
The Startup Empathy Dilemma: As power and impact grow, empathy diminishes - LeonW
https://leowid.com/the-startup-empathy-dilemma-as-power-and-impact-grows-empathy-diminishes/
======
gumby
I have felt this too and it turns out I leave my startups around 200 people --
when I can no longer remember everybody's name instantly.

(but where's the line? I worked with a guy who wouldn't work for a company of
more than a dozen people. I've looked at his linkedin over the years and
indeed he worked for some phenomenal startups...but always left when the
started to grow).

~~~
cimmanom
The Dunbar Number (the number of relationships any individual can maintain) is
typically considered to be around 150-200. So there's a pretty good reason for
that 200 number.

The number of individual channels of communication in a company hits 100 just
past a dozen, which often makes it an inflection point for company culture and
might affect why your acquaintance tends to leave at that point.

~~~
n42
I have a working theory that these inflection points follow the Fibonacci
sequence. At least based on my experience, communication and culture changed
dramatically at each stage, most notably around 34 and 55

~~~
groby_b
Not sure if it's the fibonacci sequence per se, but yes, there are inflection
points around those numbers.

Up to ~15 people with experience and a common purpose, you can just all work
together, little structure and roles, and stuff works OK. Teams form ad-hoc,
based on problems.

From there, you need to define more well-defined roles, so people don't step
all over each other. Communication starts being important, because everybody
talking to everybody has broken down at that point. Hey, look, a wild manager
appears.

You're a startup, you try to save on managers, so teams can easily balloon to
~20-30 under a single manager, but then it breaks down again. You realize you
need a second manager.

As you approach 50, you want to add a third manager. At that point, you have,
want it or not, a "leadership team". There needs to be very regular and
deliberate communication. Policies start being set, because teams start
drifiting apart.

You'll hit the next inflection point at 100-200 people. Because at that point,
your leadership team is starting to hit communication limits at the leader-to-
leader level. (Your leadership reaches the same initial inflection point your
original team reached).

As that cascades up, you add layers. The problems keep repeating. The next
hunk is at ~500 people. The "old hands" feel like the amount of people they
don't know really outnumbers the people they know.

Those are the sizes I've personally seen happen, several times the same
pattern. And based on that progression, I'd expect the next transition point
at around ~1,500 people.

So it's not quite fibonacci - it seems to skip steps - but it's a good enough
guide for the first few 100 people.

~~~
Bartweiss
> _I 'd expect the next transition point at around ~1,500 people._

I wonder if this is present, at least for the same human-relationships reasons
as the others.

It seems like there ought to be an upper bound past which people are basically
disconnected and lack personal relationships to most of the organization, at
which point those relationships become less relevant to structural issues. I
guess the ~200 and ~500 problems will keep recurring within subgroups like
divisions or offices, but excluding that it seems like non-social constraints
might dominate.

At 1,000+ person companies, it seems like the problems I hear about are often
structural (e.g. the contractors are treated as second-class citizens) or
logistical (e.g. we can't get the bulk of the company to an all-hands, even
once a year). At 10,000+, purely-statistical treatment of employees seems to
take over, like IBM's systematic dismissal of older workers. (And resulting
individual-level idiocy, like bringing back some of those essential workers as
contractors at higher rates.)

~~~
groby_b
I'd wager a medium-sized amount on the 1,500 inflection point. It's based on a
vague feeling of being in a 1,200 person office, and feeling like things were
likely to change soonishly.

Also, for large companies, you have separate social dynamics for offices. I've
seen the 200/500 point happen in offices of much larger companies. You then
layer the "too large to comprehend" dynamics on top of that, for added fun :)

(Also, you can get 1,000 people offsite. It's just a _lot_ of work. That might
be another of the 1,500 size problems)

Either way, social dynamics at large institutions is a fascinating problem. I
wish I could find decent literature around the topic, because it's a fun
subject :) (Corollary: All the things I said above are anecdata, I don't know
if there's a theoretical foundation)

------
moosey
I do wonder if it isn't necessarily that the 'generalized person' loses
empathy as their place in our economic power structures change, but instead
that they are more empathetic with the people in their current position in the
power structure? It seems natural that a person might do so.

I went on a quick search to see if such a thing as "Winner's guilt" exists,
and while it does appear to be a thing to some extent, I found not studies on
it in a larger context. It seems to me that relating to people that are like
your current state would probably be a good defense against that,
psychologically.

~~~
ikeyany
> I went on a quick search to see if such a thing as "Winner's guilt" exists,
> and while it does appear to be a thing to some extent, I found not studies
> on it in a larger context.

That's because it's called survivor's guilt.

~~~
pesmhey
Such a real thing, and I wonder how related it is to imposter syndrome.

------
blueyes
I've read about this before, and I think it's true. But has the phenomenon
been examined in context? By that I mean: let's say someone becomes wealthy or
powerful, and they are known to be wealthy or powerful. The nature of their
position allocating resources means that others (not every one, but a
significant number) seek to instrumentalize them; i.e. try to get the
resources flowing in their direction. I wonder what portion of the decrease in
empathy is a response to instrumentalization.

------
hnuser355
I feel like power is an issue often solved by education or something. The more
you understand about what is going on in the world, what has gone on in the
world, humanity, how people work, etc. the more you realize the guy in front
of you isn’t shit (and neither are you). Of course reasonable prudence means
monitoring your behavior so you don’t end up broke or homeless. But this may
include long-term life approaches as much as (more than) what your boss thinks
of you (in my opinion)

~~~
stopnamingnuts
Nice sentiment but I must correct you: I am definitely shit. And an impostor.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
Since you are also a computer programmed by self-written stories, you are only
a piece of shit and imposter if you say so.

------
ci5er
I can't speak to "most founders", but those who have impacted me the most
(like Jimmy Treybig) or even my own experience ... I have not found this to be
true. Maybe I just need to get out more...

~~~
hnthroaway1926
I think it boils down to 'most founders' not continuing to walk around and
talk to people. In my experience the non-empathetic leaders were the ones that
were rarely if ever seen interacting with the general staff, either through
casual conversation or meeting with groups of people. Point being, if someone
is in a position where they are 'steering' groups of people or changing
organizational structures then they should be interacting with those people
quite a bit beforehand.

------
tombert
One of the things that sickened me most about myself happened about a year ago
when I took a trip to Philadelphia as a tourist. My wife and I were walking
around, and I make the comment of "there doesn't appear to be any homeless
people here", after which my wife immediately pointed to a homeless guy that
we just walked past.

Somehow, I'd managed to shelter myself enough and live comfortably enough to
where I _stopped noticing less-fortunate people_. It really depressed me,
because I had previously thought of myself as a fairly empathetic person.

To help combat this I donate a fair amount of money ($50/month) to mental-
health research and make a conscious effort to pay attention a bit more when
I'm walking around.

I'm hardly a hyper-successful person, so I can't imagine how hard it would be
to empathize if you're a multi-millionaire/billionaire.

EDIT: I know throwing money at a problem hardly counts as "solving" the
empathy problem, but it does help me assuage some guilt.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
If you have time, I'd recommend volunteering for local soup kitchens and
donating nonperishable goods, hygene objects, etc. to local shelters. Exposure
will help prevent empathy erosion and force you to notice/understand the
problem space of the less-fortunate. First-hand accounts and documentaries
regarding experiences not your own will also aid you.

~~~
tombert
After that story happened, I actually moved to a less-afluent neighborhood in
NYC (for other reasons), and I've (very) recently started tutoring people in
math at the local library for people to get their GEDs, which has also helped
me somewhat.

A soup kitchen isn't a bad idea though. I will look into that.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
I would like to commend your actually going out of your way to deal with
something you've identified you wish to change about yourself. Also- I noticed
you're in NYC. Would you be opposed to having a coffee chat sometime? (Feel
free to decline- no stress. This is HN after all.)

~~~
tombert
I'd be happy to meet up; email is REDACTED, hit me up there. (This message
will be deleted in about 45 minutes to avoid a shitstorm of spam).

EDIT: Doesn't look like I can delete, but I can chop out my email.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
I've sent an email via a buffalo.edu address. :)

