Simon Sinek and Mary Holland Nader argue that hypergrowth is an investor fantasy with no proven long-term benefit to companies. They use gazelles versus elephants as a metaphor: fast growth is fragile, but slow, sustainable building creates resilience. Founders who say they won't sell get shut out by investors.
Chapters
I hate it when companies, when founders say to me, I'm like, so tell me about your company. Like, we're hypergrowth, right? You know, we're a gazelle.
Okay, what does that even mean? That means a hypergrowth company. Oh, I like literally didn't even know that, and I'm raising money. Okay, a gazelle.
Gazelles get eaten.
Facts.
Elephants don't get eaten, and they're big and slow.
Yep, slow and steady wins the race.
Pick a legitimate magazine, Harvard Business Review, Inc. magazine, I don't care. Give me one article in any reputable publication that says that hypergrowth is good for long-term value of the company. And the answer is zero. Totally. Hypergrowth is good for the investors because that's their business model.
Yeah. You get an article for saying you raised $30 million more than you would get an article saying you have $30 million in revenue. Right. Which is so bizarre to me.
Took us 10 years to get $30 million in revenue. Yeah, exactly. Produces no articles.
Yeah, exactly. You're right. I first met you and I was telling you about Marian Pip, you were like, what do you want to do like with the company? And I was like, I guess exit because everyone was telling me that's what you have to do. That's the end goal. And you were like, do not build this company with the goal of exiting or you're going to lose your why and your purpose. And like that's stuck with me from the very beginning. And it's honestly intimidating when I say like, I'm not building this to exit because investors don't even want anything to do with that.
By the way, if you say that, it turns investors off.
Yes. Exactly, which is good. You want to turn off the investors, right, who don't— who only want the exit.
