
Humans grow linearly, companies grow exponentially – interview with Khalid Halim - yarapavan
http://firstround.com/review/hypergrowth-and-the-law-of-startup-physics
======
dredmorbius
I was hoping this might be based on or mention Geoffrey West's new book,
_Scale_ , though it's neither. Despite this, it covers similar ground.

Aa realisation I'd had a few years back was that networks -- and here I'm
talking about _any_ organisation of components with flows, not just data
networks, but people, organisations, cities, companies, markets, transport,
conversations or discussion boards, etc., -- have several characteristics
which govern behaviour. These define a large class of hence related dynamics.

There's _topology:_ (peer, star, chain, ring, mesh, tree, , web, complex...).
There's _scale:_ null, unary, pair, triple (largest size where links equal
nodes), 4 (first where links exceed nodes), etc. And the scale effects
discussed here resemble those I've noted.

At large scale, scale tends to domininate topology in large part as there's
only one viable topology, the dendritic tree (this is West's bugbear).

There's also network _depth_ \-- the number of nodes between pairs,
particularly on average. Even relatively shaallow depths can have huge
significance, think Six Degrees of Separation (or Kevin Bacon): this gives you
everyone within a substantial industry (cinema) or even the world (Facebook,
national security agency threat matrices).

Related is the characteristic of specific individuals -- superstars and
regression toward the mean. A Gresham's Law type effect means that the
effective functional level of a group is set by its _least_ capable rather
than most capable members (absent some means of effective management or
moderation), another tendency which favours smaller groups initially.

It's also worth noting that certain transition points, such as HR being
required as headcount climbs above 50, are determined by regulatory
requiremment -- beware outside influences in anacdotal observation.

A particularly pervasive similarity comes to mind between agriculture and
media, and how scale, topology, node characteristics, and complexity result in
conceptually similar activity models. This is, of course, broadcasting. Named
for the farmer casting seed on fields, the analogy continues when the harvest
is considered: the mass-gathering of commodity high-utility carbohydrates
through a uniform and undifferentiated processing. In media, this is
advertising. And the results are similar: focus is on nondifferentiation,
uniform processing, and maximising harvest yield, not the field's (or
audience's) quality experience.

It's also interexting to note that even before the term was adopted there was
a trend to more targeted cultivation in ag, including Jethro Tull's seed
drills (and those of China long preceeding him), pressaging moves to media
segmentation and targeting.

It's also possible that there are other ag analogies which might prove useful
or insightful: herd-tending (prevalent in religious contexts), orchards,
forestry, foraging, hunting, fishing, vegetable vs. staple crops, reserving
methods such as fermentation, etc. Food for thought, as it were....

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/business/dealbook/geoffre...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/business/dealbook/geoffrey-
west-scale-the-universal-laws-of-growth-innovation-sustainability.html)

~~~
nyolfen
>I was hoping this might be based on or mention Geoffrey West's new book,
Scale, though it's neither.

This was my immediate thought as well -- but by mentioning _Scale_ you must
also link the excellent review of it by Freeman Dyson(!):

[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/05/10/the-key-to-
everyt...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/05/10/the-key-to-everything/)

~~~
dredmorbius
Thanks!

------
araes
As with most things in life, parts I agree with, other statements need the
opposing view. Temperance.

Using a Presidential analogy, it advocates a style much like Reagan. Founders
should focus on vision and being the flagbearer of that standard. Then have
the cleverness to delegate much of the responsibility for keeping the ship
afloat to talented individuals without regard for ego. As a general process,
seems reasonable. Probably less stress, more focus on important tasks. To an
extreme, you become detached and unaware of the undercurrents within your
firm. The vision can wander because it is decoupled from reality on the
ground.

On the counter side, I would argue there is value in being more akin to a
Clinton style figurehead. Fairly well known for keeping abreast of everything,
to the point of annoyance. Leaving people people free to do what they do, ie,
not micro-managing, but being aware of what is occurring - remaining engaged.
To an extreme, you are obsessive and obstructing rather than staying informed.
High stress, and not enough time maintaining vision and outlook.

Needs both, and fundamentally disagree that we as entities are limited to a
"linear" growth. It may just seem linear as you approach the event horizon. To
those far away, your change is remarkable.

~~~
hydrox24
The other thing that needs to be considered in political office is the long-
term effect of shaping an institution.

In Australia, P.M. John Howard (1996–2007) slowly centralised a great deal of
policy making power by moving it from departments (each headed up by a
minister) to his own office/department, PM&C.

Clearly he was capable of the demands this put on him, and was able to
construct a Cabinet (inner-circle of top ministers) to help in sufficiently.

Since 2007, this change seems to have destabilised several governments by
allowing a micro-managing figure to bite off more than they could chew,
infuriating their own party, who then threw them out, partially because of
internal stresses on the party strucutre. Particularly the first Rudd gov.
(07-10) and the Abbott gov (13-15).

This is a very specific interpretation however, other Australians may well
disagree.

~~~
araes
Interesting thought. Could also be taken as view on the trades of power
concentration, and in particular, Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Autocracy. A natural
formation when a strong, capable, well-liked leader comes into power, or in
the presence of a vacuum of competent leadership.

They can be highly beneficial and efficient, rapidly responsive to change,
like a sword through red-tape, or oppressive and controlling. Largely
dependent on the character of the captain of the ship. And viewpoint. Caesar
was loved by many, killed by a few. Lincoln, J.F.K, Gandhi, similar.

And they can often be destabilizing when they end. Even if not by such drastic
means as above. A classic problem of monarchies that if you had no children or
incompetent children, your gov't was in trouble.

Not that pure republics and democracies with strong decentralization are a
whole lot better. Just different issues. Why they oscillate. And even those
often function best with a strong figurehead.

------
sumanthvepa
It's not clear to me that this is good advice for an early stage rapidly
growing startup. As a founder of a small firm , not VC funded, but we're
growing very nicely so far (at startup rates of growth). The problem with
firing an employee or hiring above them without their consent is that for a
team that's 3-10 people, the dynamic is seriously disruptive. It is very
possible for the entire team to walk out on you, and your company is then
dead. Secondly, the article asks you as a founder to make a disingenuous
promise to your team: that you will help them grow. Clearly you cannot help
them. Any growth that happens, happens because they rose to the occasion, and
not because your company helped them. So if your team figures that they are
going to get layered in a year or so, they won't bother with you. It may be
different in VC funded superstar rocketship startup with 100+ employees, but
does not translate to early stage growth and DEFINITELY NOT to small
businesses. In the latter case, you are better off being very, very careful
with hiring and then investing in the long term in the hired employee's
growth.

~~~
primedteam
> It is very possible for the entire team to walk out on you

Possible: Yes, I guess. Probably: No. @3-10 people when growth is at or above
expectation then the staff are almost always loyal to their invested interest
unless there is a very big scandal.

------
AndrewKemendo
_didn’t skip out on a class called Military Science as an undergrad at UCLA_

I see a lot of Military leadership or Military strategy ideas referenced
around the startup world as valuable lessons. Yet actual Military members or
Veterans, outside of some "hiring veterans" efforts, aren't held in
particularly high regard in the valley.

Why the Delta?

------
nickparker
I really enjoyed a lot of the advice and thinking in this piece, but I have
one nit: These biological analogies are _terrible_. They don't add anything to
the persuasion, and actually detract significantly because they're wrong.

A) Biology is not inherently linear, at all. If I had to pick a single scaling
function to identify with biology, I would pick the _exponential_.

B) "Biologically, we are sprinting beings, not marathon beings." is utterly
untrue. We evolved as persistence hunters, we're woefully ineffective
sprinters. Basically all large animals are dramatically faster than us.

Good article, but man do I hate woo bad analogies like this. It's almost as
bad as the guys that talk about "Quantum" crap when I'm just looking for
decent meditation help.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _We evolved as persistence hunters_

If you haven’t read about cursorial hunting, the Wikipedia article [1] is
worth the time. Humans are one of like five known persistance hunters. Our
ancestors (and certain Kalahari contemporaries) would literally chase their
prey until they died of exhaustion.

From the perspective of the prey, it is uniquely horrifying. You outrun your
predator. But every time you stop to catch your breath, before you’ve had a
chance to cool down, they reappear, in the distance, on the horizon. Each time
nearer. Hours or even days on end. Repeatedly until, finally, your legs or
heart give out.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting)

~~~
tcgv
> From the perspective of the prey, it is uniquely horrifying. You outrun your
> predator. But every time you stop to catch your breath, before you’ve had a
> chance to cool down, they reappear, in the distance, on the horizon.

Reminds me of the film "No Country for Old Men". One of the most thrilling
movies I've ever seen.

------
yuhong
Companies can also decline fast too BTW. In the current economy, debt can
increase very quickly. When this debt stops being spent on a company, they can
decline quickly. I mentioned this in the essay.

------
amelius
In the first embryonic stage, humans also grow exponentially ...

------
jjtheblunt
Title looks like hyperbole:

almost nothing grows exponentially unless there's a recurrence relation or
difference equation involved.

------
graycat
Following links in the OP to

[http://firstround.com/review/hypergrowth-and-the-law-of-
star...](http://firstround.com/review/hypergrowth-and-the-law-of-startup-
physics/)

see in part and relevant to the title of this thread

> “Human beings grow biologically and linearly. A year from now, you will be a
> year older — there's no growth hacking we can do to make that happen faster.
> Even if we were looking at the metrics of ‘you’—the age of your bones, your
> height, everything — you're not going to grow exponentially. You're going to
> grow linearly because all biological systems do that,” says Halim. “A
> company, which is a collection of biological systems called humans, can grow
> exponentially. Especially in tech, companies exist in a world in which you
> can be serving 100 customers one day, and a million a year later.”

Want to find the root of a function? Under mild assumptions, Newton iteration
gives accuracy that improves as an exponential function of the number of
iterations. This situation is especially well known and easy to see for
finding square roots.

I will make an argument the other way around, that it's humans who can grow
exponentially (for a while) and companies grow at best linearly!!

Okay, the first example is Leo Szilard walking across a street and then
soaking in a bathtub: He thought, one neutron hits one uranium nucleus which
emits two neutrons, ..., four neutrons ... and after positive integer n such
_generations_ we have 2^n neutrons emitted. So, that was exponential growth,
all from just Leo walking and later soaking in a bath tub.

Then for an organization, at Oak Ridge the were getting about, what was it, 10
grams a day of separated uranium. So, for 100 grams a day, have 10 times more
working units, that is, linear growth.

Then when it appeared that maybe one approach to uranium enrichment might not
work, try three. Linear growth.

When it appeared that uranium might be too tough to get, try plutonium. Work
with two elements instead of just one, double the number of elements, people,
facilities, money, results, etc. and get two paths to success instead of one.
All linear.

Then Edward Teller had another _exponential_ idea: Let the X-rays from fission
squeeze deuterium for another essentially exponential growth rate.

For another example, Alan Guth wanted to do something so dreamed up the big
bang, where exponential growth seems even an understatement. So, Guth had
exponential growth.

Since then various organizations have gotten data that confirm what Guth
thought, and the growth of those organizations have been essentially linear,
that is, twice as much money, people, time yield twice as many new results,
e.g., the 3 K background radiation and accelerating growth of the universe.

For more, for the traveling salesman problem in Euclidean spaces, R. Karp had
an idea -- on problems with positive integer n cities, for any probability p <
1, and for any epsilon > 0, a simple application of minimum spanning trees
will as n grows, with probability greater than p get feasible solutions within
epsilon percent of optimality. So, as n grows, the number of traveling
salesman tours grows exponentially, really n! (use Sterling's approximation to
get an exponential), and Karp's idea was _exponentially_ powerful, that is,
the minimum spanning tree effort grows only as a polynomial in n but _beats_
the exponential challenge of the problem.

For another, linear programming commonly has the number of feasible region
extreme points growing exponentially with problem size, but the polynomial
algorithms can find the possibly unique extreme point in only polynomial time.
If divide by the polynomial, then get linear effort, and the exponential
number of extreme points divided by the polynomial is still exponential. So,
the polynomial algorithm idea, one of them from the head of just one person,
was exponentially powerful.

For another example, Moore's law, so far still exponential but from the brains
of mostly just a few people and brought to market by essentially linear time,
money, people, etc. Want twice as many chips? Okay, that linear; build two
fabs instead of one and get twice as many chips -- linear.

For another, Alexander Fleming looked at some bread mold and how it fought off
some bacteria. Presto, bingo, he had penicillin that saved _exponentially_
many lives.

There are lots of other examples where people _grew_ by having _exponentially_
powerful ideas while organizations were limited by twice as much in people,
time, and money gives at best, twice as much revenue, maybe less due to the
quadratic growth of the overhead of internal communications as the number of
people in the organization grows.

Net, the big stuff, the stuff with exponential power, is from people, commonly
one or at most only a few people, where a company to exploit the exponentially
powerful work grows only linearly, that is, twice as many people, etc. in the
company result in twice as many customers served.

------
AboutTheWhisles
This is just a marketing piece for a management consultant.

~~~
dang
There are lot of those, but this one is interesting, therefore we should focus
on what's interesting in it. If you didn't find anything interesting, that's
fine, but please don't break the HN guidelines by posting a shallow dismissal.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
AboutTheWhisles
It's practically a resume cover letter. People don't deserve to be told
something is journalism when it is an advertisement. I'm not sure why you
would even want to defend something like this, let alone be a lackey for
someone else's rules.

~~~
dang
No one was told this is journalism. It's a post on a VC's blog! Sometimes,
even those are interesting.

------
rs86
Jeez science is dead, calling anecdotal evidence a law as in a law of physics
is ridiculous PR

~~~
dang
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here. It's obviously
meant as a metaphor, same as Godwin's "Law" or whatever "law".

