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)
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)... (4/5)
...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. (5/5)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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)
You are expected to go to the higher level and look down on yourself and others as part of a system. (1/4)
In other words, you must get out of your own head, consider your views as just some among many, and look down on the full array of points of view to assess them in an idea-meritocratic way rather than just in your own possessive way. (2/4)
Seeing things from the higher level isn't just seeing other people's point of view; it's also being able to see every situation, yourself, and others in the situation as though you were looking down on them as an objective observer. (3/4)
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)
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)