Hacker News Reader

Comment by xyzelement | Hacker News Reader

One of the main things that attracted me to working at Bridgewater is the company culture geared explicitly at helping you discover your blind spots.

A lot of the discomfort that people associate with the company has to do with that: the recorded meetings, the “brutal” feedback etc are all designed to make you see what you have been resisting seeing.

There is a part of us that wants to grow and there’s a part of us that resists the pain of growth. Being someone who values growth and is willing to go through the discomfort doesn’t make the process itself easier for you - you still have to do the work. It’s challenging but in retrospect you look at the kind of person you are a year or five years down the line and you feel good about it.

View on HN

I do think there's a downside to this culture, or at least something to guard against. It works when there is a clear intention to improve, but there can also be a tendency towards negativity and downright cynicism. Sometimes, "brutal" feedback becomes a mechanism of maintaining the status quo rather than fostering growth. It reminds me of the Oscal Wilde quote to the effect of "a cynic is someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing." It creates a lack of psychological safety, where people are afraid to speak up with different ideas and the culture stagnates.

I have a hard time imagining that it's truly brutal in both directions. Is the executive team really made to justify a large bonus for themselves when the rest of the staff is asked to accept lower than inflation adjustments, as an example?

I'd bet it's "brutal" but with a lot of information asymmetry preventing the sorts of feedback I described.

Sure. Ray Dalio got public negative feedback all the time.

Can you clarify? I took the GP comment as asking whether subordinate employees give leadership negative feedback. That's a very different animal than general public feedback. I think that distinction is important because internal feedback tends to be much more relevant due to the amount of non-public information employees have. I suspect the GP point was that "brutal" feedback tends to flow downhill within an organization.

Would you expect a custodian to be able to talk to Dalio and say something like, "You know, your desk looks like a pigsty and a cluttered environment can lead to a cluttered mind and cluttered thinking."

> suspect the GP point was that "brutal" feedback tends to flow downhill within an organization.

At companies with a strong feedback culture, critical feedback tends to flow in exactly the opposite way you describe: it is directed upwards…

You have to understand why someone would find this surprising though right? Its counter to all human nature I have observed. It's like telling me you have water running uphill on your property, I'm right to have questions, the most reasonable explanation is some sort of trickery is at play.

It's funny to have to say this in a thread about explicit feedback and psychological safety, but:

Nobody here was suggesting that your question was foolish or that it was not asked in earnest surprise. Clearly, this is something that surprises you and that's fine. Good on you for asking questions to better understand!

Encountering something that is "counter to all human nature I have observed" is a good clue that you've been carrying a big a blindspot of your own. There are many traditional cultures and modern communities that are quite forward about feedback and criticism in a pervasive way. Often, in these groups, continued authority is earned exactly through one's handling of open criticism from their subordinates.

Do you process it in stride and contextualize it? Acknowledge the person for sharing it? Hold strong in your own self-assurance? Fold it into your future decisions? Or do you defensively fly off the handle and repress those who you see as threatening you?

I'm sorry if you're only familiar with that last strategy, but it's not nearly universal. In this case, the water really does flow uphill in a lot of places.

This is an extraordinarily condescending comment, with a lot of weakly justified assumptions about the other commenter.

I am not the person you're replying to but I reached the same conclusion that they have. When someone claims as impossible that which you have experienced (and in fact, experienced consistently across decades) - at some point you have to conclude that they simply lack the experience that would make this as obvious to them. It's not a bad thing but it's just kinda real.

It's like the opposite of survivorship bias. Because you have only seen things go badly, you conclude the good is impossible, something like that.

I did not read the original comment as "claims as impossible" but rather "not very generalizable". One of the important things about receiving feedback IMO is to steelman the feedback as much as possible.

How odd that both of you made the same unsupported assumption that someone calling something surprising is actually saying it is impossible.

// It's like telling me you have water running uphill on your property, I'm right to have questions, the most reasonable explanation is some sort of trickery is at play.

Skepticism is one thing but it's good not let it blind you to exceptionally good situations you can learn from.

Instead of your water running uphill analogy - I'd use marriage. Most marriage ends in divorce today, but if you see a couple that has been successfully married for decades, do you go "that must be bullshit" or do you go "I wonder what they are doing that others aren't doing" and seek to learn from that for your own life.

FWIW I am a Bridgewater alumni and can attest to the absolute ease of giving negative upward feedback - but you can also look at the outcomes. World's most successful hegefund across 4 decades, a highly desirable place to work, and a place where alumni "graduate" from to be massively successful elsewhere. Does that sound like "just another place where my cynical world view applies" or does it sound like "a place that has actually figured out something special and is able to stand out against the backdrop" - and thus is worthy to learn from?

// Would you expect a custodian to be able to talk to Dalio and say something like, "You know, your desk looks like a pigsty and a cluttered environment can lead to a cluttered mind and cluttered thinking."

Absolutely!

Take a look at rays Ted talk for a few examples. They are representative.

I've worked at a small place with "radical candor" (it's a book) and how I think about it is like working with power tools while walking on a tightrope. It's really easy to screw up and cut off someone's hand, and I think bridgewater fires a lot AFAIK or has a lot of turn over as a result.

Another thing is that it can easily make people pretty defensive, and you need very mature and forgiving/accepting people or rough and tumble culture (think Linus Torvalds) for it work properly. It's very easy to hide emotions with intellectual rationalizations unfortunately.

I also think it can be very useful and push to excellence, but most IMO don't have the emotional maturity to pull it off properly. I think it's the same reason why a lot of startups die because of cofounder conflict.

That’s a great hypothetical that may apply in some places. What made Bridgewater a one in a million company is precisely that we all opted in to operating in this transparent and “harsh” way.

I never worked at a place with as much “psychological safety” as BW because the culture was explicitly “you must say what is in your mind”. Every other place that I heard talk about psychological safety has so much walking on eggshells that real problems couldn’t be called out.

> What made Bridgewater a one in a million company is precisely that we all opted in to operating in this transparent and “harsh” way.

I find this very hard to believe. I can buy that everyone knows, and even accepts, the risks coming in, but that doesn't mean that everyone opts into it, except in the weakest possible sense of opting in (the sense in which I opt in to cookie collection, for example, but weaker—because I just want to get to a website, whereas the people 'opting in' to this feedback system have to get a job, and may not have the resources to pick and choose).

// whereas the people 'opting in' to this feedback system have to get a job, and may not have the resources to pick and choose

That's just not what it is in practice. The kinds of people these companies hire have a lot of choices. Nobody is in position where the only company that will hire them is the world's premier and most selective hedge fund.

In reality most people who entered BW, were either "poached" from top-tier financial firms (and more recently FAANGS) or were graduates of top schools who had other offers. Materially nobody faces the choice between unemployment and "living the principles" - people opt into BW from among their choices because the culture appeals to them.

By your own admission though, BW is considered the “premier” hedge fund. So I’d be willing to bet some people dislike the culture but find it a worthwhile tradeoff for the status of working at BW. I’ve witnessed a similar dynamic at organizations like NASA. In private, people will talk about how they don’t much like the culture but find it hard to take a different job because it feels like a step down on the status ladder. Human incentives and biases can’t all be distilled to a simple model of “it must be a great culture or else people with options would leave”

> It creates a lack of psychological safety, where people are afraid to speak up with different ideas and the culture stagnates.

One person's psychological safety is another person's inability to give honest feedback to a teammate who's a drain on everyone.

It's a fragile balance that should be maintained carefully by talented leadership.

I don't know if I agree with the first statement, but I agree that leadership plays a big role.

I think psychological safety is the opposite of what you described. According to Adam Grant, it's the ability to give candid feedback without interpersonal risk. Related to my original comment, it's the ability to share ideas, even half-baked ones, without fear that they will define you as a person. The downside to "brutal" feedback is when people conflate the idea with the person sharing it.

Tangent, but I never realized the original for this great Alan J. Perlis quote:

> A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing.

https://cpsc.yale.edu/epigrams-programming

I was a software intern at Bridgewater in 2013. My impressions from that time are that Bridgewater had an interesting, unique, and very intentional culture, but at some point the firm grew and Dalio started thinking about how to scale that culture. He wrote the Principles book and had everyone read and discuss it; the Dots app was implemented; etc.

The core cultural values seemed reasonable to me, but the efforts to scale the culture felt heavyhanded and seemed like they sometimes backfired. Attempting to quantify someone's "believability" based on subjective data collected on an iPad app was a bit silly and easily gameable. The fact that Dalio and other executives scored highest on basically every facet was an obvious sign that the system was a bit farcical.

Maybe the company managed to solve some of those cultural scaling challenges after 2013? I wasn't around to see what happened after.

If fact there was active work to make Dalio top on believability and have it flow from there. The developer behind it is extensively interviewed in "The Firm."

Dalio and others being on top of rating was a way Dalio sanity checked the algo, per the book and was not happy when it drifted away from that standard.

How much of the book's content is shaded by sour grapes is unclear though.

Please say more about plusses of Bridgewater!

The Fund is a great read and I'm sure it only painting a certain side of the story. But it made all the talked about Bridgewater stuff sound like a complicated distraction for a founder with some specific vision that was a bit odd. Meanwhile the working of the actual fund is based on hunches, insider gossip and large macro bets run by a very small team, while everyone is playing complicated status games.

I didn’t read the fund but I read some of the articles released based on it when it published and it rang hollow to me.

It had the vibe of a couch potato writing about an Olympic team complaining “look how harsh the coach is” - divorced from the reality of what it takes to be an Olympic athlete and that the athletes signed up for that kind of training.

Oh, I thought you meant you worked there.

The fund is based on interviews with people who were pretty senior there. I mean, they no longer do, and the book is clearly giving things a negative light, but you can learn a lot from it about who can give who 'Brutal Feedback' and how a utopian vision becomes a dystopia for people further down the chain.

I did work there for two years within the investment engine - the old school core. It was a very transformative two years both as a professional and as a person so I got what I came for.

If you don't mind sharing, why did you leave?

I got fired. That sounds "bad" but part of working there is that you have to be sober about the reality and are willing to just engage with it as is.

The reality is that my department was people-rich and pretty mature, so when COVID hit and the company looked to lean up, it looked to my area to trim. Out of my peer group, I am pretty sure I was the least valuable (I am excellent at what I do but I was the lest excellent in my peer group there) so I was let go.

It was technically a lay-off but I am sober about the fact that I was chosen for the layoff because of my relative performance, which makes sense.

(FWIW I was given a very comfortable severance package, I would even say very generous and I suspect some of that generosity was because I had recently had a child. While BW is a place that is "brutal" in terms of high expectations and feedback, it absolutely took care of people in this way.)

That's the honesty and directness shining through!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com