I believe a more appropriate way to think about this sort of thing is asymptotically.
Sure, your 10th worker might revolutionize the way your company works. Your 9 workers work on a very specific thing and suddenly your new hire makes it more efficient or does away with a bottleneck.
Maybe at 100 people you have a specific team of 10 people that's a bottleneck and the right person comes along and solves their issues.
At 1000 people, your teams are already working on things different enough that a person revolutionizing the way one of them works is unlikely to affect the others, as your work has inevitably diversified. Again, because you have 100 teams, each team has a smaller impact percent-wise on the total output.
At 10000 people it's easy to imagine all these inefficiencies have already been mostly solved (you had after all hired so many competent people who have tried their best to do so).
Sure, your 10th worker might revolutionize the way your company works. Your 9 workers work on a very specific thing and suddenly your new hire makes it more efficient or does away with a bottleneck.
Maybe at 100 people you have a specific team of 10 people that's a bottleneck and the right person comes along and solves their issues.
At 1000 people, your teams are already working on things different enough that a person revolutionizing the way one of them works is unlikely to affect the others, as your work has inevitably diversified. Again, because you have 100 teams, each team has a smaller impact percent-wise on the total output.
At 10000 people it's easy to imagine all these inefficiencies have already been mostly solved (you had after all hired so many competent people who have tried their best to do so).