acupuncture-medicine.html

Mark S. Granovetter (1973, May) “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380; https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini (2018, November–December) “The End of Bureaucracy,” Harvard Business Review; https://hbr.org/2018/11/the-end-of-bureaucracy

Gareth Morgan (2006) Images of Organization, Updated ed., SAGE Publications.

Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press.

Steven Novella (2026, May 13) “NYT Epic Fail on Acupuncture,” Science-Based Medicine; https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/nyt-epic-fail-on-acupuncture/

Lynne Peeples (2026, March 4) “What’s the Science Behind Acupuncture?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 123(10), e2605301123; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2605301123

Robert D. Putnam (2020) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Rev. and expanded ed., Simon & Schuster.

Frank Shipper and Charles C. Manz (1992) “Employee Self-Management Without Formally Designated Teams: An Alternative Road to Empowerment,” Organizational Dynamics, 20(3), 48–61; https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(92)90024-H

John Shook (2010) “How to Change a Culture: Lessons from NUMMI,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(2), 63-68; https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-change-a-culture-lessons-from-nummi/

Neil D. Theise (2023) Notes on Complexity: A Scientific Theory of Connection, Consciousness, and Being, Spiegel & Grau.

Sherry Turkle (2015) Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age, Penguin Press.

Longqi Yang, David Holtz, Sonia Jaffe, Siddharth Suri, Shilpi Sinha, Jeffrey Weston, Connor Joyce, Neha Shah, Kevin Sherman, Brent Hecht, and Jaime Teevan (2022) “The Effects of Remote Work on Collaboration Among Information Workers,” Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 43-54; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01196-4

Nick Wingfield (2013, November 13) “Microsoft Abolishes its Employee Evaluation System,” The New York Times;https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/microsoft-abolishes-employee-evaluation-system/