Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #principleoftheday
Most recents (24)
Trainees must be open-minded; the process requires them to suspend their egos while they discover what they are doing well and what they are doing poorly and decide what to do about it. #principleoftheday (1/4) 
The trainer must be open-minded as well, and it's best if at least two believable trainers work with each trainee in order to triangulate their views about what the trainee is like. (2/4)
This training is an apprentice relationship; it occurs as the trainer and trainee share experiences, much like when a ski instructor skis alongside his student. (3/4)
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. #principleoftheday (1/8)
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. (2/8)
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. (3/8)
Idealistic people who have moralistic notions about how people should behave without understanding how people really do behave do more harm than good. #principleoftheday (1/5)
As a global macroeconomist and businessman and as a philanthropist I have seen this repeatedly in all those domains. (2/5)
I have come to believe that as well-intentioned as they are, impractical idealists are dangerous and destructive, whereas practical idealists make the world a better place. (3/5)
There are all sorts of jobs and they require all types of people to handle them. #principleoftheday (1/5)
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. (2/5)
On the other hand, sometimes I have found a master craftsman who has devoted decades to his specialty who I could completely rely on. (3/5)
People's personalities are pretty well formed before they come to you, and they've been leaving their fingerprints all over the place since childhood; anyone is fairly knowable if you do your homework. #principleoftheday (1/4)
You have to get at their values, abilities, and skills: Do they have a track record of excellence in what you're expecting them to do? Have they done the thing you want them to do successfully at least three times? (2/4)
If not, you're making a lower-probability bet, so you want to have really good reasons for doing so. That doesn't mean you should never allow yourself or others to do anything new; of course you should. But do it with appropriate caution and with guardrails. (3/4)
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. #principleoftheday (1/7)
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. (2/7)
If you're not naturally good at one type of thinking, it doesn't mean you're precluded from paths that require it. (3/7)
Too many people get hired because they are just "one of those." #principleoftheday (1/4)
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. (2/4)
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. (3/4)
The process for choosing people should be systematically built out and evidence- based. #principleoftheday (1/10)
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. (2/10)
Organizations typically hire people by having job candidates' resumes reviewed by semi-random people based on semi-random criteria... (3/10)
Values are the deep-seated beliefs that motivate behaviors and determine people's compatibilities with each other. People will fight for their values, and they are likely to fight with people who don't share them. (1/4) #principleoftheday
Abilities are ways of thinking and behaving. Some people are great learners and fast processors; others possess the ability to see things at a higher level. Some focus more on the particulars; still others think creatively or logically or with supreme organization. (2/4)
Skills are learned tools, such as being able to speak a foreign language or write computer code. (3/4)
If they choose to have a primarily win-win cooperative-competitive relationship, they must take into consideration what is really important to the other and try to give it to them in exchange for them reciprocating. #changingworldorder #principleoftheday (1/6)
In that type of win-win relationship, they can have tough negotiations done with respect and consideration, competing like two friendly merchants at a bazaar or two friendly teams at the Olympics. (2/6)
If they choose to have a lose-lose mutually threatening relationship they will primarily think about how they can hurt the other in the hope of forcing the other into a position of fear in order to get what they want. (3/6)
So long as you bear the consequences of failure, you are the ultimate Responsible Party. #principleoftheday (1/6)
For example, while you might choose to delegate the responsibility of figuring out how to handle your illness to a doctor, it is your responsibility to pick the right one, since you will bear the consequences if he does a bad job. (2/6)
Or if you were building a house, would you go to an architect and say "show me the kinds of houses I can build" or would you tell the architect what kind of house you want to live in? (3/6)
Ultimately, power will rule. This is true of any system. #principleoftheday (1/5)
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. (2/5)
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. (3/5)
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. #principleoftheday (1/5)
For example, we encountered a time when there were leaks to the media of some things that we made radically transparent within Bridgewater. (2/5)
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. (3/5)
A decision-making group in which those who don't get what they want continue to fight rather than work for what the group has decided is destined to fail... #principleoftheday (1/4)
...you can see this happening all the time in companies, organizations, and even political systems and nations. I'm not saying that people should pretend they like the decision if they don't, or that the matter in question can't be revisited at a future date. (2/4)
What I am saying is that in order to be effective, all groups that work together have to operate with protocols that allow time for disagreements to be explored... (3/4)
Almost every group that agrees on the big things ends up fighting about less important things and becoming enemies even though they should be bound by the big things. #principleoftheday (1/5)
This phenomenon is called the narcissism of small differences. Take the Protestants and Catholics. Though both are followers of Christ, some of them have been fighting for hundreds of years... (2/5)
...even though many of them are unable to articulate the differences that divide them, and most of those who can articulate the differences realize that they are insignificant relative to the big important things that should bind them together. (3/5)
Everyone does not report to everyone. Responsibilities and authorities are assigned to individuals based on assessments of their ability to handle them. #principleoftheday (1/4)
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. (2/4)
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. (2/4)
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. (3/4)
Whenever there is a dispute, both parties are required to have equal levels of integrity, to be open-minded and assertive, and to be equally considerate. #principleoftheday (1/4)
The judges must hold the parties to the same standards and provide feedback consistent with these standards. (2/4)
I have often seen cases in which the feedback wasn't appropriately balanced for various reasons (to hold the stronger performer to a higher standard, to spread the blame). This is a mistake. The person in the wrong needs to receive the strongest message. (3/4)
It is the rare dispute that is resolved to both parties' equal satisfaction. Imagine you are having an argument with your neighbor about a tree of theirs that has fallen onto your property. Who is responsible for its removal? #principleoftheday (1/11)
Who owns the firewood? Who pays for the damage? While you might not be able to resolve the disagreement yourselves, the legal system has procedures and guidelines that allow it to determine what's true and what to do about it... (2/11)
...and once it renders its judgment it's done, even if one of you didn't get what you wanted. That's just the way life is. (3/11)
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... #principleoftheday (1/5)
...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. (2/5)
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." (3/5)
When they're at odds, you should work hard to resolve the disagreement.
If you are about to make a decision that the believability-weighted consensus thinks is wrong, think very carefully before you proceed. #principleoftheday (1/4)
If you are about to make a decision that the believability-weighted consensus thinks is wrong, think very carefully before you proceed. #principleoftheday (1/4)
It's likely that you're wrong, but even if you're right, there's a good chance that you'll lose respect by overruling the process. (2/4)
You should try hard to get in sync, and if you still can't do that, you should be able to put your finger on exactly what it is you disagree with, understand the risks of being wrong, and clearly explain your reasons and logic to others. (3/4)
I regularly see people ask totally uninformed or nonbelievable people questions and get answers that they believe. This is often worse than having no answers at all. Don't make that mistake. #principleoftheday (1/4)
You need to think through who the right people are. If you're in doubt about someone's believability, find out.
The same is true for you: If someone asks you a question, think first whether you're the right person to answer it. (2/4)
The same is true for you: If someone asks you a question, think first whether you're the right person to answer it. (2/4)
If you're not believable, you probably shouldn't have an opinion about what they're asking, let alone share it.
Be sure to direct your comments or questions to the believable Responsible Party or Parties for the issues you want to discuss. (3/4)
Be sure to direct your comments or questions to the believable Responsible Party or Parties for the issues you want to discuss. (3/4)
I have often seen less believable people (students) insist that the more believable people (teachers) understand their thinking and prove why the teacher is wrong before listening to what the teacher (the more believable party) has to say. #principleoftheday (1/4)
That's backward. While untangling the student's thinking can be helpful, it is typically difficult and time-consuming and puts the emphasis on what the student sees instead of on what the teacher wants to convey. (2/4)
For that reason, our protocol is for the student to be open-minded first. Once the student has taken in what the teacher has to offer, both student and teacher will be better prepared to untangle and explore the student's perspective. (3/4)
While it pays to be open-minded, you also have to be discerning. Remember that the quality of the life you get will depend largely on the quality of the decisions that you make as you pursue your goals. #principleoftheday (1/4)
The best way to make great decisions is to know how to triangulate with other, more knowledgeable people. So be discerning about whom you triangulate with and skilled in the way you do it. (2/4)
The dilemma you face is trying to understand as accurately as you can what's true in order to make decisions effectively while realizing many of the opinions you will hear won't be worth much, including your own. (3/4)
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. #principleoftheday (1/7)
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 openminded way, though placed in the proper context of the experiences and track records of the people expressing them. (2/7)
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. (3/7)
