Datasets:

AlekseyKorshuk

/

dalio-book-handwritten-io

like 0

Make sure people don’t confuse the right to complain, give advice, and openly debate with the right to make decisions. Everyone does not report to everyone. Responsibilities and authorities are assigned to individuals based on assessments of their ability to handle them. People are given the authority that they need to achieve outcomes and are held accountable for their ability to produce them. At the same time, they are going to be stress-tested from both directions—i.e., by those they report to and by those who report to them. The challenging and probing that we encourage is not meant to second-guess their every decision but to improve the quality of their work over time. The ultimate goal of independent thinking and open debate is to provide the decision maker with alternative perspectives. It doesn’t mean that decision-making authority is transitioned to those who are probing them. When challenging a decision and/or a decision maker, consider the broader context. It’s important to view individual decisions in the broadest possible context. For example, if the Responsible Party being challenged has a vision, and the decision being disputed involves a small detail of that overall vision, the decision needs to be debated and evaluated within the context of that larger vision. Don’t leave important conflicts unresolved. While it’s easier to avoid confrontations in the short run, the consequences of doing so can be massively destructive in the long term. It’s critical that conflicts actually get resolved—not through superficial compromise, but through seeking the important, accurate conclusions. In most cases, this process should be made transparent to relevant others (and sometimes the entire organization), both to ensure quality decision making and to perpetuate the culture of openly working through disputes.

Be weak and strong at the same time. Sometimes asking questions to gain perspective can be misperceived as being weak and indecisive. Of course it’s not. It’s necessary in order to become wise and it is a prerequisite for being strong and decisive. Always seek the advice of wise others and let those who are better than you take the lead. The objective is to have the best understanding to make the best possible leadership decisions. Be open-minded and assertive at the same time and get in tight sync with those who work with you, recognizing that sometimes not all or even the majority of people will agree with you.

Remember that believable opinions are most likely to come from people 1) who have successfully accomplished the thing in question at least three times, and 2) who have great explanations of the cause-effect relationships that lead them to their conclusions. Treat those who have neither as not believable, those who have one as somewhat believable, and those who have both as the most believable. Be especially wary of those who comment from the stands without having played on the field themselves and who don’t have good logic, as they are dangerous to themselves and others. If someone hasn’t done something but has a theory that seems logical and can be stress-tested, then by all means test it. Keep in mind that you are playing probabilities. Don’t pay as much attention to people’s conclusions as to the reasoning that led them to their conclusions. It is common for conversations to consist of people sharing their conclusions rather than exploring the reasoning that led to those conclusions. As a result, there is an overabundance of confidently expressed bad opinions. Inexperienced people can have great ideas too, sometimes far better ones than more experienced people. That’s because experienced thinkers can get stuck in their old ways. If you’ve got a good ear, you will be able to tell when an inexperienced person is reasoning well. Like knowing whether someone can sing, it doesn’t take a lot of time. Sometimes a person only has to sing a few bars for you to hear how well they can sing. Reasoning is the same—it often doesn’t take a lot of time to figure out if someone can do it. Everyone should be up-front in expressing how confident they are in their thoughts. A suggestion should be called a suggestion; a firmly held conviction should be presented as such—particularly if it’s coming from someone with a strong track record in the area in question. Think about whether you are playing the role of a teacher, a student, or a peer . . .

While “know thyself” and “to thine own self be true” are fundamental tenets I had heard long before I began looking into the brain, I had no idea how to go about getting that knowledge or how to act on it until we made these discoveries about how people think differently. The better we know ourselves, the better we can recognize both what can be changed and how to change it, and what can’t be changed and what we can do about that. So no matter what you set out to do—whether on your own, as a member of an organization, or as its director—you need to understand how you and other people are wired. Understand the power that comes from knowing how you and others are wired. As I related in the first part of this book, my first breakthrough in understanding how people think differently occurred when I was a young father and had my kids tested by Dr. Sue Quinlan. I found the results remarkable, because she not only confirmed my own observations of the ways that their minds were working at the time but also predicted how they would develop in the future. For example, one of my kids was struggling with arithmetic. Because he tested well in mathematical reasoning, she correctly told him that if he pushed through the boredom of rote memorization required in elementary school, he would love the higher-level concepts he would be exposed to when he got older. These insights opened my eyes to new possibilities. I turned to her and others years later when I was trying to figure out the different thinking styles of my employees and colleagues.

I’ve already noted that our unique way of operating and the treasure trove of data we accumulated brought us to the attention of some world-renowned organizational psychologists and researchers. Bob Kegan of Harvard University, Adam Grant of the Wharton School, and Ed Hess of the University of Virginia have written about us extensively, and I have learned a great deal from them in turn. In a way I never intended, our trial-and-error discovery process has put us at the cutting edge of academic thinking about personal development within organizations. As Kegan wrote in his book An Everyone Culture, “from the individual experience of probing in every one-on-one meeting, to the technologically integrated processes for discussing . . . issues and baseball cards, to the company-wide practices of daily updates and cases, Bridgewater has built an ecosystem to support personal development. The system helps everyone in the company confront the truth about what everyone is like.” Our journey of discovery has coincided with an incredibly fertile epoch in neuroscience, when, thanks to rapid advances in brain imaging and the ability to gather and process big data, our understanding has accelerated dramatically. As with all sciences on the cusp of breakthroughs, I am sure that much of what is thought to be true today will soon be radically improved. But what I do know is how incredibly beautiful and useful it is to understand how the thinking machine between our ears works. Here’s some of what I’ve learned: The brain is even more complex than we can imagine. It has an estimated eighty-nine billion tiny computers (called neurons) that are connected to each other through many trillions of “wires” called axons and chemical synapses. As David Eagleman describes it in his wonderful book Incognito:

Build your machine. Focus on each task or case at hand and you will be stuck dealing with them one by one. Instead, build a machine by observing what you’re doing and why, extrapolating the relevant principles from the cases at hand, and systemizing that process. It typically takes about twice as long to build a machine as it does to resolve the task at hand, but it pays off many times over because the learning and efficiency compound into the future. Systemize your principles and how they will be implemented. If you have good principles that guide you from your values to your day-to-day decisions but you don’t have a systematic way of making sure they’re regularly applied, they’re not of much use. It’s essential to build your most important principles into habits and help others do so as well. Bridgewater’s tools and culture are designed to do just that.

Don’t worry about whether or not your people like you and don’t look to them to tell you what you should do. Just worry about making the best decisions possible, recognizing that no matter what you do, most everyone will think you’re doing something—or many things—wrong. It is human nature for people to want you to believe their own opinions and to get angry at you if you don’t, even when they have no reason to believe that their opinions are good. So, if you’re leading well, you shouldn’t be surprised if people disagree with you. The important thing is for you to be logical and objective in assessing your probabilities of being right. It is not illogical or arrogant to believe that you know better than the average person, so long as you are appropriately open-minded. In fact, it is not logical to believe that what the average person thinks is better than what you and the most insightful people around you think, because you have earned your way into your higher-than-average position and you and those insightful people are more informed than the average person. If the opposite were true, then you and the average man shouldn’t have your respective jobs. In other words, if you don’t have better insights than them, you shouldn’t be a leader—and if you do have better insights than them, don’t worry if you are doing unpopular things. So how should you deal with your people? Your choices are either to ignore them (which will lead to resentment and your ignorance of what they are thinking), blindly do what they want (which wouldn’t be a good idea), or encourage them to bring their disagreements to the surface and work through them so openly and reasonably that everyone will recognize the relative merits of your thinking. Have the open disagreement and be happy to either win or lose the thought battles, as long as the best ideas win out. I believe that an idea meritocracy will not only produce better results than other systems but will also ensure more alignment behind appr

Plan for the worst-case scenario to make it as good as possible. Recognize the signs of closed-mindedness and open-mindedness that you should watch out for. Understand how you can become radically open-minded. Regularly use pain as your guide toward quality reflection. Make being open-minded a habit. Get to know your blind spots. If a number of different believable people say you are doing something wrong and you are the only one who doesn’t see it that way, assume that you are probably biased. Meditate. Be evidence-based and encourage others to be the same. Do everything in your power to help others also be open-minded. Use evidence-based decision-making tools. Know when it’s best to stop fighting and have faith in your decision-making process. Understand That People Are Wired Very Differently Understand the power that comes from knowing how you and others are wired. We are born with attributes that can both help us and hurt us, depending on their application. Meaningful work and meaningful relationships aren’t just nice things we chose for ourselves—they are genetically programmed into us. Understand the great brain battles and how to control them to get what “you” want. Realize that the conscious mind is in a battle with the subconscious mind. Know that the most constant struggle is between feeling and thinking. Reconcile your feelings and your thinking. Choose your habits well. Train your “lower-level you” with kindness and persistence to build the right habits. Understand the differences between right-brained and left-brained thinking. Understand how much the brain can and cannot change. Find out what you and others are like. Introversion vs. extroversion. Intuiting vs. sensing. Thinking vs. feeling. Planning vs. perceiving. Creators vs. refiners vs. advancers vs. executors vs. flexors. Focusing on tasks vs. focusing on goals. Workplace Personality Inventory. Shapers are people who can go from visualization to actualization.

Use transparency to help enforce justice. When everyone can follow the discussion leading up to a decision—either in real time in person or via taped records and email threads—justice is more likely to prevail. Everyone is held accountable for their thinking and anyone can weigh in on who should do what according to shared principles. Absent such a transparent process, decisions would be settled behind closed doors by those who have the power to do whatever they want. With transparency, everyone is held to the same high standards. Share the things that are hardest to share. While it might be tempting to limit transparency to the things that can’t hurt you, it is especially important to share the things that are most difficult to share, because if you don’t share them you will lose the trust and partnership of the people you are not sharing with. So, when faced with the decision to share the hardest things, the question should not be whether to share but how. The following principles will help you do this well. Keep exceptions to radical transparency very rare. While I would like virtually total transparency and wish that everyone would handle the information they have access to responsibly to work out what’s true and what to do about it, I realize that’s an ideal to be approached but never fully achieved. There are exceptions to every rule, and in very rare cases, it is better not to be radically transparent. In those unusual cases, you will need to figure out a way that preserves the culture of radical transparency without exposing you and those you care about to undue risks. When weighing an exception, approach it as an expected value calculation, taking into consideration the second- and third-order consequences. Ask yourself whether the costs of making the case transparent and managing the risks of that transparency outweigh the benefits. In the vast majority of cases, they don’t. I’ve found that the most common reasons to limit broad transparency are:

Leverage your communication. While open communication is very important, the challenge is to do it in a time-efficient way—you can’t have individual conversations with everyone. It is helpful to identify easy ways of sharing, like open emails posted on an FAQ board or sending around videotapes or audio recordings of key meetings. (I call such approaches “leverage.”) The challenges become greater the higher you go in the reporting hierarchy because the number of people affected by your actions and who also have opinions and/or questions grows so large. In such cases, you will need even greater leverage and prioritization (for example by having some of the questions answered by a well-equipped party who works for you or by asking people to prioritize their questions by urgency or importance). Great collaboration feels like playing jazz. In jazz, there’s no script: You have to figure things out as you go along. Sometimes you need to sit back and let others drive things; other times, you blare it out yourself. To do the right thing at the right moment you need to really listen to the people you’re playing with so that you can understand where they’re going. All great creative collaboration should feel the same way. Combining your different skills like different instruments, improvising creatively, and at the same time subordinating yourself to the goals of the group leads to playing great music together. But it’s important to keep in mind what number of collaborators will play well together: A talented duo can improvise beautifully, as can a trio or quartet. But gather ten musicians and no matter how talented they are, it’s probably going to be too many unless they’re carefully orchestrated. 1+1=3. Two people who collaborate well will be about three times as effective as each of them operating independently, because each will see what the other might miss—plus they can leverage each other’s strengths while holding each other accountable to higher standards.

If you just looked at one species—ducks, for example—to try to understand the universal laws, you’d fail. Similarly, if you just looked at mankind to understand the universal laws, you’d fail. Man is just one of ten million species and just one of the billions of manifestations of the forces that bring together and take apart atoms through time. Yet most people are like ants focused only on themselves and their own anthill; they believe the universe revolves around people and don’t pay attention to the universal laws that are true for all species. To try to figure out the universal laws of reality and principles for dealing with it, I’ve found it helpful to try to look at things from nature’s perspective. While mankind is very intelligent in relation to other species, we have the intelligence of moss growing on a rock compared to nature as a whole. We are incapable of designing and building a mosquito, let alone all the species and most of the other things in the universe. So I start from the premise that nature is smarter than I am and try to let nature teach me how reality works. Don’t get hung up on your views of how things “should” be because you will miss out on learning how they really are. It’s important not to let our biases stand in the way of our objectivity. To get good results, we need to be analytical rather than emotional. Whenever I observe something in nature that I (or mankind) think is wrong, I assume that I’m wrong and try to figure out why what nature is doing makes sense. That has taught me a lot. It has changed my thinking about 1) what’s good and what’s bad, 2) what my purpose in life is, and 3) what I should do when faced with my most important choices. To help explain why, I will give you a simple example.

For me, there is really only one big choice to make in life: Are you willing to fight to find out what’s true? Do you deeply believe that finding out what is true is essential to your well-being? Do you have a genuine need to find out if you or others are doing something wrong that is standing in the way of achieving your goals? If your answer to any of these questions is no, accept that you will never live up to your potential. If, on the other hand, you are up for the challenge of becoming radically open-minded, the first step in doing so is to look at yourself objectively. In the next chapter, Understand That People Are Wired Very Differently, you’ll have a chance to do just that.The brain is a highly interconnected organ with many different structures responsible for producing our thoughts, feelings, and actions. When explaining these things, I’ve adopted some conventions, such as describing the amygdala as the sole cause of emotional flight-or-fight reactions, even though the exact neuroanatomy is more complex. I’ll cover this in more detail in the following chapter. One way to do this is by asking questions like “Would you rather I be open with my thoughts and questions or keep them to myself?”; “Are we going to try to convince each other that we are right or are we going to open-mindedly hear each other’s perspectives to try to figure out what’s true and what to do about it?”; or “Are you arguing with me or seeking to understand my perspective?” Psychologist and science journalist Daniel Goleman originally coined this term in Emotional Intelligence. Some of this may be a result of what is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals believe that they are in fact superior. Understand That People Are Wired Very Differently

In typical organizations, most decisions are made either autocratically, by a top-down leader, or democratically, where everyone shares their opinions and those opinions that have the most support are implemented. Both systems produce inferior decision making. That’s because the best decisions are made by an idea meritocracy with believability-weighted decision making, in which the most capable people work through their disagreements with other capable people who have thought independently about what is true and what to do about it. It is far better to weight the opinions of more capable decision makers more heavily than those of less capable decision makers. This is what we mean by “believability weighting.” So how do you determine who is capable at what? The most believable opinions are those of people who 1) have repeatedly and successfully accomplished the thing in question, and 2) have demonstrated that they can logically explain the cause-effect relationships behind their conclusions. When believability weighting is done correctly and consistently, it is the fairest and the most effective decision-making system. It not only produces the best outcomes but also preserves alignment, since even people who disagree with the decision will be able to get behind it. But for this to be the case, the criteria for establishing believability must be objective and trusted by everybody. At Bridgewater everyone’s believability is tracked and measured systematically, using tools such as Baseball Cards and the Dot Collector that actively record and weigh their experience and track records. In meetings we regularly take votes about various issues via our Dot Collector app, which displays both the equal-weighted average and the believability-weighted results (along with each person’s vote).

Put your compliments and criticisms in perspective. It helps to clarify whether the weakness or mistake under discussion is indicative of a trainee’s total evaluation. One day I told one of our new research people what a good job I thought he was doing and how strong his thinking was. It was a very positive initial evaluation. A few days later I heard him chatting away at length about stuff that wasn’t related to work, so I warned him about the cost to his and our development if he regularly wasted time. Afterward I learned that he thought he was on the brink of being fired. My comment about his need for focus had nothing to do with my overall evaluation. Had I explained myself better when we sat down that second time, he could have put my comment into perspective. Think about accuracy, not implications. It’s often the case that someone receiving critical feedback gets preoccupied with the implications of that feedback instead of whether it’s true. This is a mistake. As I’ll explain later, conflating the “what is” with the “what to do about it” typically leads to bad decision making. Help others through this by giving feedback in a way that makes it clear that you’re just trying to understand what’s true. Figuring out what to do about it is a separate discussion. Make accurate assessments. People are your most important resource and truth is the foundation of excellence, so make your personnel evaluations as precise and accurate as possible. This takes time and considerable back-and-forth. Your assessment of how Responsible Parties are performing should be based not on whether they’re doing it your way but on whether they’re doing it in a good way. Speak frankly, listen with an open mind, consider the views of other believable and honest people, and try to get in sync about what’s going on with the person and why. Remember not to be overconfident in your assessments, as it’s possible you are wrong.

Learn from success as well as from failure. Radical truth doesn’t require you to be negative all the time. Point out examples of jobs done well and the causes of their success. This reinforces the actions that led to the results and creates role models for those who are learning. Know that most everyone thinks that what they did, and what they are doing, is much more important than it really is. If you ask everybody in an organization what percentage of the organization’s success they’re personally responsible for, you’ll wind up with a total of about 300 percent.39 That’s just the reality, and it shows why you must be precise in attributing specific results to specific people’s actions. Otherwise, you’ll never know who is responsible for what—and even worse, you may make the mistake of believing people who wrongly claim to be behind great accomplishments. Recognize that tough love is both the hardest and the most important type of love to give (because it is so rarely welcomed). The greatest gift you can give someone is the power to be successful. Giving people the opportunity to struggle rather than giving them the things they are struggling for will make them stronger. Compliments are easy to give but they don’t help people stretch. Pointing out someone’s mistakes and weaknesses (so they learn what they need to deal with) is harder and less appreciated, but much more valuable in the long run. Though new employees will come to appreciate what you are doing, it is typically difficult for them to understand it at first; to be effective, you must clearly and repeatedly explain the logic and the caring behind it.

There will come a point in all processes of thinking things through when you are faced with the choice of requiring the person who sees things differently from you to slowly work things through until you see things the same way, or going along with the other person, even though their thinking still doesn’t seem to make sense. I recommend the first path when you are disagreeing about something important and the latter when it’s unimportant. I understand that the first path can be awkward because the person you are speaking to can get impatient. To neutralize that I suggest you simply say, “Let’s agree that I am a dumb shit but I still need to make sense of this, so let’s move slowly to make sure that happens.” One should always feel free to ask questions, while remembering one’s obligation to remain open-minded in the discussions that follow. Record your argument so that if you can’t get in sync or make sense of things, you can send it out so others can decide. And of course, remember that you are operating in an idea meritocracy—be mindful of your own believability. Communications aimed at getting the best answer should involve the most relevant people. As a guide, the most relevant people to probe are your managers, direct reports, and/or agreed experts. They are the most impacted by and most informed about the issues under discussion, and so they are the most important parties to be in sync with. If you can’t get in sync, you should escalate the disagreement by raising it to the appropriate people.38

Understand how you can become radically open-minded. No matter how open-minded you are now, it is something you can learn. To practice open-mindedness: Regularly use pain as your guide toward quality reflection. Mental pain often comes from being too attached to an idea when a person or an event comes along to challenge it. This is especially true when what is being pointed out to you involves a weakness on your part. This kind of mental pain is a clue that you are potentially wrong and that you need to think about the question in a quality way. To do this, first calm yourself down. This can be difficult: You will probably feel your amygdala kicking in through a tightening in your head, tension in your body, or an emerging sense of annoyance, anger, or irritability. Note these feelings when they arise in you. By being aware of such signals of closed-mindedness, you can use them as cues to control your behavior and guide yourself toward open-mindedness. Doing this regularly will strengthen your ability to keep your “higher-level you” in control. The more you do it, the stronger you will become. Make being open-minded a habit. The life that you will live is most simply the result of habits you develop. If you consistently use feelings of anger/frustration as cues to calm down, slow down, and approach the subject at hand thoughtfully, over time you’ll experience negative emotions much less frequently and go directly to the open-minded practices I just described. Of course, this can be very hard for people to do in the moment because your “lower-level you” emotions are so powerful. The good news is that these “amygdala hijackings”27 don’t last long so even if you’re having trouble controlling yourself in the moment, you can also allow a little time to pass to give your higher-level you space to reflect in a quality way. Have others whom you respect help you too.

Learning must come before deciding. As explained in Chapter One, your brain stores different types of learning in your subconscious, your rote memory bank, and your habits. But no matter how you acquire your knowledge or where you store it, what’s most important is that what you know paints a true and rich picture of the realities that will affect your decision. That’s why it always pays to be radically open-minded and seek out believable others as you do your learning. Many people have emotional trouble doing this and block the learning that could help them make better decisions. Remind yourself that it’s never harmful to at least hear an opposing point of view. Deciding is the process of choosing which knowledge should be drawn upon—both the facts of this particular “what is” and your broader understanding of the cause-effect machinery that underlies it—and then weighing them to determine a course of action, the “what to do about it.” This involves playing different scenarios through time to visualize how to get an outcome consistent with what you want. To do this well, you need to weigh first-order consequences against second- and third-order consequences, and base your decisions not just on near-term results but on results over time. Failing to consider second- and third-order consequences is the cause of a lot of painfully bad decisions, and it is especially deadly when the first inferior option confirms your own biases. Never seize on the first available option, no matter how good it seems, before you’ve asked questions and explored. To prevent myself from falling into this trap, I used to literally ask myself questions: Am I learning? Have I learned enough yet that it’s time for deciding? After a while, you will just naturally and open-mindedly gather all the relevant info, but in doing so you will have avoided the first pitfall of bad decision making, which is to subconsciously make the decision first and then cherry-pick the data that supports it.

Provide transparency to people who handle it well and either deny it to people who don’t handle it well or remove those people from the organization. Don’t share sensitive information with the organization’s enemies. Meaningful relationships and meaningful work are mutually reinforcing, especially when supported by radical truth and radical transparency. Cultivate Meaningful Work and Meaningful Relationships Be loyal to the common mission and not to anyone who is not operating consistently with it. Be crystal clear on what the deal is. Make sure people give more consideration to others than they demand for themselves. Make sure that people understand the difference between fairness and generosity. Know where the line is and be on the far side of fair. Pay for work. Recognize that the size of the organization can pose a threat to meaningful relationships. Remember that most people will pretend to operate in your interest while operating in their own. Treasure honorable people who are capable and will treat you well even when you’re not looking. Create a Culture in Which It Is Okay to Make Mistakes and Unacceptable Not to Learn from Them Recognize that mistakes are a natural part of the evolutionary process. Fail well. Don’t feel bad about your mistakes or those of others. Love them! Don’t worry about looking good—worry about achieving your goals. Get over “blame” and “credit” and get on with “accurate” and “inaccurate.” Observe the patterns of mistakes to see if they are products of weaknesses. Remember to reflect when you experience pain. Be self-reflective and make sure your people are self-reflective. Know that nobody can see themselves objectively. Teach and reinforce the merits of mistake-based learning. Know what types of mistakes are acceptable and what types are unacceptable, and don’t allow the people who work for you to make the unacceptable ones. Get and Stay in Sync

The next day I met with a third doctor who was a world-renowned specialist and researcher at another esteemed hospital. He told me that my condition would basically cause me no problems so long as I came in for an endoscopic examination every three months. He explained that it was like skin cancer but on the inside—if it was watched and any new growth was clipped before it metastasized into the bloodstream, I’d be okay. According to him, the results for patients monitored in this way were no different than for those who had their esophagus removed. To put that plainly: They didn’t die from cancer. Life went on as normal for them except for those occasional examinations and procedures. To recap: Over the course of forty-eight hours, I had gone from a likely death sentence to a likely cure that would essentially involve disemboweling me, and then finally to a simple, and only slightly inconvenient, way of watching for abnormalities and removing them before they could cause any harm. Was this doctor wrong? Dr. Glazer and I went on to meet two other world-class specialists and they both agreed that undergoing the scoping procedure would do no harm, so I decided to go ahead with it. During the procedure, they clipped some tissue from my esophagus and sent it to the laboratory for testing. A few days after the procedure, exactly a week before my sixty-fourth birthday, I got the results. They were shocking to say the least. After analyzing the tissue, it turned out there wasn’t any high-grade dysplasia at all! Even experts can make mistakes; my point is simply that it pays to be radically open-minded and triangulate with smart people. Had I not pushed for other opinions, my life would have taken a very different course. My point is that you can significantly raise your probabilities of making the right decisions by open-mindedly triangulating with believable people. Recognize the signs of closed-mindedness and open-mindedness that you should watch out for.

No matter how much one tries to create a culture of meaningful relationships, the organization is bound to have some bad (intentionally harmful) people in it. Being there isn’t good for them or the company so it’s best to find out who they are and remove them. We have found that the higher the percentage of people who really care about the organization, the fewer the number of bad people there are, because the people who really care protect the community against them. We have also found that our radical transparency helps make it clearer which are which. Be loyal to the common mission and not to anyone who is not operating consistently with it. Loyalty to specific people who are not in tight sync with the mission and how to achieve it will create factionalism and undermine the well-being of the community. It is often the case, and quite beautiful, that personal loyalties exist. However, it is also often the case, and quite ugly, when personal loyalties come into conflict with the organization’s interests. Be crystal clear on what the deal is. To have a good relationship, you must be clear with each other about what the quid pro quo is—what is generous, what is fair, and what is just plain taking advantage—and how you will be with each other.

Those principles and values aren’t vague slogans, like “the customer always comes first” or “we should strive to be the best in our industry,” but a set of concrete directives anyone can understand, get aligned on, and carry out. As we shift our attention from Life Principles to Work Principles, I will explain how we went about achieving these alignments at Bridgewater and how that affected our results. But first, I want to explain how I think about organizations. An organization is a machine consisting of two major parts: culture and people. Each influences the other, because the people who make up an organization determine the kind of culture it has, and the culture of the organization determines the kinds of people who fit in. A great organization has both great people and a great culture. Companies that get progressively better over time have both. Nothing is more important or more difficult than to get the culture and people right. Great people have both great character and great capabilities. By great character, I mean they are radically truthful, radically transparent, and deeply committed to the mission of the organization. By great capabilities, I mean they have the abilities and skills to do their jobs excellently. People who have one without the other are dangerous and should be removed from the organization. People who have both are rare and should be treasured.

Make sure that the people doing the assessing 1) have the time to be fully informed about how the person they are checking on is doing, 2) have the ability to make the assessments, and 3) are not in a conflict of interest that stands in the way of carrying out oversight effectively. In order to assess well, one has to gain a threshold level of understanding and that takes time. Some people have the ability and the courage to hold people accountable, while most don’t; having such ability and courage is essential. And the person doing the assessing must not have conflicts of interest—such as being in a subordinate position to the person they are intended to check on—that stand in the way of holding them accountable, including recommending that they be fired. Recognize that decision makers must have access to the information necessary to make decisions and must be trustworthy enough to handle that information safely. That doesn’t mean that all people must have access and be trustworthy. It is possible to have subcommittees who have access to sensitive information and make recommendations to the board that are substantiated with enough information to make good judgments, but without disclosing the highly sensitive particulars.

For me, not telling people what’s really going on so as to protect them from the worries of life is like letting your kids grow into adulthood believing in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. While concealing the truth might make people happier in the short run, it won’t make them smarter or more trusting in the long run. It’s a real asset that people know they can trust what we say. For that reason I believe that it’s almost always better to shoot straight, even when you don’t have all the answers or when there’s bad news to convey. As Winston Churchill said, “There is no worse course in leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away.” People need to face harsh and uncertain realities if they are going to learn how to deal with them—and you’ll learn a lot about the people around you by seeing how well they do. Realize that you have nothing to fear from knowing the truth. If you’re like most people, the idea of facing the unvarnished truth makes you anxious. To get over that, you need to understand intellectually why untruths are scarier than truths and then, through practice, get accustomed to living with them. If you’re sick, it’s natural to fear your doctor’s diagnosis—what if it’s cancer or some other deadly disease? As scary as the truth may turn out to be, you will be better off knowing it in the long run because it will allow you to seek the most appropriate treatment. The same holds for learning painful truths about your own strengths and weaknesses. Knowing and acting on the truth is what we call the “big deal” at Bridgewater. It’s important not to get hung up on all those emotion- and ego-laden “little deals” that can distract you from the overall mission. Have integrity and demand it from others.

Force yourself and the people who work for you to do difficult things. It’s a basic law of nature: You must stretch yourself if you want to get strong. You and your people must act with each other like trainers in gyms in order to keep each other fit. Recognize and deal with key-man risk. Every key person should have at least one person who can replace him or her. It’s best to have those people designated as likely successors and to have them apprentice and help in doing those jobs. Don’t treat everyone the same—treat them appropriately. It’s often said that it is neither fair nor appropriate to treat people differently. But in order to treat people appropriately you must treat them differently. That is because people and their circumstances are different. If you were a tailor you wouldn’t give all of your customers the same size suit. It is, however, important to treat people according to the same set of rules. That’s why I’ve tried to flesh out Bridgewater’s principles in enough depth that differences are accounted for. For example, if someone has worked at Bridgewater for many years, that factors into how they are treated. Likewise, while I find all dishonesty intolerable, I don’t treat all acts of dishonesty and all people who are dishonest the same. Don’t let yourself get squeezed. Plenty of people have threatened me over the years by saying they’d quit, bring a lawsuit, embarrass me in the press—you name it. While some people have advised me that it’s easier to just make such things go away, I’ve found doing that is almost always shortsighted. Giving in not only compromises your values, it telegraphs that the rules of the game have changed and opens you up to more of the same. Fighting for what’s right can be hard in the short term, of course. But I’m willing to take the punch. What I worry about is doing the right thing and not about what people think about me.

If you don’t mind being wrong on the way to being right you’ll learn a lot—and increase your effectiveness. But if you can’t tolerate being wrong, you won’t grow, you’ll make yourself and everyone around you miserable, and your work environment will be marked by petty backbiting and malevolent barbs rather than by a healthy, honest search for truth. You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what’s true. Jeff Bezos described it well when he said, “You have to have a willingness to repeatedly fail. If you don’t have a willingness to fail, you’re going to have to be very careful not to invent.” Fail well. Everyone fails. Anyone you see succeeding is only succeeding at the things you’re paying attention to—I guarantee they are also failing at lots of other things. The people I respect most are those who fail well. I respect them even more than those who succeed. That is because failing is a painful experience while succeeding is a joyous one, so it requires much more character to fail, change, and then succeed than to just succeed. People who are just succeeding must not be pushing their limits. Of course the worst are those who fail and don’t recognize it and don’t change. Don’t feel bad about your mistakes or those of others. Love them! People typically feel bad about their mistakes because they think in a shortsighted way about the bad outcome and not about the evolutionary process of which mistakes are an integral part. I once had a ski instructor who had also given lessons to Michael Jordan, the greatest basketball player of all time. Jordan, he told me, reveled in his mistakes, seeing each of them as an opportunity to improve. He understood that mistakes are like those little puzzles that, when you solve them, give you a gem. Every mistake that you make and learn from will save you from thousands of similar mistakes in the future. Don’t worry about looking good—worry about achieving your goals.

The truth is that while most people can become radically open-minded, some can’t, even after they have repeatedly encountered lots of pain from betting that they were right when they were not.28 People who don’t learn radical open-mindedness don’t experience the metamorphosis that allows them to do much better. I myself had to have that humility beaten into me by my crashes, especially my big one in 198 Gaining open-mindedness doesn’t mean losing assertiveness. In fact, because it increases one’s odds of being right, it should increase one’s confidence. That has been true for me since my big crash, which is why I’ve been able to have more success with less risk. Becoming truly open-minded takes time. Like all real learning, doing this is largely a matter of habit; once you do it so many times it is almost instinctive, you’ll find it intolerable to be any other way. As noted earlier, this typically takes about eighteen months, which in the course of a lifetime is nothing. ARE YOU UP FOR THE CHALLENGE?

In fact, we may be too hung up on understanding; conscious thinking is only one part of understanding. Maybe it’s enough that we derive a formula for change and use it to anticipate what is yet to come. I myself find the excitement, lower risk, and educational value of achieving a deep understanding of cause-effect relationships much more appealing than a reliance on algorithms I don’t understand, so I am drawn to that path. But is it my lower-level preferences and habits that are pulling me in this direction or is it my logic and reason? I’m not sure. I look forward to probing the best minds in artificial intelligence on this (and having them probe me). Most likely, our competitive natures will compel us to place bigger and bigger bets on relationships computers find that are beyond our understanding. Some of those bets will pay off, while others will backfire. I suspect that AI will lead to incredibly fast and remarkable advances, but I also fear that it could lead to our demise. We are headed for an exciting and perilous new world. That’s our reality. And as always, I believe that we are much better off preparing to deal with it than wishing it weren’t true. In order to have the best life possible, you have to: know what the best decisions are and have the courage to make them. LIFE PRINCIPLES: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER In Life Principles, I’ve explained some principles that helped me do both of these things. I believe that because the same kinds of things happen over and over again, a relatively few well-thought-out principles will allow you to deal with just about anything that reality throws at you. Where you get these principles from doesn’t matter as much as having them and using them consistently—and that you never stop refining and improving them.

Remember that people are built very differently and that different ways of seeing and thinking make people suitable for different jobs. Some ways of thinking will serve you well for some purposes and serve you poorly for others. It is highly desirable to understand one’s own and others’ ways of thinking and their best applications. Some qualities are more suitable for some jobs. For example, you might not want to hire a highly introverted person as a salesman. That’s not to say an introvert can’t do that job; it’s just that a gregarious person is likely to be more satisfied in the role and do a better job. If you’re not naturally good at one type of thinking, it doesn’t mean you’re precluded from paths that require it. It does, however, require that you either work with someone who has that required way of thinking (which works best) or learn to think differently (which is difficult or even impossible). On the other hand, sometimes I see people dealing with each other, especially in groups, without regard for these differences. They are like the parable of the blind men touching different parts of an elephant and arguing about what it is. Just think about how much better it would be if people were open-minded enough to realize that none of them have the complete picture. Both people expressing their own views and those considering others’ views need to take each other’s differences into account. These differences are real, so it’s dumb to pretend they don’t exist. Understand how to use and interpret personality assessments. Personality assessments are valuable tools for getting a quick picture of what people are like in terms of their abilities, preferences, and style. They are often more objective and reliable than interviews.

Diagnose Problems to Get at Their Root Causes When you encounter problems, your objective is to specifically identify the root causes of those problems—the specific people or designs that caused them—and to see if these people or designs have a pattern of causing problems. What are the most common reasons for failing to diagnose well? The most common mistake I see people make is dealing with their problems as one-offs rather than using them to diagnose how their machine is working so that they can improve it. They move on to fix problems without getting at their root causes, which is a recipe for continued failure. A thorough and accurate diagnosis, while more time-consuming, will pay huge dividends in the future. The second most common mistake people make is to depersonalize the diagnosis. Not connecting problems to the people who failed and not examining what it is about them that caused the failure will not lead to improvements of the individuals or the machines. The third biggest reason for failure is to not connect what one is learning in one diagnosis to what was learned in prior ones. It is important to determine whether the root cause of a particular problem (“Harry was careless”) is part of a larger pattern (“Harry is often careless”) or not (“It’s unlike Harry to be careless”). In the case of our client service analytics team, I knew that unless we got to the root cause of the problems, standards would continue to decline. Bridgewater’s other leaders agreed. So I led a series of diagnostic sessions with the team, getting everyone at every level into the room to probe and find out what had gone wrong. I started with my mental map of how things should’ve gone—based on the machine I’d built—and asked the new managers to describe what had actually happened. Bad outcomes don’t just happen; they occur because specific people make, or fail to make, specific decisions. A good diagnosis always gets to the level of determining what it is about those people that led

Constantly think about how to produce leverage. Leverage in an organization is not unlike leverage in the markets; you’re looking for ways to achieve more with less. At Bridgewater, I typically work at about 50:1 leverage, meaning that for every hour I spend with each person who works for me, they spend about fifty hours working to move the project along. At our sessions, we go over the vision and the deliverables, then they work on them, and then we review the work, and they move forward based on my feedback—and we do that over and over again. The people who work for me typically have similar relationships with those who work for them, though their ratios are typically between 10:1 and 20:1. I am always eager to find people who can do things nearly as well as (and ideally better than) I can so that I can maximize my output per hour. Technology is another great tool for providing leverage. To make training as easy to leverage as possible, document the most common questions and answers through audio, video, or written guidelines, and then assign someone to organize them and incorporate them into a manual, which is updated on a regular basis. Principles themselves are a form of leverage—they’re a way to compound your understanding of situations so that you don’t need to exert the same effort each time you encounter a problem. Recognize that it is far better to find a few smart people and give them the best technology than to have a greater number of ordinary people who are less well equipped. Great people and great technology both enhance productivity. Put them together in a well-designed machine and they improve it exponentially. Use leveragers. Leveragers are people who can go from conceptual to practical effectively and do the most to get your concepts implemented. Conceptualizing and managing takes only about 10 percent of the time needed for implementing, so if you have good leveragers, you can devote a lot more of your time to what’s most important to you.

Look down on your machine and yourself within it from the higher level. Higher-level thinking isn’t something that’s done by higher-level beings. It’s simply seeing things from the top down. Think of it as looking at a photo of yourself and the world around you from outer space. From that vantage, you can see the relationships between the continents, countries, and seas. Then you can get more granular, by zooming into a closer-up view of your country, your city, your neighborhood, and finally your immediate environment. Having that macro perspective gives you much more insight than you’d get if you simply looked around your house through your own eyes. Constantly compare your outcomes to your goals. You must always be simultaneously trying to accomplish the goal and evaluating the machine (the people and the design), as all outcomes are reflections of how the machine is running. Whenever you identify a problem with your machine, you need to diagnose whether it is the result of a flaw in its design or in the way your people are handling their responsibilities. Sample size is important. Any problem can be a one-off imperfection or a symptom of root causes that will show up as problems repeatedly. If you look at enough problems, which one it is will become clear.

Of course most people would prefer not to have weaknesses. Our upbringings and our experiences in the world have conditioned us to be embarrassed by our weaknesses and hide them. But people are happiest when they can be themselves. If you can be open with your weaknesses it will make you freer and will help you deal with them better. I urge you to not be embarrassed about your problems, recognizing that everyone has them. Bringing them to the surface will help you break your bad habits and develop good ones, and you will acquire real strengths and justifiable optimism. This evolutionary process of productive adaptation and ascent—the process of seeking, obtaining, and pursuing more and more ambitious goals—does not just pertain to how individuals and society move forward. It is equally relevant when dealing with setbacks, which are inevitable. At some point in your life you will crash in a big way. You might fail at your job or with your family, lose a loved one, suffer a serious accident or illness, or discover the life you imagined is out of reach forever. There are a whole host of ways that something will get you. At such times, you will be in pain and might think that you don’t have the strength to go on. You almost always do, however; your ultimate success will depend on you realizing that fact, even though it might not seem that way at the moment.

Check references. Recognize that performance in school doesn’t tell you much about whether a person has the values and abilities you are looking for. While it’s best to have great conceptual thinkers, understand that great experience and a great track record also count for a lot. Beware of the impractical idealist. Don’t assume that a person who has been successful elsewhere will be successful in the job you’re giving them. Make sure your people have character and are capable. Don’t hire people just to fit the first job they will do; hire people you want to share your life with. Look for people who have lots of great questions. Show candidates your warts. Play jazz with people with whom you are compatible but who will also challenge you. When considering compensation, provide both stability and opportunity. Pay for the person, not the job. Have performance metrics tied at least loosely to compensation. Pay north of fair. Focus more on making the pie bigger than on exactly how to slice it so that you or anyone else gets the biggest piece. Remember that in great partnerships, consideration and generosity are more important than money. Be generous and expect generosity from others. Great people are hard to find so make sure you think about how to keep them. Constantly Train, Test, Evaluate, and Sort People Understand that you and the people you manage will go through a process of personal evolution. Recognize that personal evolution should be relatively rapid and a natural consequence of discovering one’s strengths and weaknesses; as a result, career paths are not planned at the outset. Understand that training guides the process of personal evolution. Teach your people to fish rather than give them fish, even if that means letting them make some mistakes. Recognize that experience creates internalized learning that book learning can’t replace. Provide constant feedback. Evaluate accurately, not kindly.

If someone is doing their job poorly, consider whether it is due to inadequate learning or inadequate ability. Training and testing a poor performer to see if he or she can acquire the required skills without simultaneously trying to assess their abilities is a common mistake. Recognize that when you are really in sync with someone about their weaknesses, the weaknesses are probably true. When judging people, remember that you don’t have to get to the point of “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” It should take you no more than a year to learn what a person is like and whether they are a click for their job. Continue assessing people throughout their tenure. Evaluate employees with the same rigor as you evaluate job candidates. Train, guardrail, or remove people; don’t rehabilitate them. Don’t collect people. Be willing to “shoot the people you love.” When someone is “without a box,” consider whether there is an open box that would be a better fit or whether you need to get them out of the company. Be cautious about allowing people to step back to another role after failing. Remember that the goal of a transfer is the best, highest use of the person in a way that benefits the community as a whole. Have people “complete their swings” before moving on to new roles. Don’t lower the bar. Manage as Someone Operating a Machine to Achieve a Goal Look down on your machine and yourself within it from the higher level. Constantly compare your outcomes to your goals. Understand that a great manager is essentially an organizational engineer. Build great metrics. Beware of paying too much attention to what is coming at you and not enough attention to your machine. Don’t get distracted by shiny objects. Remember that for every case you deal with, your approach should have two purposes: 1) to move you closer to your goal, and 2) to train and test your machine (i.e., your people and your design). Everything is a case study.

Recognize that decision making is a two-step process: First take in all the relevant information, then decide. Most people are reluctant to take in information that is inconsistent with what they have already concluded. When I ask why, a common answer is: “I want to make up my own mind.” These people seem to think that considering opposing views will somehow threaten their ability to decide what they want to do. Nothing could be further from the truth. Taking in others’ perspectives in order to consider them in no way reduces your freedom to think independently and make your own decisions. It will just broaden your perspective as you make them. Don’t worry about looking good; worry about achieving your goal. People typically try to prove that they have the answer even when they don’t. Why do they behave in this unproductive way? It’s generally because they believe the senseless but common view that great people have all the answers and don’t have any weaknesses. Not only does this view not square with reality, it stands in the way of their progress. People interested in making the best possible decisions are rarely confident that they have the best answers. They recognize that they have weaknesses and blind spots, and they always seek to learn more so that they can get around them. Realize that you can’t put out without taking in. Most people seem much more eager to put out (convey their thinking and be productive) than to take in (learn). That’s a mistake even if one’s primary goal is to put out, because what one puts out won’t be good unless one takes in as well.

We did that over and over again, which produced the evolutionary looping behind Bridgewater’s forty-plus years of success. It’s shown in the diagram on the facing page. This really works! You don’t have to take my word for it. There are two ways you can evaluate the likelihood that this approach and the principles that follow from it are as powerful as I believe they are. You can 1) look at the results they produced and 2) look at the logic behind them. As for the results, like Lombardi’s and the Packers’, our track record speaks for itself. We consistently got better over forty years, going from my two-bedroom apartment to become the fifth most impor-tant private company in the U.S., according to Fortune, and the world’s largest hedge fund, making more total money for our clients than any other hedge fund in history. We have received over one hundred industry awards and I’ve earned three lifetime achievement awards—not to mention remarkable financial and psychological rewards, and most importantly, amazing relationships. But even more important than these results is the underlying cause-effect logic behind these principles, which came before the results. Over forty years ago, this way of being was a controversial, untested theory that nevertheless seemed logical to me. I will explain this logic to you in the pages that follow. That way, you can assess it for yourself. There’s no doubt that our approach is very different. Some people have even described Bridgewater as a cult. The truth is that Bridgewater succeeds because it is the opposite of a cult. The essential difference between a culture of people with shared values (which is a great thing) and a cult (which is a terrible thing) is the extent to which there is independent thinking. Cults demand unquestioning obedience. Thinking for yourself and challenging each other’s ideas is anti-cult behavior, and that is the essence of what we do at Bridgewater.

Lots of data show that relationships are the greatest reward—that they’re more important to your health and happiness than anything else. For example, as Robert Waldinger, director of Harvard’s seventy-five-year Grant and Glueck study of adult males from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, puts it, “You could have all the money you’ve ever wanted, a successful career, and be in good physical health, but without loving relationships, you won’t be happy . . . The good life is built with good relationships.” A good book on this is A Whole New Mind by Daniel H. Pink, and a good article on the science of this is “A Wandering Mind Heads Straight Toward Insight” by Robert Lee Hotz from The Wall Street Journal. While many parts of the brain come in two halves, it’s only the more recently developed cortex, which accounts for three-quarters of the brain, that has been shown to have functional differences between the right and left sides. That’s a big question. Entire specialties are dedicated to this question alone, and no one answer is authoritative, certainly not mine. However, because knowing what can change is important for people trying to manage themselves and others, I have looked fairly deeply into the issue of brain plasticity. What I learned coincided with my own experiences, and I will pass that along to you. A brain-imaging study by Harvard-affiliated researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital found physical changes in the brain after an eight-week meditation course. Researchers identified increased activity in parts of the brain associated with learning, memory, self-awareness, compassion, and introspection, as well as decreased activity in the amygdala. This test is helpful for seeing how people navigate levels and which levels they naturally go to. If you’d like to experience some of these assessments for yourself and see your own results, visit assessments.principles.com.

Foster an environment of confidence and fairness by having clearly-stated principles that are implemented in tools and protocols so that the conclusions reached can be assessed by tracking the logic and data behind them. In all organizations, it’s always the case that some of the people judged to be ineffective will argue that those judgments are wrong. When that happens, a data- and rules-based system with clearly laid-out criteria allows less room for such arguments and greater belief that the system is fair. Though the system won’t be perfect, it is much less arbitrary—and can much more easily be examined for bias—than the much less specified and much less open decision making of individuals with authority. My ideal is to have a process in which everyone contributes criteria for good decision making and those criteria are assessed and selected by appropriately assigned (believable) people. If people maintain the right balance of open-mindedness and assertiveness so they understand where they are and aren’t believable to make decisions, having these open discussions on the criteria for assessing and managing people can be very powerful in building and reinforcing the idea meritocracy. We have early-stage tools that achieve these things and we are striving to refine them so that our people management system operates as effectively as our investment management system. Even with its imperfections, our evidence-based approach to learning about people, guiding them, and sorting them is much fairer and more effective than the arbitrary and subjective management systems that most organizations still rely on. I believe that the forces of evolution will push most organizations toward systems that combine human and computer intelligence to program principles into algorithms that substantially improve decision making.

To diagnose well, ask the following questions: 1. Is the outcome good or bad? 2. Who is responsible for the outcome? 3. If the outcome is bad, is the Responsible Party incapable and/or is the design bad? If you keep those big questions in mind and anchor back to them, you should do well. What follows is a guide for getting the answers to these big-picture questions, mostly using a series of simple either/or questions to help you get to the synthesis you are looking for at each step. You should think of these as the answers you need before moving to the next step, leading all the way to the final diagnosis. You can, but don’t need to, follow these questions or this format exactly. Depending on your circumstances, you may be able to move through these questions quickly or you may need to ask some different, more granular questions. Is the outcome good or bad? And who is responsible for the outcome? If you can’t quickly get in sync that the outcome was bad and who specifically was responsible, you’re probably already headed for the weeds (in other words, into a discussion of tiny, irrelevant details). If the outcome is bad, is the RP incapable and/or is the design bad? The goal is to come to this synthesis, though to get there you may need to examine how the machine worked in this instance and build the synthesis from there. How should the machine have worked? You may have a mental map of who should have done what, or you may need to fill it in using other people’s mental maps. In any case, you need to learn who was responsible for doing what and what the principles say about how things should’ve gone. Keep it simple! At this stage, a common pitfall is to delve into a granular examination of procedural details rather than stay at the level of the machine (the level of who was responsible for doing what). You should be able to crystallize your mental map in just a few statements, each connected to a specific person. If you are delving into details here, you are probabl

Don’t assume that people’s answers are correct. People’s answers could be erroneous theories or spin, so you need to occasionally double-check them, especially when they sound questionable. Some managers are reluctant to do this, feeling it is the equivalent of saying they don’t trust their people. These managers need to understand that this process is how trust is earned or lost. Your people will learn to be much more accurate in what they tell you if they understand this—and you will learn who you can rely on. Train your ear. Over time, you’ll hear the same verbal cues indicating that someone is thinking about something badly or failing to apply principles appropriately. For example, listen for the anonymous “we” as a cue that someone is likely depersonalizing a mistake. Make your probing transparent rather than private. This helps assure the quality of the probing (because others can make their own assessments), and it will reinforce the culture of truth and transparency. Welcome probing. It’s important to welcome probing of yourself because no one can see themselves objectively. When you are being probed, it’s essential to stay calm. Your emotional “lower-level you” will probably react to probing with something like, “You’re a jerk because you’re against me and making me feel bad,” whereas your thoughtful “higher-level you” should be thinking, “It’s wonderful that we can be completely honest like this and have such a thoughtful exchange to help assure that I’m doing things well.” Listen to your higher-level you and don’t lose sight of how difficult it can be for the person doing the probing. Besides helping to make the organization and your relationship with the person who is probing you go well, working yourself through this difficult probing will build your character and your equanimity.

Watch out for people who confuse goals and tasks, because if they can’t make that distinction, you can’t trust them with responsibilities. People who can see the goals are usually able to synthesize too. One way to test this: If you ask a high-level question like “How is goal XYZ going?” a good answer will provide a synthesis up-front of how XYZ is going overall and, if needed, will support it by accounting for the tasks that were done to achieve it. People who see the tasks and lose sight of the goals will just describe the tasks that were done. Watch out for the unfocused and unproductive “theoretical should.” A “theoretical should” occurs when people assume that others or themselves should be able to do something when they don’t actually know whether they can (as in “Sally should be able to do X, Y, Z”). Remember that to really accomplish things you need believable Responsible Parties who have a track record of success in the relevant area. A similar problem occurs when people discuss how to solve a problem by saying something vague and depersonalized like “We should do X, Y, Z.” It is important to identify who these people are by name rather than with a vague “we,” and to recognize that it is their responsibility to determine what should be done. It is especially pointless for a group of people who are not responsible to say things like “We should . . .” to each other. Instead, those people should be speaking to the Responsible Party about what should be done.

This is why many people who have endured setbacks that seemed devastating at the time ended up as happy as (or even happier than) they originally were after they successfully adapted to them. The quality of your life will depend on the choices you make at those painful moments. The faster one appropriately adapts, the better.24 No matter what you want out of life, your ability to adapt and move quickly and efficiently through the process of personal evolution will determine your success and your happiness. If you do it well, you can change your psychological reaction to it so that what was painful can become something you crave. Weigh second- and third-order consequences. By recognizing the higher-level consequences nature optimizes for, I’ve come to see that people who overweigh the first-order consequences of their decisions and ignore the effects of second- and subsequent-order consequences rarely reach their goals. This is because first-order consequences often have opposite desirabilities from second-order consequences, resulting in big mistakes in decision making. For example, the first-order consequences of exercise (pain and time spent) are commonly considered undesirable, while the second-order consequences (better health and more attractive appearance) are desirable. Similarly, food that tastes good is often bad for you and vice versa. Quite often the first-order consequences are the temptations that cost us what we really want, and sometimes they are the barriers that stand in our way. It’s almost as though nature sorts us by throwing us trick choices that have both types of consequences and penalizing those who make their decisions on the basis of the first-order consequences alone. By contrast, people who choose what they really want, and avoid the temptations and get over the pains that drive them away from what they really want, are much more likely to have successful lives. Own your outcomes.

Constantly Train, Test, Evaluate, and Sort People Both your people and your design must evolve for your machine to improve. When you get personal evolution right, the returns are exponential. As people get better and better, they are more able to think independently, probe, and help you refine your machine. The faster they evolve, the faster your outcomes will improve. Your part in an employee’s personal evolution begins with a frank assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, followed by a plan for how their weaknesses can be mitigated either through training or by switching to a different job that taps into their strengths and preferences. At Bridgewater, new employees are often taken aback by how frank and direct such conversations can be, but it’s not personal or hierarchical—no one is exempt from this kind of criticism. While this process is generally difficult for both managers and their subordinates, in the long run it has made people happier and Bridgewater more successful. Remember that most people are happiest when they are improving and doing the things that suit them naturally and help them advance. So learning about your people’s weaknesses is just as valuable (for them and for you) as is learning their strengths. Even as you help people develop, you must constantly assess whether they are able to fulfill their responsibilities excellently. This is not easy to do objectively since you will often have meaningful relationships with your reports and may be reluctant to evaluate them accurately if their performance isn’t at the bar. By the same token, you may be tempted to give an employee who rubs you the wrong way a worse evaluation than he or she deserves. An idea meritocracy requires objectivity. Many of the management tools we have developed were built to do just that, providing us with an unbiased picture of people and their performance independent of the biases of any one manager. This data is essential in cases where a manager and a report are ou

Because of the biases with which we are wired, our self-assessments (and our assessments of others) tend to be highly inaccurate. Psychometric assessments are much more reliable. They are important in helping explore how people think during the hiring process and throughout employment. Though psychometric assessments cannot fully replace speaking with people and looking at their backgrounds and histories, they are far more powerful than traditional interviewing and screening methods. If I had to choose between just the assessments or just traditional job interviews to get at what people are like, I would choose the assessments. Fortunately, we don’t have to make that choice. The four main assessments we use are the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the Workplace Personality Inventory, the Team Dimensions Profile, and Stratified Systems Theory.33 But we are constantly experimenting (for example, with the Big Five) so our mix will certainly change. Whatever the mix, they all convey people’s preferences for thinking and action. They also provide us with new attributes and terminologies that clarify and amplify those we had identified on our own. I will describe a few of them below. These descriptions are based on my own experiences and learnings, which are in many ways different from the official descriptions used by the assessment companies.34

Assign people the job of perceiving problems, give them time to investigate, and make sure they have independent reporting lines so that they can convey problems without any fear of recrimination. Watch out for the “Frog in the Boiling Water Syndrome.” Beware of group-think: The fact that no one seems concerned doesn’t mean nothing is wrong. To perceive problems, compare how the outcomes are lining up with your goals. “Taste the soup.” Have as many eyes looking for problems as possible. “Pop the cork.” Realize that the people closest to certain jobs probably know them best. Be very specific about problems; don’t start with generalizations. Avoid the anonymous “we” and “they,” because they mask personal responsibility. Don’t be afraid to fix the difficult things. Understand that problems with good, planned solutions in place are completely different from those without such solutions. Think of the problems you perceive in a machinelike way. Diagnose Problems to Get at Their Root Causes To diagnose well, ask the following questions: 1. Is the outcome good or bad? 2. Who is responsible for the outcome? 3. If the outcome is bad, is the Responsible Party incapable and/or is the design bad? Ask yourself: “Who should do what differently?” Identify at which step in the 5-Step Process the failure occurred. Identify the principles that were violated. Avoid Monday morning quarterbacking. Don’t confuse the quality of someone’s circumstances with the quality of their approach to dealing with the circumstances. Identifying the fact that someone else doesn’t know what to do doesn’t mean that you know what to do. Remember that a root cause is not an action but a reason. To distinguish between a capacity issue and a capability issue, imagine how the person would perform at that particular function if they had ample capacity. Keep in mind that managers usually fail or fall short of their goals for one (or more) of five reasons.

Getting the right people in the right roles in support of your goal is the key to succeeding at whatever you choose to accomplish. Manage yourself and orchestrate others to get what you want. Learn How to Make Decisions Effectively Recognize that 1) the biggest threat to good decision making is harmful emotions, and 2) decision making is a two-step process (first learning and then deciding). Synthesize the situation at hand. One of the most important decisions you can make is who you ask questions of. Don’t believe everything you hear. Everything looks bigger up close. New is overvalued relative to great. Don’t oversqueeze dots. Synthesize the situation through time. Keep in mind both the rates of change and the levels of things, and the relationships between them. Be imprecise. Remember the 80/20 Rule and know what the key 20 percent is. Be an imperfectionist. Navigate levels effectively. Use the terms “above the line” and “below the line” to establish which level a conversation is on. Remember that decisions need to be made at the appropriate level, but they should also be consistent across levels. Logic, reason, and common sense are your best tools for synthesizing reality and understanding what to do about it. Make your decisions as expected value calculations. Raising the probability of being right is valuable no matter what your probability of being right already is. Knowing when not to bet is as important as knowing what bets are probably worth making. The best choices are the ones that have more pros than cons, not those that don’t have any cons at all. Prioritize by weighing the value of additional information against the cost of not deciding. All of your “must-dos” must be above the bar before you do your “like-to-dos.” Chances are you won’t have time to deal with the unimportant things, which is better than not having time to deal with the important things. Don’t mistake possibilities for probabilities. Simplify!

Recognize that performance in school doesn’t tell you much about whether a person has the values and abilities you are looking for. Largely because they are the easiest to measure, memory and processing speed tend to be the abilities that determine success in school, so school performance is an excellent gauge of these qualities. School performance is also a good gauge of a person’s determination to succeed, as well as their willingness and ability to follow directions. But when it comes to assessing a candidate’s common sense, vision, creativity, or decision-making abilities, school records are of limited value. Since those traits are the most important, you must look beyond school to ascertain whether an applicant has them. While it’s best to have great conceptual thinkers, understand that great experience and a great track record also count for a lot. There are all sorts of jobs and they require all types of people to handle them. I am frequently biased toward finding the entrepreneur type—a clever, open-minded scrapper who will find the best solution—and I have often been disappointed. On the other hand, sometimes I have found a master craftsman who has devoted decades to his specialty who I could completely rely on. What keeps coming to my mind is Malcolm Gladwell’s rule that it takes ten thousand hours of doing something to build expertise—and the value of looking at batting averages to judge how well a person can hit. One way you can tell how well a talented rookie will do relative to a proven star is to get them into a debate with each other and see how well they each hold up.

I wanted to work with independent thinkers who were creative, conceptual, and had a lot of common sense. But I had a hard time finding those sorts of people and even when I did, I was shocked at how differently their brains seemed to work. It was as though we were speaking different languages. For example, those who were “conceptual” and imprecise spoke one language while those who were literal and precise spoke another. At the time, we chalked this up to “communication problems,” but the differences were much deeper than that—and they were painful for all of us, particularly when we were trying to achieve big things together. I remember one research project—an ambitious attempt to systemize our global understanding of the bond markets—that took place years ago. Bob Prince was running it, and while we agreed conceptually on what we were trying to do, the project didn’t get pushed through to results. We’d meet with Bob and his team to agree on the goal and lay out how to get there. But when they’d go off to work on it, they’d make no progress. The problem was that conceptual people who visualized what should be done in vague ways expected more literal people to figure out for themselves how to do it. When they didn’t, the more conceptual people thought the more literal people had no imagination, and the more literal people thought the more conceptual people had their heads in the clouds. To make matters worse, none of them knew which were which—the more literal people thought that they were as conceptual as the conceptual people and vice versa. In short, we were gridlocked, and everyone thought it was someone else’s fault—that the people they were locking horns with were blind, stubborn, or just plain stupid.

In the end, accuracy and kindness are the same thing. Put your compliments and criticisms in perspective. Think about accuracy, not implications. Make accurate assessments. Learn from success as well as from failure. Know that most everyone thinks that what they did, and what they are doing, is much more important than it really is. Recognize that tough love is both the hardest and the most important type of love to give (because it is so rarely welcomed). Recognize that while most people prefer compliments, accurate criticism is more valuable. Don’t hide your observations about people. Build your synthesis from the specifics up. Squeeze the dots. Don’t oversqueeze a dot. Use evaluation tools such as performance surveys, metrics, and formal reviews to document all aspects of a person’s performance. Make the process of learning what someone is like open, evolutionary, and iterative. Make your metrics clear and impartial. Encourage people to be objectively reflective about their performance. Look at the whole picture. For performance reviews, start from specific cases, look for patterns, and get in sync with the person being reviewed by looking at the evidence together. Remember that when it comes to assessing people, the two biggest mistakes you can make are being overconfident in your assessment and failing to get in sync on it. Get in sync on assessments in a nonhierarchical way. Learn about your people and have them learn about you through frank conversations about mistakes and their root causes. Understand that making sure people are doing a good job doesn’t require watching everything that everybody is doing at all times. Recognize that change is difficult. Help people through the pain that comes with exploring their weaknesses. Knowing how people operate and being able to judge whether that way of operating will lead to good results is more important than knowing what they did.

It is instinctually that way, which is why most of us feel the pull of it—in other words, we instinctively want to get better at things and have created and evolved technology to help us. History has shown that all species will either go extinct or evolve into other species, though with our limited time window that is hard for us to see. But we do know that what we call mankind was simply the result of DNA evolving into a new form about two hundred thousand years ago, and we know that mankind will certainly either go extinct or evolve into a higher state. I personally believe there is a good chance man will begin to evolve at an accelerating pace with the help of man-made technologies that can analyze vast amounts of data and “think” faster and better than we can. I wonder how many centuries it will take for us to evolve into a higher-level species that will be much closer to omniscience than we are now—if we don’t destroy ourselves first. One of the great marvels of nature is how the whole system, which is full of individual organisms acting in their own self-interest and without understanding or guiding what’s going on, can create a beautifully operating and evolving whole. While I’m not an expert at this, it seems that it’s because evolution has produced a) incentives and interactions that lead to individuals pursuing their own interests and resulting in the advancement of the whole, b) the natural selection process, and c) rapid experimentation and adaptation.

Put your insecurities away and get on with achieving your goals. Reflect and remind yourself that an accurate criticism is the most valuable feedback you can receive. Imagine how silly and unproductive it would be to respond to your ski instructor as if he were blaming you when he told you that you fell because you didn’t shift your weight properly. It’s no different if a supervisor points out a flaw in your work process. Fix it and move on. Get over “blame” and “credit” and get on with “accurate” and “inaccurate.” Worrying about “blame” and “credit” or “positive” and “negative” feedback impedes the iterative process that is essential to learning. Remember that what has already happened lies in the past and no longer matters except as a lesson for the future. The need for phony praise needs to be unlearned. Observe the patterns of mistakes to see if they are products of weaknesses. Everyone has weaknesses and they are generally revealed in the patterns of mistakes they make. The fastest path to success starts with knowing what your weaknesses are and staring hard at them. Start by writing down your mistakes and connecting the dots between them. Then write down your “one big challenge,” the weakness that stands the most in the way of your getting what you want. Everyone has at least one big challenge. You may in fact have several, but don’t go beyond your “big three.” The first step to tackling these impediments is getting them out into the open. Remember to reflect when you experience pain. Remember this: The pain is all in your head. If you want to evolve, you need to go where the problems and the pain are. By confronting the pain, you will see more clearly the paradoxes and problems you face. Reflecting on them and resolving them will give you wisdom. The harder the pain and the challenge, the better.

Watch out for assertive “fast talkers.” Fast talkers are people who articulately and assertively say things faster than they can be assessed as a way of pushing their agenda past other people’s examination or objections. Fast talking can be especially effective when it’s used against people worried about appearing stupid. Don’t be one of those people. Recognize that it’s your responsibility to make sense of things and don’t move on until you do. If you’re feeling pressured, say something like “Sorry for being stupid, but I’m going to need to slow you down so I can make sense of what you’re saying.” Then ask your questions. All of them. Achieve completion in conversations. The main purpose of discussion is to achieve completion and get in sync, which leads to decisions and/or actions. Conversations that fail to reach completion are a waste of time. When there is an exchange of ideas, it is important to end it by stating the conclusions. If there is agreement, say it; if not, say that. Where further action has been decided, get those tasks on a to-do list, assign people to do them, and specify due dates. Write down your conclusions, working theories, and to-do’s in places that will lead to their being used as foundations for continued progress. To make sure this happens, assign someone to make sure notes are taken and follow-through occurs. There is no reason to get angry because you still disagree. People can have a wonderful relationship and disagree about some things; you don’t have to agree on everything.

Think of the problems you perceive in a machinelike way. There are three steps to doing this well: First, note the problem; then determine who the RPs to raise it to are; and finally decide when the right time to discuss it is. In other words: what, who, when. Then follow through.

Some people tell me it’s inconsistent with human nature to operate this way—that people need to be protected from harsh truths and that such a system could never work in practice. Our experience—and our success—have proven that wrong. While it’s true that our way of being is not what most people are used to, that doesn’t make it unnatural, any more than the hard physical exercise athletes and soldiers do is unnatural. It is a fundamental law of nature that you get stronger only by doing difficult things. While our idea meritocracy is not for everyone, for those who do adapt to it—which is about two-thirds of those who try it—it is so liberating and effective that it’s hard for them to imagine any other way to be. What most people like best is knowing there is no spin. RADICAL TRUTH AND TRANSPARENCY IN PRACTICE To give you an idea of what radical truth and transparency look like, I’ll share a difficult situation we faced a few years ago when our Management Committee began thinking about reorganizing our back office. Our back office provides the services we need to support our trading in the markets, including trade confirmations, settlements, record maintenance, and accounting. We had built this team up over many years and it was full of hardworking, close-knit employees who were part of our extended family. But at the time we were seeing a need for new capacities that would stretch us beyond what we could do in-house. This led our COO, Eileen Murray, to devise an innovative strategy for spinning off this team and having them incorporated into a tailor-made group within the Bank of New York/Mellon. It was just an exploratory conversation at first; we had no idea whether we would pursue it, how we would pursue it, or what that would ultimately mean for the members of our back office team.

Maximize your evolution. Earlier, I mentioned that the unique abilities of thinking logically, abstractly, and from a higher level are carried out in structures located in the neocortex. These parts of the brain are more developed in humans and allow us to reflect on ourselves and direct our own evolution. Because we are capable of conscious, memory-based learning, we can evolve further and faster than any other species, changing not just across generations but within our own lifetimes. This constant drive toward learning and improvement makes getting better innately enjoyable and getting better fast exhilarating. Though most people think that they are striving to get the things (toys, bigger houses, money, status, etc.) that will make them happy, for most people those things don’t supply anywhere near the long-term satisfaction that getting better at something does.20 Once we get the things we are striving for, we rarely remain satisfied with them. The things are just the bait. Chasing after them forces us to evolve, and it is the evolution and not the rewards themselves that matters to us and to those around us. This means that for most people success is struggling and evolving as effectively as possible, i.e., learning rapidly about oneself and one’s environment, and then changing to improve. It is natural that it should be this way because of the law of diminishing returns.21 Consider what acquiring money is like. People who earn so much that they derive little or no marginal gains from it will experience negative consequences, as with any other form of excess, like gluttony. If they are intellectually healthy, they will begin seeking something new or seeking new depths in something old—and they will get stronger in the process. As Freud put it, “Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness.”

Speak up, own it, or get out. In an idea meritocracy, openness is a responsibility; you not only have the privilege to speak up and “fight for right” but are obliged to do so. This extends especially to principles. Just like everything else, principles need to be questioned and debated. What you’re not allowed to do is complain and criticize privately—either to others or in your own head. If you can’t fulfill this obligation, then you must go. Of course open-mindedly exploring what’s true with others is not the same thing as stubbornly insisting that only you are right, even after the decision-making machine has settled an issue and moved on. There will inevitably be cases where you must abide by some policy or decision that you disagree with. Be extremely open. Discuss your issues until you are in sync with each other or until you understand each other’s positions and can determine what should be done. As someone I worked with once explained, “It’s simple—just don’t filter.” Don’t be naive about dishonesty. People lie more than most people imagine. I learned that by being in the position of being responsible for everyone in the company. While we have an exceptionally ethical group of people, in all organizations there are dishonest people who have to be dealt with in practical ways. For example, don’t believe most people who are caught being dishonest when they say that they’ve seen the light and will never do it again because chances are they will. Dishonest people are dangerous, so keeping them around isn’t smart.

Don’t allow lynch mobs or mob rule. Part of the purpose of having a believability-weighted system is to remove emotion from decision making. Crowds get emotional and seek to grab control. That must be prevented. While all individuals have the right to have their own opinions, they do not have the right to render verdicts. Remember that if the idea meritocracy comes into conflict with the well-being of the organization, it will inevitably suffer. That’s just a matter of practicality. As you know I believe that what’s good must work well, and that having the organization work well is of paramount importance. Declare “martial law” only in rare or extreme circumstances when the principles need to be suspended. While all these principles exist for the well-being of the community, there may come times when adhering to them could threaten the community’s well-being. For example, we encountered a time when there were leaks to the media of some things that we made radically transparent within Bridgewater. People at Bridgewater understood that our transparency about our weaknesses and mistakes was being used to present distorted and harmful pictures of Bridgewater, so we had to lessen our level of transparency until we resolved that problem. Rather than just lessening this degree of transparency, I explained the situation and declared “martial law,” meaning that this was a temporary suspension of the full degree of radical transparency. That way, everyone would know both that it was an exceptional case and that we were entering a time when the typical way of operating would be suspended.

Similarly I’d like to share another case in which one of our senior managers observed a conversation between Greg Jensen, who was then CEO, and a junior employee, and felt that Greg was speaking to that employee in a way that discouraged dissent and independent thinking. She raised this in feedback she gave Greg. Greg disagreed, asserting that he was simply reminding the employee of relevant principles and her responsibilities to either adhere to them or openly question them. The two sought to get in sync through a series of emails, and when that didn’t work, they raised their disagreement to the Management Committee. A case based on the meeting in question was sent to the entire company so everyone could judge for themselves who was right and who was wrong. It was a good learning exercise that Greg and the senior manager appreciated. We used it to reflect on our written principles for handling situations like this and they both got a lot of useful feedback. If we hadn’t laid out our principles and used them to judge cases like this, we would have people with power making decisions however they wanted instead of in mutually agreed-upon ways. The principles that follow flesh out how we do this. If they are adhered to, you will be well aligned with others and your idea meritocracy will hum with productivity. If they are not, it will grind to a halt. Recognize that conflicts are essential for great relationships . . .

Remember that when it comes to assessing people, the two biggest mistakes you can make are being overconfident in your assessment and failing to get in sync on it. If you believe that something is true about someone, it’s your responsibility to make sure that it is true and that the person you’re assessing agrees. Of course, in some cases it may be impossible to get in sync (if you believe that someone was dishonest and they insist that they weren’t, for example), but in a culture of truth and transparency it is an obligation to share your view and let others express theirs. Get in sync on assessments in a nonhierarchical way. In most organizations, evaluations run in only one direction, with the manager assessing the managee. The managee typically disagrees with the assessment, especially if it is worse than his or her self-assessment, because most people believe themselves to be better than they really are. Managees also have opinions about managers that they wouldn’t dare bring up in most companies, so misunderstandings and resentments fester. This perverse behavior undermines the effectiveness of the environment and the relationships between people. It can be avoided by getting in sync in a high-quality way. Your reports have to believe that you’re not their enemy—that your sole goal is to move toward the truth; that you are trying to help them and so will not enable their self-deception, perpetuate a lie, or let them off the hook. This has to be done in an honest and transparent way, because if someone believes they are being pigeonholed unfairly the process won’t work. As equal partners, it is up to both of you to get to the truth. When each party is an equal participant, no one can feel cornered.

Great decision makers don’t remember all of these steps in a rote way and carry them out mechanically, yet they do follow them. That’s because through time and experience they’ve learned to do most of them reflexively, just as a baseball player catches a fly ball without thinking about how he’s going to do it. If they had to call each of the principles up from their memory and then run them through their slow conscious minds, they couldn’t possibly handle all the things that are coming at them well. But there are a couple of things that they do carry out consciously and you should do them too. Simplify! Get rid of irrelevant details so that the essential things and the relationships between them stand out. As the saying goes, “Any damn fool can make it complex. It takes a genius to make it simple.” Think of Picasso. He could paint beautiful representational paintings from an early age, but he continually pared down and simplified as his career progressed. Not everyone has a mind that works that way, but just because you can’t do something naturally doesn’t mean you can’t do it—you just have to have creativity and determination. If necessary, you can seek the help of others. Use principles. Using principles is a way of both simplifying and improving your decision making. While it might seem obvious to you by now, it’s worth repeating that realizing that almost all “cases at hand” are just “another one of those,” identifying which “one of those” it is, and then applying well-thought-out principles for dealing with it. This will allow you to massively reduce the number of decisions you have to make (I estimate by a factor of something like 100,000) and will lead you to make much better ones. The key to doing this well is to: Slow down your thinking so you can note the criteria you are using to make your decision. Write the criteria down as a principle.

But how does one learn well? LEARNING WELL For me, getting an accurate picture of reality ultimately comes down to two things: being able to synthesize accurately and knowing how to navigate levels. Synthesis is the process of converting a lot of data into an accurate picture. The quality of your synthesis will determine the quality of your decision making. This is why it always pays to triangulate your views with people who you know synthesize well. This raises your chances of having a good synthesis, even if you feel like you’ve already done it yourself. No sensible person should reject a believable person’s views without great fear of being wrong. To synthesize well, you must 1) synthesize the situation at hand, 2) synthesize the situation through time, and 3) navigate levels effectively. Synthesize the situation at hand. Every day you are faced with an infinite number of things that come at you. Let’s call them “dots.” To be effective, you need to be able to tell which dots are important and which dots are not. Some people go through life collecting all kinds of observations and opinions like pocket lint, instead of just keeping what they need. They have “detail anxiety,” worrying about unimportant things. Sometimes small things can be important—for example, that little rattle in your car’s engine could just be a loose piece of plastic or it could be a sign your timing belt is about to snap. The key is having the higher-level perspective to make fast and accurate judgments on what the real risks are without getting bogged down in details. Remember: One of the most important decisions you can make is who you ask questions of. Make sure they’re fully informed and believable. Find out who is responsible for whatever you are seeking to understand and then ask them. Listening to uninformed people is worse than having no answers at all.

Make clear that the organization’s structure and rules are designed to ensure that its checks-and-balances system functions well. Every organization has its own way of doing this. The diagram on the next page is a sketch of my conceptualization of how this should work for Bridgewater, which is currently an organization of about 1,500 people. The principles it follows, however, are universal; I believe that all organizations need some version of this basic structure. There are one to three chairmen working with seven to fifteen board members supported by staff, whose purpose is primarily to assess whether: 1) The people running the company are capable; 2) The company is operating in accordance with its agreed-upon principles and rules. The board has the power to select and replace the CEOs, but doesn’t engage in the micromanagement of the firm nor the people running it, though in the event of an emergency, they can drop into a more active role. (They can also help the CEOs to the extent they want it.) While Bridgewater’s idea meritocracy is ideally all-inclusive, there need to be various circles of authority, trust and access to information, and decision-making authority, which are shown in the chart’s three circles. Make sure reporting lines are clear. While this is important throughout the organization, it is especially important that the reporting lines of the board (those doing the oversight) are independent of the reporting lines of the CEOs (those doing the management), though there should be cooperation between them. Make sure decision rights are clear. Make sure it’s clear how much weight each person’s vote has so that if a decision must be made when there is still disagreement, there is no doubt how to resolve it.

Hear the click: Find the right fit between the role and the person.Remember that your goal is to put the right people in the right design. First understand the responsibilities of the role and the qualities needed to fulfill them, then ascertain whether an individual has them. When you’re doing this well, there should almost be an audible “click” as the person you’re hiring fits into his or her role. Look for people who sparkle, not just “any ol’ one of those.” Too many people get hired because they are just “one of those.” If you’re looking for a plumber you might be inclined to fill the job with the first experienced plumber you interview, without ascertaining whether he has the qualities of an outstanding plumber. Yet the difference between an ordinary plumber versus an outstanding one is huge. When reviewing any candidate’s background, you must identify whether they have demonstrated themselves to be extraordinary in some way. The most obvious demonstration is outstanding performance within an outstanding peer group. If you’re less than excited to hire someone for a particular job, don’t do it. The two of you will probably make each other miserable. Don’t use your pull to get someone a job. It is unacceptable to use your personal influence to help someone get a job because doing so undermines the meritocracy. It’s not good for the job seeker, because it conveys they did not really earn it; it is not good for the person doing the hiring, because it undermines their authority; and it is not good for you because it demonstrates you will compromise merit for friends. It is an insidious form of corruption and it must not be tolerated. The most you can do at Bridgewater in this respect is to provide a reference for someone you know well enough to endorse. Even though Bridgewater is my company, I have never deviated from this policy.

Don’t collect people. It is much worse to keep someone in a job unsuitable for them than it is to fire or reassign them. Consider the enormous costs of not firing someone unsuited for a job: the costs of bad performance; the time and effort wasted trying to train them; and the greater pain of firing someone who’s been around awhile (say, five years or more) compared with letting someone go after just a year. Keeping people in jobs they are not suited for is terrible for them because it allows them to live in a false reality while holding back their personal evolution, and it is terrible for the community because it compromises the meritocracy and everyone pays the price. Don’t let yourself be held hostage to anyone; there is always someone else. Never compromise your standards or let yourself be squeezed. Be willing to “shoot the people you love.” It is very difficult to fire people you care about. Cutting someone that you have a meaningful relationship with but who isn’t an A player in their job is difficult because ending good relationships is hard, but it is necessary for the long-term excellence of the company. You may have a need for the work they’re doing (even if it’s not excellent) and find it hard to make a change. But they will pollute the environment and fail you when you really need them. Doing this is one of those difficult, necessary things. The best way to do it is to “love the people you shoot”—do it with consideration and in a way that helps them.

Mistakes will cause you pain, but you shouldn’t try to shield yourself or others from it. Pain is a message that something is wrong and it’s an effective teacher that one shouldn’t do that wrong thing again. To deal with your own and others’ weaknesses well you must acknowledge them frankly and openly and work to find ways of preventing them from hurting you in the future. It’s at this point that many people say, “No thanks, this isn’t for me—I’d rather not have to deal with these things.” But this is against your and your organization’s best interests—and will keep you from achieving your goals. It seems to me that if you look back on yourself a year ago and aren’t shocked by how stupid you were, you haven’t learned much. Still, few people go out of their way to embrace their mistakes. It doesn’t have to be that way. Remember back in Life Principles, when I told the story about the time that Ross, then our head of trading, forgot to put in a trade for a client? The money just sat there in cash and by the time the mistake was discovered it had cost the client (actually Bridgewater, because we had to make good on it) a lot of money. It was terrible and I could easily have fired Ross to make the point that nothing less than perfection will be accepted. But that would have been counterproductive. I would have lost a good man and it would have only encouraged other employees to hide their mistakes, creating a culture that would not only be dishonest but crippled in its ability to learn and grow. If Ross hadn’t experienced that pain, he and Bridgewater would have been the worse for it.

Managers should not talk about people who work for them if they are not in the room. If someone is not present at a meeting where something relevant to them is discussed, we always make sure to send them a recording of the meeting and other relevant information. Don’t let loyalty to people stand in the way of truth and the well-being of the organization. In some companies, employees hide their employer’s mistakes, and employers do the same in return. This is unhealthy and stands in the way of improvement because it prevents people from bringing their mistakes and weaknesses to the surface, encourages deception, and eliminates subordinates’ right of appeal. The same thing applies to the idea of personal loyalty. I have regularly seen people kept in jobs that they don’t deserve because of their personal relationship to the boss, and this leads to unscrupulous managers trading on personal loyalties to build fiefdoms for themselves. Judging one person by a different set of rules than another is an insidious form of corruption that undermines the meritocracy. I believe in a healthier form of loyalty founded on openly exploring what is true. Explicit, principled thinking and radical transparency are the best antidotes for self-dealing. When everyone is held to the same principles and decision making is done publicly, it is difficult for people to pursue their own interests at the expense of the organization’s. In such an environment, those who face their challenges have the most admirable character; when mistakes and weaknesses are hidden, unhealthy character is rewarded instead. Create an environment in which everyone has the right to understand what makes sense and no one has the right to hold a critical opinion without speaking up. Whether people have the independence and character to fight for the best answers will depend upon their nature, but you can encourage them by creating an atmosphere in which everyone’s first thought is to ask: “Is it true?”

Remember that people who see things and think one way often have difficulty communicating with and relating to people who see things and think another way. Imagine you had to describe what a rose smells like to someone who lacks a sense of smell. No matter how accurate your explanation, it will always fall short of the actual experience. The same thing is true of differences in ways of thinking. They are like blind spots, and if you have one (which we all do), it can be challenging to see what’s there. Working through these differences requires a lot of patience and open-mindedness, as well as triangulating with other people who can help fill in the picture. Pull all suspicious threads. It’s worth pulling all suspicious threads because: 1) Small negative situations can be symptomatic of serious underlying problems; 2) Resolving small differences of perception may prevent more serious divergence of views; and 3) In trying to create a culture that values excellence, constantly reinforcing the need to point out and stare at problems—no matter how small—is essential (otherwise you risk setting an example of tolerating mediocrity). Prioritization can be a trap if it causes you to ignore the problems around you. Allowing small problems to go unnoticed and unaddressed creates the perception that it’s acceptable to tolerate such things. Imagine that all your little problems are small pieces of trash you’re stepping over to get to the other side of a room. Sure, what’s on the other side of the room may be very important, but it won’t hurt you to pick up the trash as you come to it, and by reinforcing the culture of excellence it will have positive second- and third-order consequences that will reverberate across your whole organization. While you don’t need to pick up every piece, you should never lose sight of the fact that you’re stepping over the trash nor that it’s probably not as hard as you think to pick up a piece or two as you go on your way.

Maintain an emerging synthesis by diagnosing continuously. Keep in mind that diagnoses should produce outcomes. Remember that if you have the same people doing the same things, you should expect the same results. Use the following “drill-down” technique to gain an 80/20 understanding of a department or sub-department that is having problems. Understand that diagnosis is foundational to both progress and quality relationships. Design Improvements to Your Machine to Get Around Your Problems Build your machine. Systemize your principles and how they will be implemented. Create great decision-making machines by thinking through the criteria you are using to make decisions while you are making them. Remember that a good plan should resemble a movie script. Put yourself in the position of pain for a while so that you gain a richer understanding of what you’re designing for. Visualize alternative machines and their outcomes, and then choose. Consider second- and third-order consequences, not just first-order ones. Use standing meetings to help your organization run like a Swiss clock. Remember that a good machine takes into account the fact that people are imperfect. Recognize that design is an iterative process. Between a bad “now” and a good “then” is a “working through it” period. Understand the power of the “cleansing storm.” Build the organization around goals rather than tasks. Build your organization from the top down. Remember that everyone must be overseen by a believable person who has high standards. Make sure the people at the top of each pyramid have the skills and focus to manage their direct reports and a deep understanding of their jobs. In designing your organization, remember that the 5-Step Process is the path to success and that different people are good at different steps. Don’t build the organization to fit the people. Keep scale in mind.

Regardless of whether or not you use this kind of technology and structured process for believability weighting, the most important thing is that you get the concept. Simply look down on yourself and your team when a decision needs to be made and consider who is most likely to be right. I assure you that, if you do, you will make better decisions than if you don’t. Recognize that having an effective idea meritocracy requires that you understand the merit of each person’s ideas. Having a hierarchy of merit is not only consistent with an idea meritocracy but essential for it. It’s simply not possible for everyone to debate everything all the time and still get their work done. Treating all people equally is more likely to lead away from truth than toward it. But at the same time, all views should be considered in an open-minded way, though placed in the proper context of the experiences and track records of the people expressing them. Imagine if a group of us were getting a lesson in how to play baseball from Babe Ruth, and someone who’d never played the game kept interrupting him to debate how to swing the bat. Would it be helpful or harmful to the group’s progress to ignore their different track records and experience? Of course it would be harmful and plain silly to treat their points of view equally, because they have different levels of believability. The most productive approach would be to allow Ruth to give his instructions uninterrupted and then take some time afterward to answer questions. But because I’m pretty extreme in believing that it is important to obtain understanding rather than accepting doctrine at face value, I would encourage the new batter not to accept what Ruth has to say as right just because he was the greatest slugger of all time. If I were that new batter, I wouldn’t stop questioning Ruth until I was confident I had found the truth.

As with animals, many of our decision-making drivers are below the surface. An animal doesn’t “decide” to fly or hunt or sleep or fight in the way that we go about making many of our own choices of what to do—it simply follows the instructions that come from the subconscious parts of its brain. These same sorts of instructions come to us from the same parts of our brains, sometimes for good evolutionary reasons and sometimes to our detriment. Our subconscious fears and desires drive our motivations and actions through emotions such as love, fear, and inspiration. It’s physiological. Love, for example, is a cocktail of chemicals (such as oxytocin) secreted by the pituitary gland. While I had always assumed that logical conversation is the best way for people to get at what is true, armed with this new knowledge about the brain, I came to understand that there are large parts of our brains that don’t do what is logical. For example, I learned that when people refer to their “feelings”—such as saying “I feel that you were unfair with me”—they are typically referring to messages that originate in the emotional, subconscious parts of their brains. I also came to understand that while some subconscious parts of our brains are dangerously animalistic, others are smarter and quicker than our conscious minds. Our greatest moments of inspiration often “pop” up from our subconscious. We experience these creative breakthroughs when we are relaxed and not trying to access the part of the brain in which they reside, which is generally the neocortex. When you say, “I just thought of something,” you noticed your subconscious mind telling your conscious mind something. With training, it’s possible to open this stream of communication.

Understanding, accepting, and working with reality is both practical and beautiful. I have become so much of a hyperrealist that I’ve learned to appreciate the beauty of all realities, even harsh ones, and have come to despise impractical idealism. Don’t get me wrong: I believe in making dreams happen. To me, there’s nothing better in life than doing that. The pursuit of dreams is what gives life its flavor. My point is that people who create great things aren’t idle dreamers: They are totally grounded in reality. Being hyperrealistic will help you choose your dreams wisely and then achieve them. I have found the following to be almost always true: Dreams + Reality + Determination = A Successful Life. People who achieve success and drive progress deeply understand the cause-effect relationships that govern reality and have principles for using them to get what they want. The converse is also true: Idealists who are not well grounded in reality create problems, not progress. What does a successful life look like? We all have our own deep-seated needs, so we each have to decide for ourselves what success is. I don’t care whether you want to be a master of the universe, a couch potato, or anything else—I really don’t. Some people want to change the world and others want to operate in simple harmony with it and savor life. Neither is better. Each of us needs to decide what we value most and choose the paths we take to achieve it.

Use principles. Believability weight your decision making. Convert your principles into algorithms and have the computer make decisions alongside you. Be cautious about trusting AI without having deep understanding. An organization is a machine consisting of two major parts: culture and people. A great organization has both great people and a great culture. Great people have both great character and great capabilities. Great cultures bring problems and disagreements to the surface and solve them well, and they love imagining and building great things that haven’t been built before. Tough love is effective for achieving both great work and great relationships. In order to be great, one can’t compromise the uncompromisable. A believability-weighted idea meritocracy is the best system for making effective decisions. Make your passion and your work one and the same and do it with people you want to be with. Trust in Radical Truth and Radical Transparency Realize that you have nothing to fear from knowing the truth. Have integrity and demand it from others. Never say anything about someone that you wouldn’t say to them directly and don’t try people without accusing them to their faces. Don’t let loyalty to people stand in the way of truth and the well-being of the organization. Create an environment in which everyone has the right to understand what makes sense and no one has the right to hold a critical opinion without speaking up. Speak up, own it, or get out. Be extremely open. Don’t be naive about dishonesty. Be radically transparent. Use transparency to help enforce justice. Share the things that are hardest to share. Keep exceptions to radical transparency very rare. Make sure those who are given radical transparency recognize their responsibilities to handle it well and to weigh things intelligently.

When I went to Africa a number of years ago, I saw a pack of hyenas take down a young wildebeest. My reaction was visceral. I felt empathy for the wildebeest and thought that what I had witnessed was horrible. But was that because it was horrible or was it because I am biased to believe it’s horrible when it is actually wonderful? That got me thinking. Would the world be a better or worse place if what I’d seen hadn’t occurred? That perspective drove me to consider the second- and third-order consequences so that I could see that the world would be worse. I now realize that nature optimizes for the whole, not for the individual, but most people judge good and bad based only on how it affects them. What I had seen was the process of nature at work, which is much more effective at furthering the improvement of the whole than any process man has ever invented. Most people call something bad if it is bad for them or bad for those they empathize with, ignoring the greater good. This tendency extends to groups: One religion will consider its beliefs good and another religion’s beliefs bad to such an extent that their members might kill each other in the mutual conviction that each is doing what’s right. Typically, people’s conflicting beliefs or conflicting interests make them unable to see things through another’s eyes. That’s not good and it doesn’t make sense. While I could understand people liking something that helps them and disliking things that hurt them, it doesn’t make sense to call something good or bad in an absolute sense based only on how it affects individuals. To do so would presume that what the individual wants is more important than the good of the whole. To me, nature seems to define good as what’s good for the whole and optimizes for it, which is preferable. So I have come to believe that as a general rule:

Recognize that personal evolution should be relatively rapid and a natural consequence of discovering one’s strengths and weaknesses; as a result, career paths are not planned at the outset. The evolutionary process is about discovering people’s likes and dislikes as well as their strengths and weaknesses; it occurs when people are put into jobs they are likely to succeed at, but in which they have to stretch themselves. Each person’s career will evolve based on what we all learn about what the person is like. They should be given enough freedom to learn and think for themselves while being coached so they are prevented from making unacceptable mistakes. The feedback they receive should help them reflect on whether their problems are the kind that can be resolved by additional learning or stem from natural abilities that are unlikely to change. Typically it takes from six to twelve months to get to know a new employee in a by-and-large sort of way, and about eighteen months for them to internalize and adapt to the culture. During this time there should be periodic mini-reviews and several major ones. Following each of these assessments, new assignments should be made that are tailored to their likes and dislikes and strengths and weaknesses. This is an iterative process, in which the accumulated experiences of training, testing, and adjusting direct the person to ever more suitable roles and responsibilities. At Bridgewater, it is typically both a challenging and rewarding process that benefits the individual by providing better self-understanding and greater familiarity with various jobs. When it results in a parting of ways, it’s usually because people find they cannot be excellent and happy in any job at the firm.

But even then, after you both say yes, you won’t know if you have a good fit until you’ve lived together in your work and your relationships for a while. The “interviewing” process doesn’t end when employment begins, but transitions into a rigorous process of training, testing, sorting, and most importantly, getting in sync, which I describe in Chapter Nine, Constantly Train, Test, Evaluate, and Sort People. I believe that the ability to objectively self-assess, including one’s own weaknesses, is the most influential factor in whether a person succeeds, and that a healthy organization is one in which people compete not so much against each other as against the ways in which their lower-level selves get in the way. Your goal should be to hire people who understand this, equip them with the tools and the information they need to flourish in their jobs, and not micromanage them. If they can’t do the job after being trained and given time to learn, get rid of them; if they can, promote them. Remember That the WHO Is More Important than the WHAT People often make the mistake of focusing on what should be done while neglecting the more important question of who should be given the responsibility for determining what should be done. That’s backward. When you know what you need in a person to do the job well and you know what the person you’re putting into it is like, you can pretty well visualize how things will go.

Don’t get me wrong: Radical transparency isn’t the same as total transparency. It just means much more transparency than is typical. We do keep some things confidential, such as private health matters or deeply personal problems, sensitive details about intellectual property or security issues, the timing of a major trade, and at least for the short term, matters that are likely to be distorted, sensationalized, and harmfully misunderstood if leaked to the press. In the following principles, you will get a good explanation of when and why we’ve found it helpful to be transparent and when and why we’ve found it inappropriate. Frankly, when I started off being so radically transparent, I had no idea how it would go; I just knew that it was extremely important and that I had to fight hard and find ways to make it happen. I pushed the limits and was surprised by how well it worked. For example, when I started taping all our meetings our lawyers told us we were crazy because we were creating evidence that could be used against us in court or by regulators such as the SEC. In response, I theorized that radical transparency would reduce the risk of our doing anything wrong—and of not dealing appropriately with our mistakes—and that the tapes would in fact protect us. If we were handling things well, our transparency would make that clear (provided, of course, that all parties are reasonable, which isn’t something you can always take for granted), and if we were handling things badly, our transparency would ensure that we would get what we deserve, which, in the long run, would be good for us.

Use tools to collect data and process it into conclusions and actions. Imagine that virtually everything important going on in your company can be captured as data, and that you can build algorithms to instruct the computer, as you would instruct a person, to analyze that data and use it in the way you agreed it should be used. In that way, you and the computer on your behalf could look at each person and all the people together and provide tailored guidance, just like your GPS provides you guidance by knowing all the traffic patterns and routes. You don’t have to make it mandatory to follow that guidance, though you can. Generally speaking, the system operates like a coach. And the coach can learn about its team: Data is collected about what people do so that if they make more insightful moves or less insightful moves, learning will occur and be used to create improvements. Because the thinking behind the algorithms is available to everyone, anyone can assess the quality of the logic and its fairness, and have a hand in shaping it.

Put yourself in the position of pain for a while so that you gain a richer understanding of what you’re designing for. Either literally or vicariously (through reading reports, job descriptions, etc.), temporarily insert yourself into the workflow of the area you’re looking at to gain a better understanding of what it is that you are dealing with. As you design, you’ll be able to apply what you’ve learned, and revise the machine appropriately as a result. Visualize alternative machines and their outcomes, and then choose. A good designer is able to visualize the machine and its outcomes in various iterations. First they imagine how Harry, Larry, and Sally can operate in various ways with various tools and different incentives and penalties; then they replace Harry with George, and so on, thinking through what the products and people and finances would look like month by month (or quarter by quarter) under each scenario. Then they choose. Consider second- and third-order consequences, not just first-order ones. The outcome you get as a first-order consequence might be desirable, while the second- or third-order consequences could be the opposite. So focusing solely on first-order consequences, which people tend to do, can lead to bad decision making. For example, if you asked me if I’d like to not have rainy days, I probably would say yes if I didn’t consider the second- and third-order consequences. Use standing meetings to help your organization run like a Swiss clock. Regularly scheduled meetings add to overall efficiency by ensuring that important interactions and to-do’s aren’t overlooked, eliminating the need for inefficient coordination, and improving operations (because repetition leads to refinement). It pays to have standardized meeting agendas that ask the same feedback questions in each meeting (such as how effective the meeting was) and nonstandard meeting agendas that include things done infrequently (such as quarterly budget reviews).

Because these moments of pain are so important, you shouldn’t rush through them. Stay in them and explore them so you can build a foundation for improvement. Embracing your failures—and confronting the pain they cause you and others—is the first step toward genuine improvement; it is why confession precedes forgiveness in many societies. Psychologists call this “hitting bottom.” If you keep doing this you will convert the pain of facing your mistakes and weaknesses into pleasure and “get to the other side” as I explained in Embrace Reality and Deal with It. Be self-reflective and make sure your people are self-reflective. When there is pain, the animal instinct is flight-or-fight. Calm yourself down and reflect instead. The pain you are feeling is due to things being in conflict—maybe you’ve come up against a terrible reality, such as the death of a friend, and are unable to accept it; maybe you’ve been forced to acknowledge a weakness that challenges the idea you’d had of yourself. If you can think clearly about what’s behind it, you will learn more about what reality is like and how to better deal with it. Self-reflectiveness is the quality that most differentiates those who evolve quickly from those who don’t. Remember: Pain + Reflection = Progress. Know that nobody can see themselves objectively. While we should all strive to see ourselves objectively, we shouldn’t expect everyone to be able to do that well. We all have blind spots; people are by definition subjective. For this reason, it is everyone’s responsibility to help others learn what is true about themselves by giving them honest feedback, holding them accountable, and working through disagreements in an open-minded way.

Squeeze the dots. Every observation of a person potentially tells you something valuable about how they operate. As I explained earlier, I call these observations “dots.” A dot is a piece of data that’s paired with your inference about what it means—a judgment about what someone might have decided, said, or thought. Most of the time we make these inferences and judgments implicitly and keep them to ourselves, but I believe that if they are collected systematically and put into perspective over time, they can be extremely valuable when it’s time to step back and synthesize the picture of a person. Don’t oversqueeze a dot. Remember: A dot is just a dot; what matters is how they add up. Think of each individual dot as an at-bat in baseball. Even great hitters are going to strike out many times, and it would be foolish to evaluate them based on one trip to the plate. That’s why stats like on-base percentage and batting average exist. In other words, any one event has many different possible explanations, whereas a pattern of behavior can tell you a lot about root causes. The number of observations needed to detect a pattern largely depends on how well you get in sync after each observation. A quality discussion of how and why a person behaved a certain way should help you understand the larger picture.

Make finding the right people systematic and scientific. The process for choosing people should be systematically built out and evidence-based. You need to have a people-hiring machine in which the goals are clearly stated so that the outcomes can be compared with them and the machine (the design and the people) producing the outcomes can evolve to improve. Organizations typically hire people by having job candidates’ resumes reviewed by semi-random people based on semi-random criteria, which leads them to invite in candidates to have semi-random groups of people ask the candidates semi-random questions and then make their choices of whom to offer jobs based on the consensus of how they liked them. You need to make sure that each one of those steps is done more systematically and purposefully. For example, you should think through what questions are asked and how the different answers candidates give differentiate them in the ways that you are seeking to differentiate them. You should also save all of those answers so you can learn about how indicative they might be of subsequent behaviors and performance. I do not mean that the human dimension or art of the hiring process should be eliminated—the personal values and esprit de corps part of a relationship are critically important and can’t be fully measured by data. Sometimes the twinkle in the eye and the facial expressions are telling. However, even for those areas where people’s subjective interpretations are important, you can still use data and a scientific approach to be more objective—for example, you can capture data to assess the track records of those making the interpretations.

By radical truth, I mean not filtering one’s thoughts and one’s questions, especially the critical ones. If we don’t talk openly about our issues and have paths for working through them, we won’t have partners who collectively own our outcomes. By radical transparency, I mean giving most everyone the ability to see most everything. To give people anything less than total transparency would make them vulnerable to others’ spin and deny them the ability to figure things out for themselves. Radical transparency reduces harmful office politics and the risks of bad behavior because bad behavior is more likely to take place behind closed doors than out in the open. Some people have called this way of operating radical straightforwardness. I knew that if radical truth and radical transparency didn’t apply across the board, we would develop two classes of people at the company—those with power who are in the know, and those who aren’t—so I pushed them both to their limits. To me, a pervasive Idea Meritocracy = Radical Truth + Radical Transparency + Believability-Weighted Decision Making. From a small group of people arguing informally about what’s true and what to do about it, we developed approaches, technologies, and tools over the last forty years that have taken us to a whole other level, which has been eye-opening and invaluable in ways that you can read about in the tools chapter at the end of this book. We have always been unwavering in providing this environment, and we let the people who didn’t like it self-select themselves out of the company.

While I spend most of my time studying the realities that affect me most directly—those that drive economies, the markets, and the people I deal with—I also spend time in nature and can’t help reflecting on how it works by observing, reading, and speaking with some of the greatest specialists on the subject. I’ve found it both interesting and valuable to observe which laws we humans have in common with the rest of nature and which differentiate us. Doing that has had a big impact on my approach to life. First of all, I see how cool it is that the brain’s evolution gave us the ability to reflect on how reality works in this way. Man’s most distinctive quality is our singular ability to look down on reality from a higher perspective and synthesize an understanding of it. While other species operate by following their instincts, man alone can go above himself and look at himself within his circumstances and within time (including before and after his existence). For example, we can ponder the ways that nature’s flying machines, swimming machines, and billions of other machines, from the microscopic to the cosmic, interact with one another to make up a working whole that evolves through time. This is because the evolution of the brain gave man a much more developed neocortex, which gives us the power to think abstractly and logically. While our higher-level thinking makes us unique among species, it can also make us uniquely confused. Other species have much simpler and more straightforward lives, without any of man’s wrestling with what’s good and what’s bad. In contrast with animals, most people struggle to reconcile their emotions and their instincts (which come from the animal parts of their brains) with their reasoning (which comes from parts of the brain more developed in humans). This struggle causes people to confuse what they want to be true with what actually is true. Let’s look at this dilemma to try to understand how reality works.

Prioritize: While you can have virtually anything you want, you can’t have everything you want. Life is like a giant smorgasbord with more delicious alternatives than you can ever hope to taste. Choosing a goal often means rejecting some things you want in order to get other things that you want or need even more. Some people fail at this point, before they’ve even started. Afraid to reject a good alternative for a better one, they try to pursue too many goals at once, achieving few or none of them. Don’t get discouraged and don’t let yourself be paralyzed by all the choices. You can have much more than what you need to be happy. Make your choice and get on with it. Don’t confuse goals with desires. A proper goal is something that you really need to achieve. Desires are things that you want that can prevent you from reaching your goals. Typically, desires are first-order consequences. For example, your goal might be physical fitness, while your desire is to eat good-tasting but unhealthy food. Don’t get me wrong, if you want to be a couch potato, that’s fine with me. You can pursue whatever goals you want. But if you don’t want to be a couch potato, then you better not open that bag of chips. Decide what you really want in life by reconciling your goals and your desires. Take passion, for example. Without passion, life would be dull; you wouldn’t want to live without it. But what’s key is what you do with your passion. Do you let it consume you and drive you to irrational acts, or do you harness it to motivate and drive you while you pursue your real goals? What will ultimately fulfill you are things that feel right at both levels, as both desires and goals. Don’t mistake the trappings of success for success itself. Achievement orientation is important, but people who obsess over a $1,200 pair of shoes or a fancy car are very rarely happy because they don’t know what it is that they really want and hence what will satisfy them.

Investigate and let people know you are going to investigate. Investigate and explain to people that you are going to investigate so there are no surprises. Security controls should not be taken personally by the people being checked, just like a teller shouldn’t view the bank counting the money in the drawer (rather than just accepting the teller’s count) as an indication that the bank thinks the teller is dishonest. Explain that concept to employees so that they understand it. But even the best controls will never be foolproof. For that reason (among many others), trustworthiness is a quality that should be appreciated. Remember that there is no sense in having laws unless you have policemen (auditors). The people doing the auditing should report to people outside the department being audited, and auditing procedures should not be made known to those being audited. (This is one of our few exceptions to radical transparency.) Beware of rubber-stamping. When a person’s role involves reviewing or auditing a high volume of transactions or things that other people are doing, there’s a real risk of rubber-stamping. One particularly risky example is expense approvals. Make sure you have ways to audit the auditors. Recognize that people who make purchases on your behalf probably will not spend your money wisely. This is because 1) it is not their money and 2) it is difficult to know what the right price should be. For example, if somebody proposes a price of $125,000 for a consulting project, it is unpleasant, difficult, and confusing to figure out what the market rate is and then negotiate a better price. But the same person who’s reluctant to negotiate with the consultant will bargain furiously when he is hiring someone to paint his own house. You need to have proper controls, or better yet, a part of the organization that specializes in this kind of thing. There’s retail and there’s wholesale. You want to pay wholesale whenever possible.

Never rule out a goal because you think it’s unattainable. Be audacious. There is always a best possible path. Your job is to find it and have the courage to follow it. What you think is attainable is just a function of what you know at the moment. Once you start your pursuit you will learn a lot, especially if you triangulate with others; paths you never saw before will emerge. Of course there are some impossibilities or near-impossibilities, such as playing center on a professional basketball team if you’re short, or running a four-minute mile at age seventy. Remember that great expectations create great capabilities. If you limit your goals to what you know you can achieve, you are setting the bar way too low. Almost nothing can stop you from succeeding if you have a) flexibility and b) self-accountability. Flexibility is what allows you to accept what reality (or knowledgeable people) teaches you; self-accountability is essential because if you really believe that failing to achieve a goal is your personal failure, you will see your failing to achieve it as indicative that you haven’t been creative or flexible or determined enough to do what it takes. And you will be that much more motivated to find the way. Knowing how to deal well with your setbacks is as important as knowing how to move forward. Sometimes you know that you are going over a waterfall and there is no way to avoid it. Life will throw you such challenges, some of which will seem devastating at the time. In bad times, your goal might be to keep what you have, to minimize your rate of loss, or simply to deal with a loss that is irrevocable. Your mission is to always make the best possible choices, knowing that you will be rewarded if you do. Identify and don’t tolerate problems.

In Chapter One, I explain what an idea meritocracy looks like, and explore why radical truth and radical transparency are essential for it to work well. Being radically truthful and radically transparent are probably the most difficult principles to internalize, because they are so different from what most people are used to. Because this way of being is frequently misunderstood, I tried especially hard to be crystal clear in conveying why we operate this way and how it works in practice. In Chapter Two, we will turn our attention to why and how to build a culture that fosters meaningful relationships. Besides being rewarding themselves, meaningful relationships enable the radical truth and transparency that allow us to hold each other accountable for producing excellence. I believe that great cultures, like great people, recognize that making mistakes is part of the process of learning, and that continuous learning is what allows an organization to evolve successfully over time. In Chapter Three, we will explore the principles for doing that well. Of course, an idea meritocracy is based on the belief that pulling people’s thinking together and stress-testing it produces better outcomes than when people keep their disparate thoughts in their own heads. Chapter Four contains principles for “getting in sync” well. Knowing how to have thoughtful disagreements is key. Idea meritocracies carefully weigh the merits of its members’ opinions. Since many opinions are bad and virtually everyone is confident that theirs are good, the process of being able to sort through them well is important to understand. Chapter Five explains our system for believability-weighted decision making. Since disagreements sometimes remain even after decisions are made, one also needs principles for resolving them that are clearly communicated, consistently adhered to, and universally recognized as fair. I go over these in Chapter Six. MAKE YOUR IDEA MERITOCRACY WORK IN A WAY THAT SUITS YOU

Manage yourself and orchestrate others to get what you want. Your greatest challenge will be having your thoughtful higher-level you manage your emotional lower-level you. The best way to do that is to consciously develop habits that will make doing the things that are good for you habitual. In managing others, the analogy that comes to mind is a great orchestra. The person in charge is the shaper-conductor who doesn’t “do” (e.g., doesn’t play an instrument, though he or she knows a lot about instruments) as much as visualize the outcome and sees to it that each member of the orchestra helps achieve it. The conductor makes sure each member of the orchestra knows what he or she is good at and what they’re not good at, and what their responsibilities are. Each must not only perform at their personal best but work together so the orchestra becomes more than the sum of its parts. One of the conductor’s hardest and most thankless jobs is getting rid of people who consistently don’t play well individually or with others. Most importantly, the conductor ensures that the score is executed exactly as he or she hears it in his or her head. “The music needs to sound this way,” she says, and then she makes sure it does. “Bass players, bring out the structure. Here are the connections, here’s the spirit.” Each section of the orchestra has its own leaders—the concertmaster, the first chairs—who also help bring out the composer’s and the conductor’s visions.

Then I read Charles Duhigg’s best-selling book The Power of Habit, which really opened my eyes. I recommend that you read it yourself if your interest in this subject goes deeper than what I’m able to cover here. Duhigg’s core idea is the role of the three-step “habit loop.” The first step is a cue—some “trigger that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and which habit to use,” according to Duhigg. Step two is the routine, “which can be physical or mental or emotional.” Finally, there is a reward, which helps your brain figure out if this particular loop is “worth remembering for the future.” Repetition reinforces this loop until over time it becomes automatic. This anticipation and craving is the key to what animal trainers call operant conditioning, which is a method of training that uses positive reinforcement. For example, dog trainers use a sound (typically a clicker) to reinforce behavior by pairing that sound with a more desirable reward (typically food) until the dog will perform the desired behavior when it merely hears the click. In humans, Duhigg says, rewards can be just about anything, ranging “from food or drugs that cause physical sensations, to emotional payoffs, such as the feelings of pride that accompany praise or self-congratulation.”Habits put your brain on “automatic pilot.” In neuroscientific terms, the basal ganglia takes over from your cortex, so that you can execute activities without even thinking about them.

Make sure your people have character and are capable. The person who is capable but doesn’t have good character is generally destructive, because he or she has the cleverness to do you harm and will certainly erode the culture. In my opinion, most organizations overvalue the abilities piece and undervalue the character piece because of a shortsighted focus on getting the job done. In doing so, they lose the power of the great relationships that will take them through both good and bad times. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that you should compromise capabilities for character. The person with good character and poor abilities also creates problems. While likeable, he or she won’t get the job done and is painfully difficult to fire because doing so feels like shooting the loyal dog you can’t afford to keep anymore—but he must go. Ultimately, what you need in the people you work with are excellent character and excellent capabilities, which is why it’s so hard to find great people. Don’t hire people just to fit the first job they will do; hire people you want to share your life with. Turnover is costly and inefficient because of the time it takes for people to get to know each other and the organization. Both the people you work with and the company itself will evolve in ways you can’t anticipate. So hire the kind of people you want to share a long-term mission with. You will always have uses for great people. Look for people who have lots of great questions. Smart people are the ones who ask the most thoughtful questions, as opposed to thinking they have all the answers. Great questions are a much better indicator of future success than great answers. Show candidates your warts. Show your job prospects the real picture, especially the bad stuff. Also show them the principles in action, including the most difficult aspects. That way you will stress-test their willingness to endure the real challenges.

As I mentioned earlier, nothing is more important or more difficult than to get the culture and the people right. Whatever successes we’ve had at Bridgewater were the result of doing that well—and whatever failures were due to our not doing it adequately. That might seem odd because, as a global macroeconomic investor, one might think that, above all else, I had to get the economics and investments right, which is true. But to do that, I needed to get the people and culture right first. And, to inspire me to do what I did, I needed to have meaningful work and meaningful relationships. As the entrepreneur/builder of Bridgewater, I naturally shaped the organization to be consistent with my values and principles. I went after what I wanted most, in the way that seemed most natural to me with the people I chose to be with, and we and Bridgewater evolved together. If you had asked me what my objective was when I started out, I would’ve said it was to have fun working with people I like. Work was a game I played with passion and I wanted to have a blast playing it with people I enjoyed and respected. I started Bridgewater out of my apartment with a pal I played rugby with who had no experience in the markets and a friend we hired as our assistant. I certainly wasn’t thinking about management at the time. Management seemed to me like something people in gray suits with slide presentations did. I never set out to manage, let alone to have principles about work and management.

And for Heaven’s Sake, Don’t Overlook Governance! All that I’ve said thus far will be useless if you don’t have good governance. Governance is the oversight system that removes the people and the processes if they aren’t working well. It is the process that checks and balances power to assure that the principles and interests of the community as a whole are always placed above the interests and power of any individual or faction. Because power will rule, power must be put in the hands of capable people in key roles who have the right values, do their jobs well, and will check and balance the power of others. I didn’t realize the importance of this sort of governance until after I transitioned out of the CEO role, because I was an entrepreneur and company builder (as well as an investment manager) who largely did what I thought was best. While I needed and developed double-checks on myself—I created a Management Committee that I put above me so that I had to report to it—I always had the power of my equity to change things, though I never used it. Some might say that I was a benevolent despot because while I had all the power (the complete voting rights), I exercised my power in an idea-meritocratic way, recognizing that the good of the whole was best for us all, and that I needed to be double-checked. I certainly did not create the sort of governance system appropriate for Bridgewater, given its scale. For example, Bridgewater didn’t have a board of directors overseeing the CEOs, there were no internal regulations, no judicial system for people to appeal to, and no enforcement system, because we didn’t need them. I, with the help of others, simply created the rules and enforced them, though everyone had the right to appeal and overturn my and others’ judgments. Our principles were the equivalent of what the Articles of Confederation had been to the United States in its first years, and our policies were like our laws, but I never created a formal way of operating s

Be wary of people who argue for the suspension of the idea meritocracy for the “good of the organization.” When such arguments win out, the idea meritocracy will be weakened. Don’t let that happen. If people respect the rules of the idea meritocracy, there will be no conflict. I know that from my experiences over decades. However, I also know that there will be people who put what they want above the idea meritocracy and threaten it. Consider those people to be enemies of the system and get rid of them. Recognize that if the people who have the power don’t want to operate by principles, the principled way of operating will fail. Ultimately, power will rule. This is true of any system. For example, it has repeatedly been shown that systems of government have only worked when those with the power value the principles behind the system more than they value their own personal objectives. When people have both enough power to undermine a system and a desire to get what they want that is greater than their desire to maintain the system, the system will fail. For that reason the power supporting the principles must be given only to people who value the principled way of operating more than their individual interests (or the interests of their faction), and people must be dealt with in a reasonable and considerate way so that the overwhelming majority will want and fight for that principle-based system. TO GET THE PEOPLE RIGHT . . .

If you are inside Bridgewater, I am passing these principles on in my own words so that you can see the dream and the approach through my eyes. Bridgewater will evolve from where it is now based on what you and others in the next generation of leadership want and how you go about getting it. This book is intended to help you. How you use it is up to you. Whether or not this culture continues is up to you and those who succeed me in the leadership role. It is my responsibility to not be attached to Bridgewater being the way I would want it to be. It is most important that you and others who succeed me make your own independent choices. Like a parent with adult children, I want you all to be strong, independent thinkers who will do well without me. I have done my best to bring you to this point; now is the time for you to step up and for me to fade away.

Use the terms “above the line” and “below the line” to establish which level a conversation is on. An above-the-line conversation addresses the main points and a below-the-line conversation focuses on the sub-points. When a line of reasoning is jumbled and confusing, it’s often because the speaker has gotten caught up in below-the-line details without connecting them back to the major points. An above-the-line discourse should progress in an orderly and accurate way to its conclusion, only going below the line when it’s necessary to illustrate something about one of the major points. Remember that decisions need to be made at the appropriate level, but they should also be consistent across levels. For instance, if you want to have a healthy life, you shouldn’t have twelve sausage links and a beer every day for breakfast. In other words, you need to constantly connect and reconcile the data you’re gathering at different levels in order to draw a complete picture of what’s going on. Like synthesizing in general, some people are naturally better at this than others, but anyone can learn to do this to one degree or another. To do it well, it’s necessary to: Remember that multiple levels exist for all subjects. Be aware on what level you’re examining a given subject. Consciously navigate levels rather than see subjects as undifferentiated piles of facts that can be browsed randomly. Diagram the flow of your thought processes using the outline template shown on the previous page. When you do all this with radical open-mindedness, you will become more aware not just of what you’re seeing, but what you’re not seeing and what others, perhaps, are. It’s a little like when jazz musicians jam; knowing what level you’re on allows everyone to play in the same key. When you know your own way of seeing and are open to others’ ways too, you can create good conceptual jazz together rather than just screech at each other. Now let’s go up a level and examine deciding. DECIDE WELL

If you’re like most people, you have no clue how other people see things and aren’t good at seeking to understand what they are thinking, because you’re too preoccupied with telling them what you yourself think is correct. In other words, you are closed-minded; you presume too much. This closed-mindedness is terribly costly; it causes you to miss out on all sorts of wonderful possibilities and dangerous threats that other people might be showing you—and it blocks criticism that could be constructive and even lifesaving. The end result of these two barriers is that parties in disagreements typically remain convinced that they’re right—and often end up angry at each other. This is illogical and leads to suboptimal decision making. After all, when two people reach opposite conclusions, someone must be wrong. Shouldn’t you want to make sure that someone isn’t you? This failure to benefit from others’ thinking doesn’t just occur when disagreements arise; it occurs when people encounter problems that they are trying to solve. When trying to figure things out, most people spin in their own heads instead of taking in all the wonderful thinking available to them. As a result, they continually run toward what they see and keep crashing into what they are blind to until the crashing leads them to adapt. Those who adapt do so by a) teaching their brains to work in a way that doesn’t come naturally (the creative person learns to become organized through discipline and practice, for instance), b) using compensating mechanisms (such as programmed reminders), and/or c) relying on the help of others who are strong where they are weak.

Make sure the people at the top of each pyramid have the skills and focus to manage their direct reports and a deep understanding of their jobs. A few years ago, someone at Bridgewater proposed that our facilities group (the people who take care of the building and grounds, food service, office supplies, etc.) should begin to report to our head of technology because of the overlap in the two areas (computers are a facility too, they use electricity, and so on). But having the people who are responsible for janitorial services and meals report to a technology manager would be as inappropriate as having technology people report to the person taking care of facilities. These functions, even if they’re considered “facilities” in the broadest sense, are very different, as are the respective skill sets. Similarly, at another time, we talked about putting the folks who work on client agreements under the same manager as those who do counterparty agreements. But that would have been a mistake because the skills required to reach agreements with clients are very different from the skills required to reach agreements with counterparties. It would be wrong to conflate both departments under the general heading of “agreements,” because each calls for specific knowledge and skills.

Keep scale in mind. Your goals must be the right size to warrant the resources that you allocate to them. An organization might not be big enough to justify having both a sales and an analytics group, for example. Bridgewater successfully evolved from a one-cell organization, in which most people were involved in everything, to a multi-cellular organization because we retained our ability to focus efficiently as we grew. Temporarily sharing or rotating resources is fine and is not the same as a merging of responsibilities. On the other hand, the efficiency of an organization decreases as the number of people and/or its complexity increases, so keep things as simple as possible. And the larger the organization, the more important are information technology management and cross-departmental communication. Organize departments and sub-departments around the most logical groupings based on “gravitational pull.” Some groups naturally gravitate toward one another. That gravitational pull might be based on common goals, shared abilities and skills, workflow, physical location, and so forth. Imposing your own structure without acknowledging these magnetic pulls will likely result in inefficiency. Make departments as self-sufficient as possible so that they have control over the resources they need to achieve their goals. We do this because we don’t want to create a bureaucracy that forces departments to requisition resources from a pool that lacks the focus to do the job.

Naturally when I introduced this tool, people were skeptical or scared of it for various reasons. Some were afraid that the cards would be inaccurate; others thought it would be uncomfortable to have their weaknesses made so apparent, or that it would lead to their being pigeonholed, inhibiting their growth; still others thought it would be too complex to be practical. Imagine how you would feel if you were asked to force-rank all your colleagues on creativity, determination, or reliability. Most people at first find that prospect frightening. Still, I knew that we needed to be radically open in recording and considering what people were like, and that things would eventually evolve to address people’s concerns if we were sensible about how we approached the process. Today, most everyone at Bridgewater finds these Baseball Cards to be essential, and we have built a whole suite of other tools, which will be further described in Work Principles, to support our drive to understand what people are like and who is believable at what.