One of the most enjoyable aspects of my new role is returning to the world of deep tech and engineering. I’m already hearing terms I’ve not heard in years. You can bet I’ll be drawing all sorts of tech-to-something analogies, in part as a mechanism for (re)learning—and for better or worse, sharing some of these analogies with you!

First up: an analogy between team and fluid dynamics. If you’re not already rolling your eyes (hey, I wouldn’t blame you!)—or even if you are—I’m hoping this offers fresh insights about team dynamics, along with some fluid mechanics basics for those who are curious. 

Start by closing your eyes and picturing your dream team. How does it feel when you’re in your element: Smooth and well-coordinated? Controlled chaos? A little of both? Perhaps it depends on the circumstances or the interpersonal team chemistry? 

My sense is that people are instinctively biased in favor of smooth workflows (e.g., slow is smooth, smooth is fast). Not to say everyone actually shares that preference, just that many of us are primed throughout our lives to think of smoothness and order as ideal. Paradoxically, I’ve simultaneously seen wide recognition in recent years that turbulent times tend to fuel growth—both individual and organizational—and reveal unexpected opportunities. 

So is one dynamic better than the other? Is there a magic formula we can use to settle the question? 

Well, of course not. That would be too easy. But if you’ve never thought about your preferences around team dynamics, or if it’s been a while, fluid dynamics offer a useful (and fun!) lens through which to explore these questions. Let’s dive in!

Theoretical Team :: Fluid Dynamics

In fluid dynamics, we see two main types of fluid flow—laminar (jargon for smooth) and turbulent—and a descriptive third type called transitional. A ratio called the Reynolds number (Re) turns out to be a helpful indicator of what type of flow we’re dealing with: a low Re points to laminar flow, and high to turbulent; a medium Re may indicate a transitional state.

At a fundamental level, Re compares a fluid’s forces with respect to its external environment (i.e., inertial forces) against a fluid’s forces with respect to its internal properties (i.e., viscous forces). 

Though these concepts might seem abstract, they’re more familiar than you might think. Here are a couple of examples.

* Water (low viscous forces) flows rapidly down a steep and narrow water slide (high inertial forces). The water is foamy, full of bubbles and eddies. This is turbulent flow.[HIGH inertial forces / LOW viscous forces]  →  HIGH Re  →  turbulent flow

* Honey (high viscous forces) slowly oozes out of a jar as you pour it into a bowl of granola (low inertial forces). The honey looks smooth and shiny throughout its journey from jar to bowl. This is laminar flow.

[LOW inertial forces / HIGH viscous forces]  →  LOW Re  →  laminar flow

Bringing this back to teams, we can draw parallels with viscous and inertial forces that illustrate how certain conditions may shape team dynamics.

Viscous forces & teams 

* We might imagine a team with high viscous forces as being steadfast and resistant to change, or tightly-coordinated and acting as a single unit. 

* On the flip side, we might imagine a team with low viscous forces as being quick to adapt and flexible, or loosely-associated individual agents or subteams.

Inertial forces & teams 

* We might imagine a team with high inertial forces as having a high operating tempo, or urgently working toward a specific objective. 

* On the flip side, we might imagine a team with low inertial forces as having a “slow and steady” operating tempo, or directionally aligned around a broad long-term vision. 

Perhaps this is too literal an approach, but drawing these parallels has been helpful for extrapolating different team dynamics in action—and importantly, the pros and cons in different contexts. 

Applied Team :: Fluid Dynamics

Speaking of different contexts, let’s apply these principles to real situations. 

Team :: Fluid dynamics as a design tool

Going back to our water slide example from above, imagine you’re designing a water slide. You make certain design choices intuitively, because even without any formal fluid dynamics knowledge, that intuition is rooted in your exposure to fluid dynamics throughout your life. 

For example, you wouldn’t opt to use a highly viscous fluid, like honey, for the slide because you’d want people to slide down it freely. (I know, I know, it’s called a “water” slide—but work with me here!) If you wanted a fast and exciting slide, you’d aim to increase inertial forces by making the slide steeply angled and narrow. If you wanted a more relaxing and meandering slide, you’d aim to decrease inertial forces by making the slide less angled and wider.

You can use those same intuitive fluid dynamics concepts to make design choices about teams. Here are some examples.

Situation 1

Your team is developing a new product. It’s early days, and although you have a strong grasp of the problem space, you’re still a ways from crystallizing a product vision, let alone landing product-market fit. You absolutely need a high degree of flexibility and adaptability at this point, along with team members who can work independently to explore different directions (low viscous forces). You also want a sense of urgency, along with fast feedback, testing, and iteration cycles that collectively bring focus to a still-fuzzy picture (high inertial forces). Yup, you guessed it—these are turbulent times! And that’s a good thing. The light chaos that comes from rapid ideation and learning is more likely to yield creative, differentiable, and valuable product ideas than a slow and steady trek through familiar territory.

Situation 2

Your team is exploring new ways to optimize the delivery of a well-established product. Business is good. You’re well-resourced, and there are no pressing financial or other issues, so we’re talking next-level optimization here—from solid to elite. However, you operate in a complex and complicated environment where even small changes can be expensive to implement and have unexpectedly outsize impact.Independent, proactive actors are more likely to hinder, not help, in this case. Tight coordination and alignment among your team are necessary, and changes to the status quo require a compelling reason (high viscous forces). At the same time, improving something that’s already pretty good will require openness and thoughtfulness, coupled with careful and methodical analyses (low inertial forces).This calls for a laminar flow state. You’re not trying to disrupt anything, only refine and perfect. Smooth, streamlined, steady are all words that come to mind.

At this point, it might be useful (fun?) to take other situations you’ve faced in your organization and think through how you might design your team dynamics using these fluid dynamics principles. Or starting from the other end: online searching led me to the fluid flow diagrams below, which I found interesting to think about in terms of team dynamics. Give it a try!

Team :: Fluid dynamics as a diagnostic tool

Sometimes, you get the sense that something is off. Your team’s not clicking, or it’s not performing in the way you’d expect. There may be dozens of underlying reasons, but a mismatch between the team dynamics you need versus those you have are a likely contender. To illustrate, let’s revisit our situations from the previous section.

Situation 1, revisited

Your team is successfully generating tons of product ideas, but they are mostly resulting in directionless churn. The team is feeling pulled in a million directions and showing signs of burnout. Diagnosis? It seems the team could use tighter collaboration. Learnings and insights need more synthesis, efforts need to be better coordinated, and decisions need to be aligned. Perhaps it’s time to make the team more viscous by adding more structure and rigidity to daily operations. In parallel, consider reducing inertia by building in processes that require the team to slow down, reflect, and be more focused.

Situation 2, revisited

Your team is hitting a wall when it comes to generating proposals for how to refine product delivery. All you’re seeing is more of the same, analysis paralysis, and no meaningful progress. The team seems frustrated, and engagement is starting to drop.

Diagnosis? Your team might need more freedom to explore the unknown. In this case, reducing viscosity could be helpful. Sure, maintain guardrails to avoid disaster, but creating opportunities for experimentation could go a long way. You could also increase inertia by adding a bit more pressure—albeit artificially—to generate motivation and excitement.

So there you have it: team dynamics through the lens of fluid dynamics! Hope that was as fun to read (or listen to) as it was to write. 

Do you have any favorite tech-to-something analogies? Would love to hear from you!

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com