【文摘】《原则》——雷.达里奥

Principles by Ray Dalio、《原则》——知笔墨

Pain + Reflection = Progress,痛苦+反思=进步。

此书（第一版）最大篇幅是作者的管理原则，以下是其中的一些内容。越摘越多毫无必要啊。

Most of us are born with attributes that both help us and hurt us, depending on their applications, and the more extreme the attribute, the more extreme the potential good and bad outcomes these attributes are likely to produce. For example, highly creative, goal- oriented people who are good at imagining the big picture often can easily get tripped up on the details of daily life, while highly pragmatic, task-oriented people who are great with the details might not be creative. That is because the ways their minds work make it difficult for them to see both ways of thinking. In nature everything was made for a purpose, and so too were these different ways of thinking. They just have different purposes. It is extremely important to one’s happiness and success to know oneself—most importantly to understand one’s own values and abilities—and then to find the right fits. We all have things that we value that we want and we all have strengths and weaknesses that affect our paths for getting them. The most important quality that differentiates successful people from unsuccessful people is our capacity to learn and adapt to these things. 

我们大多数人生来具备的特质，既会帮助我们，也可能伤害到我们，根据用途而有别。程度越极端，特质带来的积极或消极影响就相对应越大。例如，创造力很强、目标很清晰，善于把握大局的人可能就会在生活细节上吃亏。而重实务、关注具体任务、能完美处理细节的人可能不怎么有创造力。因为我们思维的特性，很难两者兼顾。事事都存之有理，不同的思维方式也存之有理，因其有不同的存在目的，这对于个人幸福感和自身了解极为重要，尤其是了解自身价值和能力，这样才能进一步找到合适的定位。人人都有珍视之物，都有渴望之事，都有影响我们实现梦想的优缺点。区分成功人士与平庸之辈最重要的品质就是学习能力和适应能力。

Luck — both good and bad — is a reality. But it is not a reason for an excuse. In life, we have a large number of choices, and luck can play a dominant role in the outcomes of our choices. But if you have a large enough sample size—if you have large number of decisions (if you are playing a lot of poker hands, for example)—over time, luck will cancel out and skill will have a dominant role in determining outcomes. A superior decision-maker will produce superior outcomes. That does not mean there won’t be certain bad-(or good-) luck events that are life changing: a friend of mine dove into a swimming pool and became a quadriplegic. But he approached his situation well and became as happy as anybody else, because there are many paths to happiness. What happens to a lot of people is that they don’t take personal responsibility for their outcomes, and as a result fail to make the best possible decisions. 

无论是好运气还是坏运气，都是事实。但运气不能作为做不好事的借口。生活中我们面对很多选择，运气对选择的结果起着主导作用，但假如样本数量足够大，就是说你的决定特别多，那久而久之，运气的作用就开始淡化了，能力开始对结果起主导作用了。优秀的决策者会做出优秀的决定。那并不意味着运气（好的或坏的）不会对人生产生重大改变：我有个朋友在游泳池游泳不慎变成了四肢瘫痪者，但他面对这样的境遇依然能够处理地很好，同大家一样幸福，因为通往幸福的道路不止一条。很多人不为自己所造成的结果担当起个人责任，结果就是无法做出最佳决定。

The biggest mistake most people make is to not see themselves and others objectively. If theycould just get around this, they could live up to their potentials.   

很多人最大的错误就是没能客观看待自己或他人，克服了这点就能实现自身潜力的发展。

... 10) Do not feel bad about your mistakes or those of others. Love them! Remember that 1) they are to be expected, 2) they’re the first and most essential part of the learning process, and 3) feeling bad about them will prevent you from getting better. People typically feel bad about mistakes because they think in a short-sighted way that mistakes reflect their badness or because they’re worried about being punished (or not being rewarded) . People also tend to get angry at those who make mistakes because in a short-sighted way they focus on the bad outcome rather than the educational, evolutionary process they’re a part of. That’s a real tragedy. 

... 10) 不要为自己或别人犯的错而郁郁寡欢，要热爱这些错! 记住，1）错误是不可避免的；2）错误是学习过程中第一个也是最重要的一个环节；3）为犯错而懊恼会阻碍你的成长。人们总是对犯错耿耿于怀，这可能是因为人们短视地认为错误反映了他们的缺点，又或者他们担心会因此受到惩罚（或者无法获得奖励）。同时，人们会因为他人犯错而生气，因为从短视的角度来看，大家只会将注意力放在犯错带来的坏结果上，而没有看到错误的教育意义和其作为成长过程的一部分。这才是悲剧所在。

... 27) Know when to stop debating and move on to agreeing about what should be done. I have seen people who agree on the major issues waste hours arguing over details. It’s more important to do big things well than to do small things perfectly. Be wary of bogging down amid minor issues at the expense of time devoted to solidifying important agreements.
... 27) 知道什么时候终止辩论，进而讨论一致的解决方案。 我见过太多人在大问题上能达成共识，却在细节上浪费过多的时间争执不休。与其将小事做到完美，不如将大事做好。谨防被琐碎之事拖累，牺牲掉本该投入到就大问题达成一致的时间。 

27a) However, when people disagree on the importance of debating something, it should be debated. Operating otherwise would essentially give someone (typically the boss) a de facto veto right. 
27a) 但是，当有人质疑就某事展开辩论的重要性时，辩论是有必要的。 辩论十分必要，否则无异于给了别人（尤其是上司）实际上的否决权。

27d) Distinguish between 1) idle complaints and 2) complaints that are meant to lead to improvement. 
27d) 要区分两个概念：1）无用的抱怨 2）旨在实现改善的合理诉求。 ​​​​

... 29) Evaluate whether an issue calls for debate, discussion, or teaching.Debate,discussion, and teaching are all ways of getting in synch, but they work differently and the approach you choose should reflect your goal and the relative believability of the people involved. Debate is generally among approximate equals; discussion is open-minded exploration among people of various levels of understanding; and teaching is between people of different levels of understanding. 

... 29) 要评估事项是否需要辩论、讨论或传授。辩论、讨论和传授都是达成意见统一的方式，但是三者的运作方式不同，选择何种方式取决于你的目标和相关人员的理解能力。每个人在沟通前，都应该客观评估自己的专业程度与理解力，以保证沟通的效率。辩论一般应用于理解程度相等的人之间；讨论是不同理解程度人之间的自由探讨；而传授则是理解度高的人对理解度低的人的沟通方式。

29c) Communication aimed at educating or boosting cohesion should involve a broader set of people than would be needed if the aim were just getting the best answer. Less experienced, less believable people will be included. They may not be necessary to decide an issue, but if you aren’t in synch with them, that lack of understanding will likely undermine morale and the organization’s efficiency. In cases where you have people who are both not believable and highly opinionated (the worst combination) , you will drive their uninformed opinions underground if you don’t get in synch. Conversely, if you are willing to be challenged, and others behave the same way, you can demand that all critical communication be done openly. 

29c) 旨在教育，增强凝聚力的沟通，如果目标是获得最佳方案，那么就应该听取更多人的意见。也应该听取那些不太有经验、可信度不太高的人的意见。这些人可能不会起到决定作用，但是如果不与他们达成一致，那么随之而来的理解缺失很可能会打压士气，影响公司效率。在最糟糕的情况下，会碰到既不可信又固执己见的人，如果此时不是必须达成一致，则可对他们的意见置之不理。相反，如果你乐于被挑战，而其他人也是如此，那么你也可以要求所有辩证沟通都自由展开。

... 30) Don’t treat all opinions as equally valuable. Almost everyone has an opinion, but many are worthless or harmful. The views of people without track records are not equal to the views of people with strong track records. Treating all people equally is more likely to lead away from truth than toward it. People without records of success who are nonetheless confident about how things should be done are either naïve or arrogant. In either case, they’re potentially dangerous to themselves and others. However, all views should be considered in an open-minded way, albeit placed in the proper context of experience and track record. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding: can you handle your responsibilities well? As a general rule, if you can, then you can have an opinion of how to do it—if you can’t, you can’t. 

... 30) 不是所有观点都具有同等价值。每个人都有观点，但是这其中有许多是毫无价值甚至是有害的。过往业绩为零的人的观点肯定无法与有优秀业绩的人相提并论。对所有人一视同仁只能离真相越来越远。那些既没有经验又夸夸其谈的人不是太天真就是过于自负。不论是哪种情况，他们对自己和他人而言都是潜在的危险因素。然而，在考虑了经验和过往业绩之后，还是应该对所有的观点都持开放的态度。实践出真知：你是否能承担自己的责任？这是一个通用的原则，如果你能，那说明你对如何做这件事有发言权，反之则没有。

31b) People who have repeatedly and successfully accomplished the thing in question and have great explanations when probed are most believable. Those with one of those two qualities are somewhat believable; people with neither are least believable. 

31b) 若有人多次成功解决悬而未决的问题，面对质疑也能讲得头头是道，这种人的观点最可信。那些拥有以上两种特质之一的人，有一定的可信度，而两者都做不到的，可信度最低。

... 32) Spend lavishly on the time and energy you devote to “getting in synch” because it’s the best investment you can make. You will inevitably need to prioritize because of time constraints, but beware of the tremendous price of skimping on quality communication. 

...32) 为了“意见统一”，花再多的时间与精力都不为过，因为这是最有价值的投资。由于时间限制，你必须将所有事排出优先顺序，但是又必须谨防筛选过度带来沟通质量的牺牲。

... 33) 如果是你主持会议，请协调好会议中各方的讨论。 会议进行不顺利的原因有很多，但是最常碰到的问题就是主题不明确，讨论问题的层次不清晰。比如，要分清哪些问题是原则和机制层面的，哪些是手头待处理的问题，哪些是具体的事实问题。让会议顺利进行，要做到以下几点：

33a) Make it clear who the meeting is meant to serve and who is directing the meeting.Every meeting is for the purpose of meeting someone’s goals; that person is the responsible party for the meeting and decides what s/he wants to get out of it and how s/he will do so. Meetings without a clear responsible party run a high risk of being directionless and unproductive. 

33a) 弄清每一次会议的责任方和主持方。每一次会议都是为了实现某人的目的，此人就是会议的负责人，决定会议目的和会议模式。没有明确负责人的会议很可能会毫无方向，也无法实现效果。

33b) Make clear what type of communication you are going to have in light of the objectives and priorities. For example, if the goal of the meeting is to have people with different opinions work through their differences to try to get closer to what is true and what to do about it (i.e., open-minded debate) , you will run it differently than if the meeting is meant to educate. Debating issues takes time. That time increases geometrically depending on the number of people participating in the discussion, so you have to carefully choose the right people in the right numbers to suit the decision that needs to be made. In any discussion try to limit the participation to those whom you value most in light of your objectives. The worst way to pick people is based on whether their conclusions align with yours. 

33b) 根据会议目标与重点议题，确定会议的交流方式。比如，如果会议的目标是让持不同观点的人消除分歧，寻求真相，找到解决方案，那么会议方式就是自由辩论。这种会议要与那些旨在教育的传授会议开展模式不同。辩论问题比较耗时，所需时间随着参与讨论的人数的增加呈几何级增长。因此，你必须谨慎选择适当数量的合适人群参会。在任何会议沟通中，请尝试主动限制那些对你的目标最看重的人参会，最糟糕的参会选人方法是基于对方的结论与你相同的前提。

33c) Lead the discussion by being assertive and open-minded. Group-think and solo-think are both dangerous. 

33c) 主持讨论要坚定自信，开诚布公。 集体思维或孤立思维都是危险的。 
33d) A small group (3 to 5) of smart, conceptual people seeking the right answers in an open- minded way will generally lead to the best answer. Next best is to have decisions made by a single smart, conceptual decision-maker, but this is a much worse choice than the former. The worst way to make decisions is via large groups without a smart, conceptual leader. Almost everyone thinks they’re smart and conceptual, but only a small percentage of any group really is. Even when there is a large number of smart, conceptual leaders, more than five trying to make a decision is very inefficient and difficult. This is especially the case when people think they need to satisfy everyone. 

33d) 组织三至五人的小组讨论，邀请思维灵活、概念清晰的成员开放地寻求最佳方案，这种情况一般能取得最好的效果。 次之，可以让一个聪明的决策者来做决定，但这一方案要比前者效果差很多。最糟糕的方式是在没有任何一个聪明的领导者领导的情况下，让一大群人来做决定。几乎每个人都认为自己既聪明又概念清晰，但是事实上每个团队中只有极少数人是这样的。即便是有一大群明智又有远见的领导者在一起，超过五个人的决策也将是十分低效与艰难的。即便是有一大群明智又有远见的领导者在一起，当人数超过 5 个人的时候，决策的产生也将是十分低效与艰难的。特别是人们还想做出让每个人都满意的决策下更是如此。

33e) 1+1=3. Two people who collaborate well will be about three times as effective as the two of them operating independently because they will see what the other might miss, they can leverage each other, and they can hold each other to higher standards. This symbiotic relationship of adding people to a group will have incremental benefits (2+1=4.25) up to a point at which there are no incremental gains and beyond which adding people produces incremental losses in effectiveness. That is because 1) the marginal benefits diminish as the group gets larger—e.g. two or three people might be able to cover most of the important perspectives so adding more people doesn't bring much more, and 2) larger group interactions are less efficient than smaller group interactions. Of course, what's best in practice is a function of 1) the quality of the people and the differences of the perspectives that they bring and 2) how well the group is managed. As noted before, each group should have someone who is responsible for managing the flow to get out of the meeting the most possible. 

33e) 1+1=3. 两个合作无间的人的效率是两个各自为阵的人的三倍，因为前者能够看到彼此的疏漏，取长补短，将彼此都提升到一个新高度。这种增加人手的共生关系是具有增量效应的，2+1=4.25，直到一个临界点，增加人手不再产生增量效应，却开始影响效率。这种现象是因为：1）随着团队人数的增多，将产生边际效应。比如说，两三个人也许已经足以涵盖最重要的视角了，那么增加更多的人并不会带来更明显的收益；2）人数多的团队互动要比小团队互动效率更低。当然，实践中最佳模式是将参会人员的质量和不同视角与团队管理相结合的。如前所述，每一个团队都必须要有一个负责人来协调整个会议的流程，确保会议成效。

33f) Navigate the levels of the conversation clearly. When considering an issue or situation, there should be two levels of discussion: the case at hand and the relevant principles that help you decide how the machine should work. Since the case at hand is a manifestation of one or more relevant principles, you need to clearly navigate between these levels in order to 1) handle the case well, 2) improve the machine so that future cases like this will be handled better in the future, and 3) test the effectiveness of your principles. 

33f) 确保对事件沟通层次的清晰。 在讨论某个问题或情势时，需要进行两个层级的讨论：手边的案件以及相关可以帮助决定机制如何运作的原则。相关的案件可能涉及一个或多个原则，你需要为不同层次之间设定明确的方向。以此确保：1）正确处理案件；2）改进机制使未来类似案件能得以顺利解决；3) 检验你的原则是否有效。

33g) Watch out for “topic slip.” Topic slip is the random and inconclusive drifting from topic to topic without achieving completion. Tip: Avoid topic slip by tracking the conversation on a whiteboard so everyone can see where you are. 

33g) 谨防讨论偏题。 偏题是指偏离主题的、任意的、无结论、没完没了的讨论。提示：为防止跑题，可使用白板记录对话，以便所有人都能注意到讨论进度。

33h) Enforce the logic of conversations. There is a tendency for people’s emotions to heat up when there is a disagreement, so focusing on the logic of your exchange will facilitate communication. If you are calm and analytical in listening to others’ points of view, it is more difficult for them to shut down a logical exchange than if you get emotional or allow them to get emotional. 

 33h) 增强沟通的逻辑性。当出现分歧的时候，人们总是容易情绪激动，此时，注重交流的逻辑性能够促进沟通。在听取对方观点时，如果你能够冷静进行分析，那么对方更容易进行有逻辑的交流，这种交流要比你或者对方情绪激动时高效得多。

33i) Worry about substance more than style. This is not to say that some styles aren’t more effective than others with different people and in different circumstances, but don’t let style or tone prevent you from getting in synch. I often see people complain about the delivery of a criticism in order to deflect from its substance. If you think someone’s style is an issue, box it as a separate issue to get in synch about (start by asking whether it’s true and whether it’s important) . 

33i) 实质内容比形式更重要。 当然，不同的人在不同的情况下适用某些形式会比适用另一些形式效率更高。但是，不要让形式或风格限制了你们达成一致的步伐。我经常听到人们为了扯开话题而对批评的形式进行抱怨。如果你对某人的表述风格有意见，那么你应该单独就此问题争取达成一致， 比如可以问一下此人的表述风格是否是其真实情绪的流露，以及这种表述形式对于沟通而言是否真的重要等。

33j) Achieve completion in conversations. The main purpose of discussion is to achieve completion and get in synch, which leads to decisions and or actions. Conversations often fail to reach completion. This amounts to a waste of time because they don’t result in conclusions or productive actions. When there is an exchange of ideas, especially if there is a disagreement, 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. 

33j) 在讨论中要得出一定结论。 讨论的主要目的就是要解决问题，达成一致，从而做出决断，付诸行动。讨论经常得不到完结，这完全是浪费时间，因为这种讨论无法得到任何结论，也无法转化成有价值的行动。当大家交换观点的时候，尤其是当有分歧出现的时候，必须要得出结论作出了断。如果能够达成一致，这就是结论，如果无法达成一致，这也是一种结论。如果决定进行下一步行动，就要将这些任务添加到待完成事项列表之中，分配人手来完成，制定截止日期。记录下得出的结论、工作理论以及待完成事项，使他们能够为取得持续进展打下坚实基础。

33k) Have someone assigned to maintain notes in meetings and make sure follow-through happens. Generally speaking, to avoid distraction during the discussion itself, prioritizing follow-ups and assignments should be done afterwards. 

33k) 安排人做会议纪要，保证会议讨论的事项后续落实。一般而言，为保证讨论不偏题，对后续事项的优先排序和任务落实应该在会后进行。

33l) Be careful not to lose personal responsibility via group decision-making. Too often groups will make a decision to do something without assigning personal responsibilities so it is not clear who is supposed to do what. Be clear in assigning personal responsibilities. 

33l) 需要注意的是，集体决策时不要忘记了个人的职责。很多情况下，集体可能会做出一个决策，但是并不安排具体的分工，所以谁该干什么完全不清楚。要记住明晰个人责任。

... 35) Recognize that getting in synch is a two-way responsibility. In any conversation there is a responsibility to transmit and a responsibility to receive. Misinterpretations are going to take place. Often, difficulty in communication is due to people having different ways of thinking (e.g., left- brained thinkers talking to right-brained thinkers) . The parties involved should 1) realize that what they might be transmitting or receiving might not be what was meant, 2) consider multiple possibilities, and 3) do a back and forth so that they can get in synch. People do the opposite — confidently thinking that they’ve communicated their intent clearly, not considering multiple possibilities and then blaming the other parties for the misunderstanding. Learn lessons from your problems in communications to improve.

... 35) 要认识到，达成意见统一是双向责任。 沟通过程中，既有交付的责任，也有接受的责任——在这个过程中一定会出现误解。一般而言，沟通障碍主要是因为人们的思维方式不同。比如，当左脑思维者试图与右脑思维者进行沟通时，就会出现障碍。相关方应该：1）要认识到他们对交付或接受到的信息的认知偏差并非出于本意；2）考虑多重可能性；3）反复之前步骤，以达成意见统一。而人们往往不这样做，大家总是自信他们将自己的意图明确地表达出来了，然后责备对方理解失误。我们需要从自己沟通问题中学习，不断提高。

39b) Look for people who are willing to look at themselves objectively and have character.These are not natural talents—they are qualities that anyone can acquire. They are also the qualities that have the biggest influence on whether or not I respect someone. They are essential for success. 

39b) 要找愿意客观评价自己且又意志坚定的人。这些不是与生俱来的天分，而是可以后天习得的。这些品质是我确定自己是否尊重某人最重要的依据。这些品质关系到是否能够成功。 

... 43) Choose those who understand the difference between goals and tasks to run things. Otherwise you will have to do their jobs for them. The ability to see and value goals is largely innate, though it improves with experience. It can be tested for, though no tests are perfect.

... 43) 选择那些明白“目标”与“任务”之间差异的人来做事。 否则你就必须替他们完成他们的工作。 清楚认识并珍视目标是一种天生的能力，也会随着经验的增多而提升。该能力能够被测试，但是测试并不完美。

... 45) Think about their very different values, abilities, and skills. Values are the deep-seated beliefs that motivate behaviors; people will fight for their values, and values determine people’s compatibility with others. Abilities are ways of thinking and behaving. Some people are great learners and fast processors; others possess common sense; still others think creatively or logically or with supreme organization, etc. Skills are learned tools, such as being able to speak a foreign language or write computer code. 

... 45) 思考他们在价值观、能力和技能上的差异。价值观即推动行为的深层信仰。人们会为价值观而奋斗，价值观决定了人们与他人相处的模式。能力是人们思考与行为的方式。有些人学习能力强，能够快速处理问题，有些人有丰富的常识，也有人拥有创新思维、逻辑思维，或者有优秀的组织能力。技能则是指学会使用的工具，比如说一门外语，编写计算机程序等。

While values and abilities are unlikely to change much, most skills can be acquired in a limited amount of time (e.g., most master’s degrees can be acquired in two years) and often change in worth (e.g., today’s best programming language can be obsolete in a few years) . 

一个人的价值观和能力不易改变，但是大多数技能却能够在限定时间内获得。例如，大多数硕士学历可以在两年内获得。而且大多数技能的价值是会发生改变的，例如，今年先进的编程语言在几年后可能就落伍了。 
It is important for you to know what mix of qualities is important to fit each role and, more broadly, with whom you can have successful relationships. In picking people for long-term relationships, values are most important, abilities come next, and skills are the least important. 

你必须知道每个角色所需要的能力，更宽泛而言，你与谁能够维持成功的关系。在考虑长期关系人选时，价值观是最重要的，能力次之，技能最微不足道。

 

There are two big differences in how people think that are due to the brain’s coming in two big halves and different people relying differently on them.58 This was explained by Caltech Professor Roger Sperry, who won a Nobel Prize in medicine for attributing these two ways of thinking to different reliances on the two hemispheres. As a result of this discovery, these two ways of thinking are called “left-brained” and “right-brained.” Professor Sperry helped us understand that: 

人类思维的两种最大的差异来源于大脑的构造，我们的大脑是由两个半球组成的，不同的人对于两个半球的依赖程度不同。加利福利亚理工学院的罗杰·斯佩里（Roger Sperry）教授对这一发现进行了解释。斯佩里教授研究了对大脑半球不同依赖造成的两种思维方式，也因此而获得了诺贝尔医学奖。而这一发现得出一个结论，两种不同的思维方式被称为“左脑思维”和“右脑思维”。斯佩里教授帮助我们理解了：

• The left hemisphere reasons sequentially, analyzes details, and excels at linear analysis. Left-brained thinkers do these things well. They are also called linear thinkers. When they excel at this type of thinking they are called “bright.”

　　　左脑善于循序渐进式推理，分析细节，线性分析能力强。左脑型思维者在以上方面表现突出，也因此被称为线性思维者，如果某人在此类思维中优于常人，我们可称其为“聪明”。

• • “Bright” people have high IQs, are highly analytical thinkers, and can solve complex mental problems. 

• • • 聪明的人有高智商，善于分析，能够解决复杂的心理问题。

• The right hemisphere reasons holistically, recognizes themes, and synthesizes the big picture. Right-brained thinkers do these things well. People who think this way are also called lateral thinkers. Those who excel at this kind of thinking are called “smart.” 

　　　右脑善于整体推理，能够识别主题，整合全局。右脑型思维者在以上方面表现突出，也因此被称为水平思维者，如果某人在此类思维中优于常人，我们可称其为“睿智”。

　　The right hemisphere reasons holistically, recognizes themes, and synthesizes the big picture. Right-brained thinkers do these things well. People who think this way are also called lateral thinkers. Those who excel at this kind of thinking are called “smart.”

 右脑善于整体推理，能够识别主题，整合全局。右脑型思维者在以上方面表现突出，也因此被称为水平思维者，如果某人在此类思维中优于常人，我们可称其为“睿智”。

49a) People are best at the jobs that require what they do well. 

49a) 人们在所擅长的领域工作表现最佳。

49b) If you’re not naturally good at one type of thinking, it doesn’t mean you’re precluded from paths that require that type of thinking, but it does require that you either work with someone who has that required way of thinking (which works best) or learn to think differently (which is very difficult and sometimes impossible) . 

49b) 若你天生不擅长某种思维方式，并不意味着就做不好需要这种思维方式的工作。 你需要与其他拥有所需思维方式的人一起合作，这是最理想的方式。你也可以学习换个思维方式，但这样做很困难，有时甚至不太可能。

...69) Conduct the discussion at two levels when a problem occurs: 1) the “machine” level discussion of why the machine produced that outcome and 2) the “case at hand” discussion of what to do now about the problem. Don’t make the mistake of just having the task-level discussion, because then you are micromanaging—i.e., you are doing your managee’s thinking for him and your managee will mistake your doing this as being OK, when that’s not OK (because you will be micromanaging) . When having the machine-level discussion, think clearly how things should have gone and explore why they didn’t go that way. If you are in a rush to determine what to do and you have to tell the person who works for you what to do, point out that you are having to do this, make clear that you are having to do this and that is what you are doing, and make it a training experience—i.e., explain what you are doing and why. 

...69) 问题出现时，要展开两个层面的讨论：1）从机制层面来讨论，为什么会出现这个问题；2）单从问题本身层面来讨论，当下应如何解决。不要将讨论局限在问题本身，这是微观管理的表现。你这样做无异于帮助你的下属思考本该由他思考的问题，同时让他误认为这样做合情合理。实际上，你这样做是不合适的，因为这就是微观管理。当你进行机制层面的讨论时，应该思考事情本应朝着什么方向发展，却为什么没有。如果你着急解决问题，必须告诉你的下属下一步该做什么，那么请清楚地告诉他们你必须展开这两个层面的讨论，并将此作为一种员工培训来进行，解释清楚这样做的原因。

70b) Communicate the logic and welcome feedback. When making rules or changes, explain the principles behind the decision. We want reasonable thinkers to operate sensibly. We achieve this through principles that are sound and well understood, applied and tested through open discussion. It is each person’s job to 1) evaluate whether he agrees with a decision, and if not, explain why; and 2) hold each other accountable for operating consistently within the organization’s principles. We want people who understand the principles that allow our community to succeed and possess strong ethics that motivate them to work by our rules, rather than to sneak around them. We want people who know that if the community works well, it will be good for them. We don’t want people who need to be ordered and threatened. We don’t want people who just follow orders. 

70b) 沟通要有逻辑，多听取反馈意见。在制定规则和做出改变时，一定要就决策背后的原则进行解释。要安排逻辑思维能力强的人合理地开展工作。我们制定了健全的原则，这些原则通过自由辩论得到深入理解、适用和检验。每个人都要做到：1）思考自己是否同意某项决策，如果不同意，理由是什么；2）彼此为遵循公司原则情况负责。我们想要的员工必须能够理解让我们公司成功的原则，同时拥有能够激励他们按规矩办事的职业操守，而不是那些时刻钻原则空子的人。我们想要的员工必须认可如果公司发展的好，那对他们自己也有好处。我们不想要那些需要下命令、威胁的员工，也不想要那些只会服从命令的员工。

... 72) Hold people accountable and appreciate them holding you accountable. It’s better for them, for you, and for the community. Slacker standards don’t do anyone any good. People can resent being held accountable, however, and you don’t want to have to tell them what to do all the time. Instead, reason with them, so that they understand the value and importance of being held accountable. Hold them accountable on a daily basis. Constant examination of problems builds a sample size that helps point the way to a resolution and is a good way to detect problems early on before they become critical. Avoiding these daily conflicts produces huge costs in the end. 

...72) 对员工进行工作问责制度，若他们问责你，要感谢他们。这样做对员工、对你、对公司都有好处，逃避责任对任何人都无益。人们讨厌被问责，但是你肯定不愿意时刻告诉他们该做些什么。相反，你要与他们讲道理，使他们理解问责的价值和重要性。问责要每日进行，不断检查问题从而建立起样本容量，帮助找到解决方案，能够在问题变得严峻之前发现问题。而避免这些日常冲突的结果就是最后付出沉痛代价。

... 73) Avoid the “sucked down” phenomenon. This occurs when a manager is pulled down to do the tasks of a subordinate without acknowledging the problem. The sucked down phenomenon bears some resemblance to job slip, since it involves the manager’s responsibilities slipping into areas that should be left to others. Both situations represent the reality of a job diverging from the ideal of that job. However, the sucked down phenomenon is typically the manager’s response to subordinates’ inabilities to do certain tasks or the manager’s failure to properly redesign how the responsibilities should be handled in light of changed circumstances. You can tell this problem exists when the manager focuses more on getting tasks done than on operating his machine. 

... 73) 避免“上级卷入下级工作职责”现象。 即管理者需要去做下属职责范围的工作，却拒绝承认这是个问题。这种上级卷入下级工作职责的现象与职责错位情况类似，管理者的职责滑向了本应属于下属的领域。二者都属于工作职能偏移的情况。然而，上级卷入下级工作职责现象则专指上级对下级工作不力的反应或上级无法随着情势变化适当调整责任分工的情况。这种情况会在管理者更重视完成工作任务而非设计机制时存在。

73a) Watch out for people who confuse goals and tasks, because you can’t trust people with responsibilities if they don’t understand the goals.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 upfront (of how XYZ is in fact going overall) , and then support that assessment with the tasks done to achieve the goal. People who see the tasks and lose sight of the goals will just explain the tasks that were done and not make the connection to how those tasks relate to the machine that produces outcomes and achieves goals. 

73a) 谨防那些混淆目标与任务的员工，不能理解工作目标的员工是不值得信任的。你可以这样检验员工是否理解工作目标：如果你问一个高层级的问题，“某个目标达成的怎么样了？”一个好的答案是结合了对目标完成进度的坦率回答，再加上具体为实现目标做的工作以支撑此结论。那些只看到任务而忽视目标的人，只会向你解释任务完成了多少，却无法将这些任务与创造结果、实现目标的机制相结合。

78b) Watch out for the unfocused and unproductive “we should … (do something) .”Remember that to really accomplish things we need believable responsible parties who should determine, in an open-minded way, what should be done; so it is important to identify who these people are by their names rather than with a vague “we,” and to recognize that it is their responsibility to determine what should be done. So it is silly for a group of people who are not responsible to say things like “we should…” to each other. On the other hand, it can be desirable to speak to the responsible party about what should be done. 

78b) 谨防交流中出现没有重点，低效无用的句式：我们应该如何。 如果想要达成目标，我们需要可靠的负责人，他们坚定果断、思维开放，知道该干些什么。因此，我们必须清楚的知道这些人的名字，而不是用一个模糊的“我们”来指代，也应该认识到，他们有责任来决定应该做什么。因此我们不应该让一群不负责的人来对彼此说“我们应该如何”。与此相反，你应该向负责人表达该如何做的想法。

 ... 79) Constantly get in synch with your people. Being out of synch leads to confused and inefficient decision-making. It can also lead you in conflicting directions either because 1) you are not clear with each other, which often generates wildly differing assumptions, or 2) you have unresolved differences in your views of how things should proceed and why. Getting in synch by discussing who will do what and why is essential for mutual progress. It doesn’t necessarily entail reaching a consensus. Often there will be irreconcilable differences about what should be done, but a decision still needs to be made, which is fine. The process of getting in synch will make it clear what is to be done and why, even if it cannot eliminate difference. One of the most difficult and most important things you must do, and have others do, is bring forth disagreement and work through it together to achieve a resolution. Recognize that this process takes time. It can happen any way people prefer: discussion, e-mail, etc. You must have a workable process for making decisions even when disagreements remain. I discuss such a process in the earlier section on getting in synch. 

... 79) 保持与员工意见统一。如果无法达成意见一致，就会产生令人困惑的、低效率的决策，还可能导致你在大方向上出现冲突，因为1）你们不了解彼此的想法，通常会造成大相径庭的推断；2）你们对于应该如何推进事项及其原因上的分歧尚未得到解决。通过讨论分工及其原因从而实现意见一致能够促进互相进步。并不一定需要达成完全的共识。有时的确会出现一些关于该如何做事的不可调和的分歧，但是依然需要作出决定，这种情况是可以接受的。争取达成意见一致的过程能够明确大家该干什么，但是可以保留那些无法消除的分歧。你必须做的以及必须让他人做的最艰难最重要的事情之一就是将分歧提到台面上来，讨论分析以求获得一个解决方案。当然，这一过程会耗费一些时间，也可以通过多种方式来进行，比如讨论，发邮件等。你必须制定出一个决策的可行流程，即便争议依然存在，在前面关于争取达成意见一致的部分我已经讨论过这个流程了。

... 86) Logic, reason, and common sense must trump everything else in decision-making. 

... 86) 决策中最重要的是讲究逻辑、给明理由且符合常识。

... 87) While logic drives our decisions, feelings are very relevant. A feeling is a reality—and a good reality—and it’s up to management to deal with all realities sensibly. Good emotions are important. In fact, they are probably most important since they are the reasons behind the good things we do, e.g., satisfaction with a job wonderfully done and love of others. Emotions are bad only if they cloud judgment and take us away from what we want. 

... 87) 尽管做决策时主要依靠逻辑，但感觉也是很重要的。情感也是一种事实，而且是一种好的事实，管理者需要合理地处理所有的事实。拥有好的情绪至关重要，甚至可能是最重要的。因为正面情绪是事情顺利进行的原因，比如说对完成工作的满意情绪，以及关爱他们的情绪。情绪只有在妨碍我们做判断，使我们远离目标时才是负面的情绪。

... 100) Evaluate People Accurately, Not “Kindly” 

... 100) 准确地，而不是善意地评估员工。

 

...106) Provide constant, clear, and honest feedback, and encourage discussion of this feedback. Don’t hesitate to be both critical and complimentary—and be sure to be open-minded. Training and assessing will be better if you frequently explain your observations. Providing this feedback constantly is the most effective way to train. 

...106) 提供频繁的、清楚的、诚实的反馈，并鼓励就这些反馈进行讨论。坚持批评与表扬相结合，坚持开放性思维。如果你能频繁地对自己的观察做出解释，那么此时的培训和评估将更有意义。而频繁提供反馈正是最有效的培训方式。

 

Child psychologists, dog trainers, and other behavior modification specialists will tell you that constant, no-exception feedback is fundamental to good training. 
儿童心理学家、训狗师以及其他行为矫正方面的专家会告诉你，坚持持续进行反馈对于训练行为至关重要。

 

106a) Put your compliments and criticisms into perspective. I find that many people tend to blow evaluations out of proportion, so it helps to clarify that the weakness or mistake under discussion is not indicative of your total evaluation. Example: One day I told one of the 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 for hours about stuff that wasn’t related to work, so I spoke to him about the cost to his and our development if he regularly wasted time. Afterward I learned he took away from that encounter the idea that I thought he was doing a horrible job and that he was on the brink of being fired. But my comment about his need for focus had nothing to do with my overall evaluation of him. If I had explained myself when we sat down that second time, he could have better put my comments in perspective. 

106a) 正确对待表扬与批评。我发现很多人会对评估的作用夸大其词，对此，我需要说明的是，有时我会讨论你的缺点或错误，但是这并不是我对你的整体评价。例如，有一天，我对一名新研究员说，你的工作做的很好，思维能力很强，我对他做出了正面的初始评价。几天后，我又听到他聊一件与工作无关的事，足足闲聊了几个钟头。于是，我找他谈话，告诉他如果他经常浪费时间的话，会给自己和我们的工作造成不良影响。此后，我得知，那次谈话之后，他觉得我认为他的工作干的很差劲，自己离炒鱿鱼已经不远了。但实际上，我对于他应该更专注工作的评价与我对他的整体评估无关。如果我在第二次和他坐下来谈话的时候就表达了这一点，那么他就能够更正确地对待我对他的评价了。

 

... 108) Recognize that your evolution at Bridgewater should be relatively rapid and a natural consequence of discovering your strengths and weaknesses; as a result, your career path is not planned at the outset. 

... 108) 要认识到，你在桥水基金的成长会相对较快，这是了解自己优缺点的必然结果。因此，你的职业规划不是在一开始就定下来的。

 

Your career path isn’t planned because the evolutionary process is about discovering your likes and dislikes as well as your strengths and weaknesses. The best career path for anyone is based on this information. In other words, each person’s career direction will evolve differently based on what we all learn. This process occurs by putting people into jobs that they are likely to succeed at, but that they have to stretch themselves to do well. They should be given enough freedom to learn and think for themselves while being coached so they can be taught and prevented from making unacceptable mistakes. 

无法确定职业道路，是因为成长过程即发现自己的喜好和优缺点，基于以上信息的职业规划才是最合适每个人的。也就是说，每个人的职业方向会随着不断学习进行不同的演变。将人们安排到最可能做出成绩，但也必须通过努力才能做好的岗位，这样才能实现成长过程。员工应该拥有自我学习和思考的自由，同时需要获得辅导、经验传授，防止以后犯大错。

 

During this process they should receive constant feedback. They should reflect on whether their problems can be resolved by additional learning or stem from innate qualities that can’t be changed. Typically it takes six to 12 months to get to know a person in a by-and-large sort of way and about 18 months to change behavior (depending on the job and the person) . During this time there should be periodic mini- reviews and several major ones. Following each of these assessments, new assignments should be made to continue to train and test them. They should be tailored to what was learned about the person’s likes and dislikes and strengths and weaknesses. This is an iterative process in which these cumulative experiences of training, testing, and adjusting direct the person to ever more suitable roles and responsibilities. It benefits the individual by providing better self-understanding and greater familiarity with various jobs at Bridgewater. This is typically both a challenging and rewarding process. When it results in a parting of ways, it’s usually because people find they cannot be excellent and happy in any job at Bridgewater or they refuse to go through this process. 

在这一过程中，员工应该收到持续的反馈。他们需要进行反思，思考自己的问题是通过额外学习能够弥补的，还是由无法改变的先天性格所致。一般情况下，需要6到12个月来了解一个人某方面的情况，需要大约18个月来改变习惯，具体时间因人因岗而异。在此期间，应该进行周期性的简单评估报告和若干全面评估报告。评估之后，应该安排新的任务进行培训和测试。新的任务应该根据员工的已知喜好和优缺点量身定做。这是一个循环往复的过程，不断积累培训、测试、调整的经验，以期将员工安排到最合适的岗位职责上。对员工而言，成长过程能够帮助其更好认识自己，熟悉桥水基金的各个岗位。这一过程充满挑战却回报丰厚。如若不然，一般都是因为有些人认为他们在桥水基金无法胜任任何一个职位，也不会做的开心，或者他们自己拒绝开始接受进行这一流程。

109a) Look at patterns of behaviors and don’t read too much into any one event. Since there is no such thing as perfection, even excellent managers, companies, and decisions will have problems. It’s easy, though often not worth much, to identify and dwell on tiny mistakes. In fact, this can be a problem if you get bogged down pinpointing and analyzing an infinite number of imperfections. At the same time, minor mistakes can sometimes be manifestations of serious root causes that could cause major mistakes down the road, so they can be quite valuable to diagnose. When assessing mistakes it is important to 1) ask whether these mistakes are manifestations of something serious or unimportant and 2) reflect on the frequency of them. An excellent decision-maker and a bad decision-maker will both make mistakes. The difference is what causes them to make mistakes and the frequency of their mistakes. 

109a) 关注行为模式，但不要过分解读任何单一事件。世上没有完美之事，即便是最优秀的管理者、公司或决策也会有自己的问题。找到并分析小错误很容易，但却意义不大。实际上，如果你深陷对无数不完美现象的分析之中，这本身就会是个问题。与此同时，有些小问题却是某些严重根源问题的表现，这些深层次的问题可能在未来引发重大问题，如果能诊断出这种小问题，也是意义重大。在检测错误时，应该1）问一下该问题是不是严重问题的表现，或者根本不重要；2）反思问题出现的频率。优秀的决策者和糟糕的决策者都会犯错，区别在于犯错的原因和频率。

109b) Don’t believe that being good or bad at some things means that the person is good or bad at everything. Realize that all people have strengths and weaknesses. 

109b) 不要认为擅长（或不擅长）某件事的人就一定对所有的事都擅长（或不擅长）。要知道，每个人都有他的强项与弱项。

...110) If someone is doing their job poorly, consider whether this is due to inadequate learning (i.e., training/experience) or inadequate ability. A weakness due to a lack of experience or training or due to inadequate time can be fixed. A lack of inherent ability cannot. Failing to distinguish between these causes is a common mistake among managers, because managers are often reluctant to appear unkind or judgmental by saying someone lacks ability. They also know people assessed this way tend to push back hard against accepting a permanent weakness. Managers need to get beyond this reluctance. In our diagram of thinking through the machine that will produce outcomes, think about… 

...110) 如果某人工作做的很差劲，思考这是因为缺少学习（培训或相关经验）还是因为缺少能力。由于缺少经验、培训或时间而导致的弱点是能够被修补的，而天资能力的欠缺却无法弥补。管理者无法辨别二者之间的差别是一个常见的错误，因为管理者总是不愿意苛刻地认定某人能力欠缺。他们同样知道，如果这样去评价，被评价的对象往往会努力反击，拒绝承认自己有永久性缺陷。但是，管理者应该克服这种不情愿情绪。在下列图表中，思考一下机制所能创造的结果：

... 119) Know that experience creates internalization. A huge difference exists between memory-based “book” learning and hands-on, internalized learning. A medical student who has “learned” to perform an operation in his medical school class has not learned it in the same way as a doctor who has already conducted several operations. In the first case, the learning is stored in the conscious mind, and the medical student draws on his memory bank to remember what he has learned. In the second case, what the doctor has learned through hands-on experience is stored in the subconscious mind and pops up without his consciously recalling it from the memory bank. People who excel at book learning tend to call up from memory what they have learned in order to follow stored instructions. Others who are better at internalized learning use the thoughts that flow from their subconscious. The experienced skier doesn’t recite instructions on how to ski and then execute them; rather, he does it well “without thinking,” in the same way he breathes without thinking. Understanding these differences is essential.Remember that experience creates internalization. Doing things repeatedly leads to internalization, which produces a quality of understanding that is generally vastly superior to intellectualized learning. 

... 119) 经验能够内化知识。基于记忆的书本学习与动手操作的内化学习之间差异显著。医学院的学生在学校课堂上学习做手术的方法和那些已经做过数次手术的医生的学习方法是不同的。前一种情况中的学习是存储于有意识的大脑之中的，医学院的学生通过记忆库来回想自己所学的知识；而后者医生通过实践经验学得的知识是存储于潜意识之中的，不需要有意识地从记忆库中获取就能下意识出现。那些书本知识学得好的人通过唤醒记忆中的知识来按照所存储的指令行事；那些善于内化学习的人则会利用自己的潜意识思维行事。滑雪老手不用一边背诵滑雪须知一边滑雪，他们不需要思考就能滑得很好，就像呼吸本不需要思考一样。理解两种学习模式之间的差异是非常重要的。要记住，经验能够内化，重复做某事能够内化知识，通过这种方式获得的知识理解往往要比理智化的学习过程质量更高。

... 123) Recognize that sometimes it is better to let people make mistakes so that they can learn from them rather than tell them the better decision. However, since the connections between cause and effect can be misunderstood, providing feedback for these people is essential to the learning process. 

... 123) 要认识到，有时让人犯错并从中吸取教训要比直接告诉他们一个更好决定更明智。有时因为原因和结果之间的关系很容易让人误解，为犯错的人提供反馈对于学习过程很重要。

123a) When criticizing, try to make helpful suggestions. Your goal is to help your people understand and improve, so your suggestions are important. Offering suggestions also helps those being criticized to understand that your goal is to help them and Bridgewater, not to hurt them. 

123a) 在批评时，要提一些有建设性的意见。你的目的是帮助员工理解问题，提升自己，所以提建议是非常重要的。给那些受批评的人提建议也能让他们更好的理解你帮助他们和桥水基金的意图，批评不是为了中伤他人。

... 125) Recognize that behavior modification typically takes about 18 months of constant reinforcement. The first step is intellectualizing the best way of doing things. If you’re out of shape you must understand that you are out of shape, you must want to get in shape, and you must understand the way to get in shape: “I want to be fit by eating well and exercising.” Then the intellect will fight with desires and emotions. With determination, the intellect will overcome the impediments to doing what’s necessary to achieve the goal, and the desired behavior will occur. After doing that consistently for 18 months, the new behavior will be internalized. 

... 125) 要认识到，一般需要18个月持续不断的巩固才能实现行为矫正。首先，要将最佳方案理智化。如果你身材走样，你必须知道自己身材走样了，你得想变得身材更好，了解塑身的方法。“我想要通过合理膳食和加强锻炼来塑身。”之后，理智会与欲望和情感作斗争。坚定意志，理智最终会冲破障碍，行动起来达成目标，那么预期行为就会出现。如此坚持18个月，新的行为模式就会被内化。

 

... 135) Recognize that perceiving problems is the first essential step toward great management. As in nature, if you can’t see what’s happening around you, you will deteriorate and eventually die off. People who can 1) perceive problems; 2) decide what to do about them; and 3) get these things done can be great managers. 

... 135) 要认识到，发现问题是优秀管理的第一步。在大自然的环境中，如果你没有办法观察到周遭发生的事情，那么你将十分危险，最终自取灭亡。那些能够发现问题、决定如何处理问题、并执行解决方案的人才能成为优秀的管理者

 ... 138) Don’t tolerate badness. Too often I observe people who observe badness and tolerate it. Sometimes it is because they don’t have the courage to make the needed changes, and sometimes it is because they don’t know how to fix it. Both are very bad. If they’re stuck, they need to seek the advice of believable people to make the needed changes, and if that doesn’t work, they need to escalate. 

... 138) 不要容忍问题。我经常看到一些人明明已经发现了问题，却对其放任。可能是因为他们没有勇气做出所需的改变，也可能是因为他们不知道怎么改，这两种情况都很糟糕。如果他们不知所措，那么就应该寻求靠谱的人的意见，做出相应改变。如果不行，他们就需要将问题升级。

140d) The people closest to certain jobs probably know them best, or at least have perspectives you need to understand, so those people are essential for creating improvement. 

140d) 与某项工作接触最密切的人应该最了解该项工作，或者至少有值得你借鉴的观点。因此，这些人对于促进提升是很重要的。

... 143) Be very specific about problems; don’t start with generalizations. For example, don’t say, “Client advisors aren’t communicating well with the analysts.”Be specific: name which client advisors aren’t doing this well and in which ways. Start with the specifics and then observe patterns. 

... 143) 具体问题要具体对待，不要一开始就过于宽泛。比如，不要说，“客户顾问没有与分析师进行很好的沟通。”请更具体一些，指出是哪些客户顾问没有做好，为什么说他们没有做好。先从具体问题下手，再试图观察模式。

... 146) In some cases, people accept unacceptable problems because they are perceived as being too difficult to fix. Yet fixing unacceptable problems is actually a lot easier than not fixing them, because not fixing them will make you miserable. They will lead to chronic unacceptable results, stress, more work, and possibly get you fired. So remember one of the first principles of management: you either have to fix problems or escalate them (if need be, over and over again) if you can't fix them. There is no other, or easier, alternative. 

... 146) 在某些情况下，因为某些问题实在难以解决，人们不得不接受那些不可接受的问题。但是，解决那些不可接受的问题其实要比不解决它们更容易，因为不解决它们，将后患无穷。这些问题会带来长期无法让人忍受的结果、压力、更多工作，甚至可能让你被开除。记住管理的首要原则之一：要么解决问题，解决不了就要升级问题，如果需要的话，甚至可以循环往复进行。没有比这更好的替代方案了。

... 151) Remember that a root cause is not an action but a reason. It is described by using adjectives rather than verbs. Keep asking “why” to get at root causes, and don’t forget to examine problems with people. In fact, since most things are done or not done because someone decided to do them or not do them a certain way, most root causes can be traced to specific people, especially “the responsible party.” When the problem is attributable to a person, you have to ask why the person made the mistake to get at the real root cause, and you need to be as accurate in diagnosing a fault in a person as you are in diagnosing a fault in a piece of equipment. 

... 151) 要谨记根本原因不是行为而是原因。根本原因通常用形容词而不是动词来描述。要追溯根本原因，就要不停地问“为什么”，并检视人员方面出现的问题。事实上，大多数事情是由某人来决定是否以某种方式处理，所以绝大多数问题的根本原因都可以追究到具体的人特别是“负责人”身上。一旦将问题归结到个人，你就必须要问为什么这个人会犯错，这样才能找到真正的根本原因。你需要像诊断设备故障一样准确地诊断一个人犯的错误。

... 155) Don’t make too much out of one “dot”—synthesize a richer picture by squeezing lots of “dots” quickly and triangulating with others. A dot is a particular outcome. When you diagnose to understand the reason it occurred, you are “squeezing” the dot. Don’t try to squeeze too much out of a single dot—it can only tell you so much. Rather, try to collect and squeeze a bunch of dots in an 80/20 way, triangulating with the dots of others, so that you can synthesize a pointillist painting of what the person is like. 

... 155) 不要试图从一个“点”中获取大量信息，而应该快速压榨大量的“点”，并将它们相互联结，从而形成更丰富的图像。一个点就是一个具体的结果。当你通过诊断分析来理解一个结果产生的原因时，你就在“压榨”这个点。不要试图从一个点中压榨很多东西，它只能告诉你那么点信息。相反，你应该以二八原则去收集并压榨大量的点，在点之间建立联系，这样你就能对该员工有如点彩画般的细致了解。

... 158) 管理者绩效不佳或未能升职最常见的原因有：

a. They are too removed. 

他们对问题袖手旁观。

b. They have problems discerning quality differences. 

他们不能识别质量差异。

c. They have lost sight of how bad things have become because they have gradually gotten used to their badness (the “frog in the boiling water problem”) . 

他们已经渐渐习惯了问题的存在，从而忽视了问题是怎样形成的（“温水煮青蛙”）。

d. They have such high pride in their work that they can’t bear to admit they are unable to solve their own problems. 

他们对自己的工作太过自满，不愿承认自己解决不了自己的问题。

e. They fear adverse consequences from admitting failure. 

他们害怕承认失败带来的后果。

... 159) Avoid “Monday morning quarterbacking.” That is, evaluate the merits of a past decision based on what you know now versus what you could have reasonably known at the time of the decision. Do this by asking yourself, “What should a quality person have known and done in that situation?” Also, have a deep understanding of the person who made the decision (how do they think, what type of person are they, did they learn from the situation, etc) . 

.. 159) 不要做事后诸葛。事后诸葛是指在做出决定后自称有先见之明的人。问自己，“什么是一名高素质人才在问题当下该了解和完成的” 此外，要深入了解当时的决策者（他们怎么想的，他们是什么类型的人，他们有没有从中学到什么，等等）。

... 162) 运用下述的“钻取”方法，重点理解部门或分部面临的问题。钻取的过程能让人更深入地了解一个领域存在的问题及其根本原因，从而设定计划，确保部门或分部运行良好。钻取不是“诊断”，诊断分析需针对每个问题进行。通过持续性的诊断分析，管理者就自然而然地了解了自己的工作领域，也就没有必要再深究问题了。钻取是探究的一种形式，但其所指范围更广更深。做好钻取可以让你获取几乎所有必要的信息，只需约5个小时的时间就可以让部门情况迅速好转。

A drilldown takes place in two distinct steps: 1) listing problems and 2) listing causes/diagnosing. It is followed by 3) designing a plan. If done well, getting informed via the first two steps typically takes about four hours (give or take an hour) , with the first step of listing the problems typically taking one to two hours and the second step of diagnosing them typically taking two to four hours, if done efficiently. 

钻取分两步：1）列举问题；2）列举原因、诊断分析。钻取之后是紧跟着的第三步，即设定计划。顺利的话，通过前两个步骤获取信息通常需要4个小时左右的时间（可能有一个小时的误差），其中第一步列举问题花费1-2个小时，第二步诊断分析花费2-4个小时。

It’s very important that these steps are done separately and independently. That’s because going into two or three directions at the same time causes confusion and doesn’t allow adequate discussion of each of the possible causes and solutions. 

谨记这些步骤需要分别独立进行。因为同时进行两个或三个步骤容易导致混淆，而且也不能充分讨论每一个可能的原因和解决方案。

Having the people from the area under scrutiny actively participate in all three steps is critical. You need to hear their descriptions and allow them to argue with you when they think you are wrong. This way you are much more likely to come up with an accurate diagnosis and a good plan. 

要让来自于受审查领域的人积极参与到这三个步骤当中。你需要倾听他们的说法，如果他们认为你做错了，要允许他们与你争辩。这样你能更容易做出准确的诊断分析，提出完善的计划。

After the drilldown, you will create the plan or design, which typically takes two to three hours. So the whole process, from asking the first question to coming up with the detailed plan, typically takes about five to eight hours spread over three or four meetings. Then there is step four—the executing, monitoring, and modifying of the plan—which typically takes six to 12 months. 

钻取之后，就需要拟出计划或设定方案，这通常需要2-3个小时的时间。所以整个流程，从提问第一个问题，到提出详细的计划，通常需要3-4次会议，共5-8个小时左右。这之后是第四步是执行、监督、改进计划，通常需要6-12个月。

Here is more detail on each of the steps: 

下面是每个步骤的细节：

Step 1—List the problems. Don’t confuse problems with possible solutions. Sometimes problems occur for rare or insignificant reasons because nothing is perfect. Don’t pay much attention to those. But more often than not, they are symptomatic of something malfunctioning in your machine, so it pays to investigate what that is. For example, not having enough capacity is not a “problem”; it might cause problems, but it’s not a problem. Having people work so late that they might quit, getting out reports too late, etc., might be problems that are caused by a lack of capacity. But the lack of capacity itself is not a problem. To fix problems, you need to start with the specific problems and address them one by one and come up with very specific solutions. That’s because there are lots of ways to solve problems. The problem of people working late at night might be solved by gaining capacity, or it might be solved by shifting work to another department, or by doing less, etc. To assume that lack of capacity is the problem could lead to inferior problem -solving. So unless you keep in mind the very specific problems, you will not be effective at solving them. In the process of solving problems, you will often see that several problems are due to the same cause (e.g., lack of capacity, a shortage of tech resources, bad management, etc.) , but that is not the same thing as starting at the more general level (like saying that bad management or lack of capacity, etc., are problems) , which is why I am saying you must start with very specific problems before making generalizations. For example, when you have a “people problem,” be specific. Specify which people you are having what problems with and avoid the tendency of saying things like, “People in operations aren’t…” Avoid the tendency not to name names for fear of offending. 

第一步：列举问题。不要把问题和可能的解决方案搞混了。有些时候，出现问题是因为很罕见或很无足轻重的因素，没有什么是完美的，所以不需要太在意这些问题。但是更多时候，出现问题表明你的机制运行不良，这时就值得深入探究原因了。例如，没有足够的才能不是“问题”；它可能带来问题，但本身不是问题。让员工加班太晚员工可能辞职，报告发布太晚等等，都可能是能力不足引起的问题。但是能力不足本身不是问题。要解决问题，你需要找到具体的问题，一个个应对，并提出具体的解决方案。因为解决问题有不同的方法。人员加班到很晚可以通过提高能力来解决，或者把他调到其它部门，或者让他少干点活，等等。如果把缺乏能力视作问题的话，会让解决问题变得更加困难。只有考虑到非常具体的问题，才能有效解决它们。在解决问题的过程中，你经常会发现，几个问题都由一个原因造成（缺乏才能，缺少科技，管理不良等），这不同于从更普遍的层面理解问题（比如把管理不良或缺乏才能等看做是问题）。这也是为什么我特别强调，在下结论之前，你一定要先分析非常具体的问题。比如说，如果你面临一个“人员问题”，那就再具体点，指明你和谁之间存在什么问题。而不要说类似于“作业人员没有……”的话，不要怕得罪人而就不敢说出名字。

Step 2—Identify root causes. Root causes are the deep-seated reasons behind the actions that caused the problems. It is important to distinguish between proximate causes, which are superficial reasons for what happened (e.g., “I missed the train because I didn’t check the train schedule”) , and root causes (e.g., “I didn’t check the schedule because I am forgetful”) . Typically a proximate cause is the action that led to the problem while a root cause is the fundamental reason that action occurred. So, when diagnosing, if you are describing what happened or didn’t happen to cause the problem, you are probably describing proximate causes. When you start describing the qualities that were behind these actions, you are probably getting at the root causes. To get at the root cause, keep asking why. For example, if the problem is that people are working late and the direct cause was that there wasn’t enough capacity, then ask why there wasn’t enough capacity. Then you will get closer to the root cause. 

第二步：找出根本原因。根本原因是隐藏在引起问题的行为背后的深层次原因。有必要区别直接原因，即事情的表面原因（比如，“我没赶上车因为我没看列车时刻表。”）和根本原因（比如，“我没看列车时刻表因为我健忘。”）通常来讲，直接原因是导致问题的行为，而根本原因是行为产生的本质原因。所以在诊断分析时，如果你描述的是发生了或未发生什么导致了问题，那你很可能在讲直接原因。如果你开始描述这些行为背后的特质时，你可能就在靠近根本原因了。要找到根本原因，记得问为什么。例如，如果问题是员工加班到很晚，直接原因就是才能不足，然后你要问，为什么才能不足，这样你就更接近根本原因了。

If your machine is producing outcomes that you don’t want, either the design is flawed or the parts/people that you dropped into the design are malfunctioning. Most, but not all, problems happen because 1) it isn’t clear who the “responsible party” is for making sure things go well or 2) the responsible party isn’t handling his or her responsibilities well (in other words, isn’t operating according to the principles to eliminate the problem) . So first ask, “Is it clear who the responsible party is?” If not, specify that. If it is clear, then ask, “Why isn’t he or she doing a good job?” There are two possible reasons for someone doing a poor job: insufficient training or insufficient ability. 

如果机制的产出不如你所愿，要么设定出错，要么这个设定的构成部分/人员表现不佳。大多数问题发生是因为1）“负责人”不明确，不知道谁来确保机制运行良好；2）负责人未尽到职责（换句话说，负责人未遵循原则解决问题）。所以首先要问，“负责人明确么？”如果答案是“否”，那尽快明确负责人。如果答案是“是”，那要再问，“为什么他或她没做好本职工作？”人员表现不佳可能有两个原因：培训不足或才能不够。

Which would be because the manager—the responsible party for making it clear who is responsible for what—is failing to do that well. 
可能是因为管理者--来明确谁负责什么工作的负责人--未能做好该项工作

Though it is essential to connect problems to the responsible parties, this can be difficult if the responsible parties don’t acknowledge their mistakes and fail to diagnose why they made the mistakes. Still, clarity about responsibility and the problems’ root causes must be achieved because otherwise there is no hope for improvement. If the responsible parties do not explicitly take responsibility for ensuring that their areas operate smoothly, their areas will not operate smoothly. An important first step toward achieving clarity is to remove the mentality of blame and credit, because it stands in the way of accurately understanding problems, and that’s a prerequisite for producing improvements. Also, it is important not to judge too quickly what the root causes are. Instead, you should observe the patterns of problems using the issues log as a tool and discuss with the responsible parties what the root causes might be each time a problem arises. You probably won’t initially be able to come to conclusions with a high degree of confidence, because there are many possible reasons for any one problem. But over time, the problems’ patterns and causes will become clear to everyone. 

把问题归结到负责人身上固然重要，但如果负责人认识不到自己的错误，或者不愿去诊断分析自己犯错的原因，那这个过程就很难进行。仍要强调的是，明确责任和问题的根本原因至关重要，如果做不到这一点是不可能进步的。如果负责人为确保其分管部门运行顺利而不明不白地负起责任，那么该部门也不可能顺利运行。明确责任的第一步就是摒弃功与过的概念，因为这种思路不利于我们准确理解问题，而后者又是进步的先决条件。此外，对于问题的根本原因，不要过快下结论。而要利用问题日志，观察问题的规律，每次出现问题时，都和负责人讨论可能的根本原因。一开始你可能不确信自己的结论，因为任意一个问题都有很多可能的原因。但是慢慢地，所有人会越来越清楚问题的规律和原因。

As mentioned, there are two possible reasons why the responsible party handled something badly: 1) the responsible party didn’t encounter this problem enough times previously to learn from it and prevent it in the future (by using the principles) or 2) the responsible party is unsuited for that job. And there are also two possible reasons the person is not suited for that job: 1) not enough experience or training and 2) lack of values and/or abilities required to do the job well. So getting at the root causes is largely a matter of figuring out: 

如上所述，负责人办事不力有两个可能的原因：1）负责人之前对此类问题没有足够的经验，尚未能从中学习应对之策，不能（根据原则指导）阻止问题再次发生，或2）负责人不适合这份工作。人员不适合这份工作也有两种可能的原因：1）经验不足或缺乏培训；2）缺乏能够做好这份工作的价值和/或能力。所以找寻根本原因基本上就是要弄清楚：

1. Who is the responsible party for what went wrong? 
   该问题的负责人是谁？

2. Did that person encounter the problem enough times that he or she should have either learned how not to repeat it or elevated it to someone who could have helped learn how to solve it? The conclusions could be the following: 1) If the person did encounter the problem enough times to have resolved or elevated it, then the person is not suitable for the job;2) if the person did not encounter the problems enough times to resolve or elevate it, what are the probable root causes? The most common root causes are: 1) the person is not suitable for the job in some way (doesn’t learn from mistakes, doesn’t have a high sense of responsibility, is lazy, etc.) ; 2) the design of the process is flawed (e.g., the person is doing things in a way that can be improved) ; or 3) there is no possible solution. If it’s the first root cause, the person should have their job changed; if it’s the second, you and the person need to properly diagnose the problem and come up with a different process that will work; and if it’s the third, you won’t know that until you have thoroughly explored whether the process can be remediated. 
   负责人是否之前对此类问题积累了足够经验，已经从中学习应对之策？或是将问题提交上级，并由上级帮助其掌握问题的解决方法？结论可能如下：1）如果该员工的确对此类问题有丰富经验，应该能解决或是呈报上级，那么该员工不适合这项工作；2）如果该员工对此类问题没有丰富经验，不能解决或是呈报上级，那么根本原因可能有哪些？最可能的根本原因是：1）该员工某方面不适合这项工作（不能从错误中学习，没有责任感，懒散，等等。）；2）流程设定有问题（例如：人员做事的方式可以改进）；或3）无法解决。如果是第一个原因，应该调动该人员的工作；如果是第二个原因，你和该员工需要仔细诊断分析问题，提出行之有效的改进方案；如果是第三个原因，那在你深入探究流程是否可以弥补之前，解决方案是未知的。

That doesn’t mean that all people have to solve and prevent all repeating problems or they shouldn’t be in their jobs. That might not be possible because smaller, repeating problems might be consciously accepted until they become high enough priorities to be fixed. However, it does mean that repeating problems should be recognized and, if not able to be resolved, they must be elevated. 
这不意味着所有人员都要解决并避免所有重复发生的问题，如果真是这样，那这些人和岗位也就没有存在的必要了，并且要做到这样也不太可能，因为小的重复发生的问题可能为人们有意无意地接受了，直到小问题变成有待解决的大问题。但是，重复出现的问题应该引起注意，即使解决不了，也应该报告给上级。

1. That second alternative of trying to find a better process takes time and patience (involving you and the person properly diagnosing the problem and finding a different approach that works) . Normally, this is the point at which most companies and people fail. That is because people often take the identification of a “mistake” as the equivalent of an accusation that they are flawed (dumb, lazy, etc.) , so they become defensive. If instead they view the exercise as an investigation into how the process might be flawed, it’s easier to make progress. So when criticizing, it’s sometimes helpful to convey explicitly the point of the exercise: mutually diagnosing the problem and exploring the pros and cons of alternative approaches. You both need to be mindful that doing this well typically takes time and patience. One of the purposes of the brainstorming session is to do this, ideally with an agreed diagnosis resulting from it. 
   第二个方案试图寻找一个更好的工作流程，但需要大量时间和精力，因为你和该员工要仔细诊断分析分体，并且找到可行的替代方案。大多数公司和人都在这一环节失败了。因为人们总是把“错误”等同于对他们本身的指责，比如傻，懒，等等。这样一来，他们防御心就很强。如果他们把这种做法看做是对流程为什么出错的调查，就能更容易取得进展了。所以，在进行评价时，最好清晰地传达出这种做法的目的：互相诊断分析问题，探究替代方案的优缺点。双方都要记得，要做好这件事需要时间和耐心。头脑风暴的目的之一就是这个，当然最好头脑风暴过后能得出一个大家都同意的诊断结果。

Step 3—Create a plan (brief notes) : 

第三步：做计划（简介）：

-Look at each root cause and ask yourself what should be done about it. 

-思考每个根本原因，问自己应该对此做些什么。

-Creating a plan is like writing a movie script in that you visualize who will do what through time in order to achieve the goal. 

-制定计划如同撰写电影剧本，随着时间的推进要设想好由谁来完成任务才能实现最终的目标。

-Step away from the group to reflect and work on the plan, then bring it back to the group to discuss and modify. 

-做计划时，考虑不同的可能性并适时实施，从而做出最优选择。

-When developing the plan, iterate through multiple possibilities and play them out in time to help determine the best choice. 

-当你做计划时，要考虑多种的可能性并及时从中确定最佳选项。

-Make sure to assign who is supposed to do what with rough target dates for achieving individual tasks of the plan. Once the plan design is complete, make sure the tasks, responsible parties, and timelines are reasonable and doable. 

-要分配谁应该做什么事，明确完成个人计划任务的大概日期。一旦计划设定完成，要确保任务，负责人和时间线的合理性和可行性。

-While everyone does not need to agree with the plan, it is important that the key people agree that it will work. 

-计划不必让所有人都满意，但关键人物要同意计划可行。

Step 4—Implement the plan (brief notes) : 

第四步：执行计划（简介）：

-Give each person a monthly to-do list to provide clarity and transparency around responsibilities and expectations for that month. Then plot the progress in open, monthly meetings with all the relevant parties. Explicitly assess how the plan is working and deal with problems that aren’t being resolved. 

- 给每名员工一份月任务清单，明确员工任务和目标。在同相关员工的月度会议上制定工作进度。评估计划运行状况，解决尚存问题。

-Make sure to hold responsible parties accountable for target dates and develop metrics around how they are meeting their commitments. 

-要让负责人确保任务在目标日期前圆满完成，并制定绩效衡量标准。

-Regularly look at that list of assigned tasks to track progress and determine if any adjustments are needed. 

-经常翻阅分派任务清单，查看进度，决定是否需要调整。

-Create transparency around the plan by posting it publicly and reviewing it regularly with the group. This helps people see the ways in which all of the problems are being addressed and reinforces accountability. 

-公开张贴计划，和小组定期共同审阅计划，从而确保计划透明。这能让员工看到解决问题的方式，提高他们的责任感。

Do not exclude any relevant people from the drilldown: besides losing the benefit of their ideas, you disenfranchise these people from the game plan and reduce their sense of ownership. 

不要把任何相关人员排除在钻取之外：除了失去他们的想法外，你剥夺了这些人参与计划的权利，减少了他们的主人翁意识。

Remember that people tell you things they want and tend not to be self- critical. It is your job as a manager to get at truth and excellence, not to make people happy. For example, the correct path might be to fire some people and replace them with better people, or to put people in jobs they might not want, etc. The brainstorming session must include a discussion of people’s weaknesses and failings to get at truth and excellence. Everyone’s objective must be to get at the best answer, not the answer that will make people happy. This is especially true for managers. In the long run, the best answers will be the ones that make the people we want to be at Bridgewater happiest. 

要记得人们只会说自己想说的事，而且不太会自我批评。你作为管理者，应该寻找真相，追求卓越，而不是取悦别人。比如说，正确的做法可能是解雇某人，然后以更优秀的人取而代之，或是把人员安排到他们自己不想去的位子上。头脑风暴环节必须要讨论人们在寻找真相，追求卓越的过程中遇到的失败和坎坷。每个人的目标都应该是寻找最优解，而不是取悦别人，对管理者来说更是如此。从长期来看，只有最优解才能让那些我们想要留在桥水的人最开心。

... 174) 以目标为中心建立机构，而不是以任务为中心，这是重中之重。我们围绕目标而不是任务来组建机构。例如，我们一直以来都有一个单独的市场部门，目标是进行市场营销。该部门与旨在为客户提供服务的客户服务部门是分开的。尽管以上两个部门的工作任务相似，而且将两个部门合并也可以产生一些好处，但是因为这两个部门的目标不同，我们就为每个目标单独设立了一个部门。如果两个部门合并，部门领导、销售人员、客户咨询、分析师以及其他员工就会给出或收到互相矛盾的反馈。比如，如果你问，“为什么客户没有受到应有的关注？”答案可能是，“因为我们需要提高销量啊。”如果你问为什么我们的销量如此不济，合并后的部门就可能解释他们需要照顾客户。设立两个独立的部门，能够给每个部门一个清晰的目标以及达成该目标的合适资源，也可以使资源配置的过程更加直截了当，减少“职责错位”的现象。当然，在围绕目标进行部门建设时，要注意你的目标大小应该与所分配的资源相匹配。有时候，一个公司可能规模比较小，不需要很多销售人员以及自己的分析团队。最开始，桥水联合基金只是一个单细胞公司，每个人都需要做所有的事。我们不断成长，将注意力进行有效集中，现在，桥水已经发展成为一个多细胞公司了。同时，我想要明确一点，暂时的共享或轮流使用资源是没问题的，这与合并职责不同。我将在后文中讨论合并的问题，以及如果在大型企业中集中注意力的协调能力。

174a) First come up with the best workflow design, sketch it out in an organizational chart, visualize how the parts interact, specify what qualities are required for each job, and, only after that is done, choose the right people to fill the jobs (based on how their capabilities and desires match up with the requirements) .


174a) 首先，设计最佳工作流，在一个组织图中画出草图，将各部分互动情况形象化，标出每个职位所需的特质，最后，选择合适的员工来填充岗位 (根据他们的能力和意愿来进行需求匹配) 。

174b) Organize departments and sub-departments around the most logical groupings.Some groups naturally gravitate toward one another. Trying to impose your own structure without acknowledging these magnetic pulls is ineffective and likely will result in a bad outcome. 

174b) 按照最富逻辑的组团方式来组建部门和子部门。有些团队彼此之间会很自然的相互吸引，在没有认识到团队间的磁拉力时就妄图将自以为的结构强加给大家，会导致效率低下以及不良后果。

174c) Make departments as self-sufficient as possible so that they have control over the resources they need to achieve the 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. People sometimes argue that we should have a technology department, but I am against that because building technology is a task, not a goal in and of itself. You build technology to perform valuable tasks. If we kept the tech resources outside the department, we would have people from various departments arguing about whose project is most important in order to garner resources, which isn’t good for efficiency. The tech people would be evaluated and managed by bureaucrats rather than the people they do the work for. 

174c) 让每个部门尽可能的自给自足，以此确保他们能够自主控制达成目标所需的资源。我们这样做的出发点是因为我们不想设置过多官僚流程，强迫每个部门从集体资源池里申请资源，这样容易分散工作精力。也有桥水的员工提议，我们应该有一个技术部门，但是我不这么认为。因为解决技术问题应该是一个任务，不是一个目标。建立技术团队的目的是完成所需的技术任务。如果我们设立技术部们独立于各部门，那么各部门的人就会为争取资源坚持认为自己的项目最重要，这对于公司效率是不利的。这样的话，技术部门的人就会由官僚人士来评估和管理，而不受其直接服务对象控制。

174d) The efficiency of an organization decreases and the bureaucracy of an organization increases in direct relation to the increase in the number of people and/or the complexity of the organization. 

174d) 公司效率的下降与官僚作风的扩张程度与公司人数增长和复杂性提升直接相关。

... 175) Build your organization from the top down. An organization is the opposite of a building—the foundation is at the top. The head of the organization is responsible for designing the organization and for choosing people to fill its boxes. Therefore, make sure you hire managers before their direct reports. Managers can then help design the machine and choose people who complement the machine. 

... 175) 自上而下组建公司。公司机构组建与建筑修建的顺序正好相反，后者需要先打好地基。机构领导负责进行机构设置，安排合适人才去各个岗位。因此，你应该先雇管理者，再给管理者找直接向其汇报的下属。管理者们可以帮助你继续进行机构设置，寻找其他的人员来填补机构空缺。

175a) Everyone must be overseen by a believable person who has high standards. Without this strong oversight, there is potential for inadequate quality control, inadequate training, and inadequate appreciation of excellent work. Do not “just trust” people to do their jobs well. 

175a) 应该给每名员工安排一位拥有高标准的靠谱的人对其进行监管。没有严格的监管，可能导致在质量控制、员工培训、追求卓越等各方面出现缺失与不足。不要轻易“相信”员工能够做好自己的工作。

175b) The people at the top of each pyramid should have the skills and focus to manage their direct reports and a deep understanding of their jobs. Here’s an example of the confusion that can arise when that understanding is absent: It was proposed that the head of technology have the facilities group (the people who take care of facilities like the building, lunches, office supplies, etc.) report to him because both are, in a sense, “facilities” and because they have some things in common, such as the electrical supply. But the head of technology didn’t understand what the facilities people do. Having people who are responsible for the janitorial services and meals reporting to a technology manager is as inappropriate as having the technology people report to the person who is 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 combining folks who work on client agreements with those who do counterparty agreements under one manager. That would have been a mistake because the skills required to reach agreements with clients are very different from the ones required to reach agreements with counterparties. It was wrong to conflate both departments under the general heading of “agreements,” because each kind called for specific knowledge and skills. 

175b) 位于金字塔尖的管理者应该具备管理直接下属的能力和精力，对下属的工作职责有深入了解。如果公司内部沟通不畅，会出现很多问题。例如，有人提议让后勤团队，即负责建筑维护、员工午餐、提供办公用品的部门，向技术团队的负责人汇报工作。原因是两个团队都与办公设施相关，工作职责也有相似之处，比如都负责电力供应。但实际情况是，技术团队的负责人并不了解后勤团队的工作到底是什么。让做清洁服务的人向做技术的人汇报工作就像让做技术的人向后勤员工汇报工作一样不合时宜。两个团队的职责虽然从宽泛的意义上讲都属于负责办公设施，但是实际职责却大为不同，所需要的配套技能也不同。同理，我们也曾讨论过是否要将负责客户协议的人与负责订约方协议的人统一安排给一个管理者。但是这样也是不可行的，因为与客户达成协议所需的技能和与订约方达成协议所需技能相差甚远。不要只是因为两者都与“协议”相关就盲目合并，因为两个团队需要的知识和技能都是不同的。

175c) The ratio of senior managers to junior managers and to the number of people who work two levels below should be limited, to preserve quality communication and mutual understanding. Generally, the ratio should not be more than 1:10, and preferably closer to 1:5. Of course, the appropriate ratio will vary depending on how many people your direct reports have reporting to them, the complexity of the jobs they’re doing, and the manager’s ability to handle several people or projects at once. 

175c) 高级管理者与初级管理者、管理者与两级以下的被管理者之间的人数比例应该限定在一定范围内，以确保高质量的沟通与互相理解。一般而言，此人数比例应该保持在1:10以下，最好是接近1:5。当然，具体的比例还取决于有多少人向你的直接下属汇报工作，他们做的工作的复杂程度，以及管理者一次应对多人多项目的能力。

175d) The number of layers from top to bottom and the ratio of managers to their direct reports will limit the size of an effective organization. 

175d) 自上而下的层级数量以及管理者与直接下属的比例会制约高效公司的规模。

175e) The larger the organization, the more important are 1) information technology expertise in management and 2) cross-department communication (more on these later) .

175e) 公司越大，越需要1）在管理中运用信息技术；2）跨部门沟通（后详）。

175f) Do not build the organization to fit the people. Jobs are created based on the work that needs to be done, not what people want to do or what people are available. You can always search outside Bridgewater to find the people who “click” best for a particular role. 

175f) 不要为了迁就人员而组建机构。岗位是基于所需完成的工作来设定的，而不是基于人们想要干什么事，能干什么事而设定。我们总能在桥水公司之外找到符合某项特定工作岗位的最佳人选。

... 176) Have the clearest possible delineation of responsibilities and reporting lines. It’s required both within and between departments. Make sure reporting lines and designated responsibilities are clear. To avoid confusion, people should not report to two different departments. Dual reporting (reporting across department lines) causes confusion, complicates prioritization, diminishes focus on clear goals, and muddies the lines of supervision and accountability, especially when a person reports to two people in two different departments. When situations require dual reporting, managers need to be informed. Asking someone from another department to do a task without consulting with his or her manager is strictly prohibited (unless the request will take less than an hour or so) . However, appointing co-heads of a department or a sub-department can work well if the managers are in synch and combine complementary and essential strengths to this area; dual reporting in that case can work fine if properly coordinated by the co-heads. 

... 176) 尽可能清楚地描述工作职责与级别关系。 务必清楚表述级别关系和工作职责，该要求适用于部门内部及跨部门之间。为避免冲突，一人无需向两个不同的部门汇报工作。双重汇报，即跨部门的汇报，会引起冲突，将确定优先事项的过程复杂化，分散对清晰目标的关注力， 模糊监管和责任的界限。这种情况在一个人向两个不同部门的不同人汇报时更为显著。当具体情势的确需要双重汇报时，管理者必须对此知情。在不与相关人员的管理者打招呼的情况下就直接让某个其他部门的人做事是被严格禁止的，除非这件事只需要不到一个钟头左右的时间。但是，如果管理者们达成一致，同时能够结合在此领域重要的互补优势，为部门或子部门选定共同领导人是可行的。在这种情况下的双重汇报由共同领导人的协调一致，也是可行的。

176a) Create an organizational chart to look like a pyramid, with straight lines down that don’t cross. A series of descending pyramids make up the whole pyramid, but the number of layers should be limited to minimize hierarchy. 

176a) 建立一个金字塔形的组织图，画出不相交的竖线。A 在整个金字塔中又有一系列的小金字塔，但是为了减少机构层级，要控制金字塔的层数。

... 177) Constantly think about how to produce leverage. For example, 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 regularly organize them into a manual. Technology can do most tasks, so think creatively about how to design tools that will provide leverage for you and the people who work for you. 

... 177) 经常思考该如何让事情发挥最大效果。比如，为让培训最易于接受，可以通过音频、视频或书面指南的方式记录下最常见的问题和答案，然后安排专人定期将其编纂成手册。技术现在能完成大部分的任务，创新性思考如何设计工具，供自己和员工使用。

177a) You should be able to delegate the details away. If you can’t, you either have problems with managing or training or you have the wrong people doing the job. The real sign of a master manager is that he doesn’t have to “do” practically anything. Of course, a great manager has to hire and oversee the people who do things; but a “supreme master” manager can even hire a person or two to do this and has achieved such leverage that things are effortlessly running superbly. Of course, there is a continuum related to this. The main message I’m trying to convey is that managers should strive to hire, train, and oversee in a way in which others can superbly handle as much as possible on their own. Managers should view the need to get involved in the nitty-gritty themselves as a bad sign. 

177a) 你应该将细节工作委派给他人。如果你做不到的话，说明你不擅长管理或培训，或者你安排的人无法胜任自己的工作。真正的管理大师的标志是根本不需要亲自做任何实际工作。当然，一个杰出的管理者必须雇佣和监管他人做事。但是大师级的管理者甚至能够找到一两个人来帮他雇佣和监管他人，已经达到一种毫不费力就能将公司经营得很好的境界。当然，要实现这样，还需要满足其他的因素。我想说的是，管理者们应该努力去招聘、培养、监管员工，使得员工能够尽可能依靠自己的力量精彩完成工作。如果管理者们不得不去做特别琐碎的工作，这将是一个糟糕的信号。

177b) It is far better to find a few smart people and give them the best technology than to have a greater number of ordinary and less well -equipped people. First of all, great people and great technology are almost always a great value because their effectiveness in enhancing the organization’s productivity can be enormous. Second, it is desirable to have smart people have the widest possible span of understanding and control because fragmented understanding and control create inefficiencies and undermine organizational cohesion. Usually it is the person’s capacity that limits the scope of his understanding and control. So the mix of really smart people operating with really great technology in a streamlined organization is optimal for organizational efficiency. 

177b) 与其让一众能力平庸之人获得不那么精良的装备，不如只给一小部分聪明人配备最好的技术。首先，拥有优秀的员工和优秀的技术对促进公司生产力有极大的效果。 其次，最好能让优秀的员工尽可能广泛地了解公司情况，进行管控。碎片化的了解和管控会造成效率低下，不利于公司凝聚力。通常情况下，人的能力制约了他的理解力和控制力。如果能够结合最聪明的人、最先进的技术和合理的公司结构，就能实现公司效率的最大化。

177c) Use “leveragers.” Leveragers are capable of doing a lot to get your concepts implemented. Conceptualizing and managing are most important and take only about 10% of the time needed for implementing; so if you have good leveragers, you can accomplish a lot more with relative ease. 

177c) 使用执行力强的人。执行力强的人能够竭尽所能执行你的理念。构思与管理是最重要的，但是其花费的时间只占到执行的十分之一左右。如果你拥有有力的执行者，那么你就能轻松完成很多事情了。

... 178) Understand the clover-leaf design. Find two or three responsible parties who have overlapping believabilities and responsibilities and who are willing to challenge and check each other. If you do this, and those people are willing to fight for what they believe is best by being open-minded and assertive at the same time, and if they escalate their disagreements and failures to you, this process will have a high probability of sorting issues that they can probably handle well from issues that you should examine and resolve with them. 

... 178) 理解四叶草形的机构设置。找两到三名业务有交叉的可信负责人，如果他们愿意，让他们监督和挑战彼此。他们能够本着开放的心态，坚定地为自认为对的事情据理力争，在碰到分歧和失败时，将问题提交给你来处理。 如果能坚持这一程序，那么他们就能将自己能够处理的问题与需要你参与处理的问题区分开。

... 179) Don’t do work for people in another department or grab people from another department to do work for you unless you speak to the boss. 

... 179) 不要为其他部门做事，也不要在没有和其他部门领导交涉的情况下从其他部门抓人来为你做事。

... 180) Watch out for “department slip.” This happens when a support department, such as HR or Facilities, mistakes its responsibilities to provide support with a responsibility to determine how the thing they are supporting should be done. An example of this sort of mistake is if those in the Recruiting department think they should determine whom we should hire or if people in HR think they should determine what our employment policies should be. Another example would be if the Facilities group determined what facilities we should have. While support departments should know the goals of the people they’re supporting and provide feedback regarding possible choices, they are not the ones to determine the vision. 

... 180) 谨防“部门职能错位”。当一个提供支持的部门，比如人力资源或后勤部门， 将支持的责任与决定被支持的工作该如何进行的责任混淆。例如，负责招聘的员工认为他们应该有权决定去雇佣谁，而人力资源的员工认为他们应该有权决定就业政策， 都是部门职能错位的现象。再比如，后勤团队去决定我们应该购置什么样的办公设施，都是这种情况。支持团队虽然需要了解他们所支持的团队的目标，提供可能的选项，但是他们却不能最终做决定。

... 181) Assign responsibilities based on workflow design and people’s abilities, not job titles. What people do should primarily be a function of the job they have, and it should be pretty obvious who should do what (if they’re suited for the job) . For example, just because someone is responsible for “human resources,” “recruiting,” “legal,” “programming,” etc., doesn’t necessarily mean they are the appropriate person to do everything associated with those functions. For example, though “Human Resources” people help with hiring, firing, and providing benefits, it would be a mistake to give them the responsibility of determining who gets hired and fired and what benefits are provided to employees. When assigning responsibilities, think about both the workflow design and a person’s abilities, not the job title. 

... 181) 在分配责任时，注意考虑工作流的设置和员工的能力，而不是岗位头衔。员工所做的工作应该是他们所在职位的主要功能，只要员工是适合自己的岗位的，那么谁负责做什么应该是显而易见的。例如，不能只因为某人负责“人力资源”、“招聘”、“法律”或“编程”，就推论他们是负责所有相关功能事项的最佳人选。尽管人力资源部门的员工会帮助招聘、解聘、员工福利，但是却不能给他们权力决定应该招谁、开除谁、提供什么样的福利。在分工时，要考虑工作流的设置和员工的能力，而不是岗位头衔。

... 182) Watch out for consultant addiction. Beware of the chronic use of consultants to do work that should be done by employees. 

... 182) 谨防过分依赖外部咨询。不要长期使用咨询来完成本该由员工自己完成的工作。

... 183) Tool: Maintain a procedures manual. This is the document in which you describe how all of the pieces of your machine work. There needs to be enough specificity so that operators of the different pieces of the machine can refer to the manual to help them do their job. The manual should be a living document that includes output from the issues log so that mistakes already identified and diagnosed aren’t repeated. It prevents forgetting previous learning and facilitates communication. 

... 183) 工具：使用流程手册。流程手册记录了整个机构各个部件运行的情况。手册的内容需要足够详细，保证机构各部门员工都能够参考手册帮助其工作。手册应该是实时更新的，需要涵盖问题日志里的成果，保证已经发现并诊断过的问题不会重复出现。实时更新手册还能巩固先前的经验，促进员工沟通。

... 184) Tool: Use checklists. When people are assigned tasks, it is generally desirable to have these captured on checklists so they can check off each item as it is done. If not, there is a risk that people will gradually not do the agreed tasks or there will be lack of clarity. Crossing items off a checklist will serve as a task reminder and confirmation of what has been done. 

... 184) 工具：使用任务清单。当员工被安排了新的工作任务时，最好能够将任务记录在清单上，当完成一项时，可以划掉相应项目。如若不然，员工可能会对已答应的工作逐渐懈怠，或记不清楚。将清单上的项目划掉的过程能够起到提醒任务的作用，确定已经完成的事项。

184a) Don’t confuse checklists with personal responsibility. People should be expected to do their job well, not just what is on their checklists. 

184a) 不要将任务清单与个人责任混为一谈。员工应该将自己的工作做好，这不仅仅局限于清单上的内容。

184b) Remember that “systematic” doesn’t necessarily mean computerized. It might mean having people do specified tasks and indicate that they have done them with checklists. 

184b) 记住，系统性并不意味着必须全部由电脑来控制。也可能意味着让员工负责具体的工作，指示他们利用清单来完成工作。

184c) Use “double-do” rather than “double-check” to make sure mission-critical tasks are done correctly. When people double-check someone else’s work, there is a much lower rate of catching errors than when two parties independently do the work and the results are compared. Double-doing is having two different people doing the same task on the same job so that two independent answers are derived. By comparing them you will not only assure better answers but you will see the differences in people’s performances and make much more rapid improvement. I use double-dos in critical areas such as finance, where large amounts of money are involved. 

184c) 要“重复工作”，不要“重复检查”，保证重要任务完成无误。当人们在检查别人的工作时，找到错误的概率要远小于两个人分别独立完成之后再就结果进行对比。重复工作就是让两组不同的人来完成同一个工作的同一项任务，由此生成两个独立的答案。通过对比两个答案，你既能确保选择一个更优的答案，又能看到两组人工作表现的差异，让员工提升更快。我在一些关键领域使用重复工作的原则，比如当涉及到大笔资金的使用，就需要员工对财政进行重复工作。

... 185) Watch out for “job slip.”Job slip is when a job changes without being explicitly thought through and agreed to, generally because of changing circumstances or a temporary necessity. Job slip will generally cause bad job design. It often leads to the wrong people handling the wrong responsibilities and confusion over who is supposed to do what. 

... 185) 谨防“职责错位”。职责错位是指在没有经过深思熟虑或达成一致的情况下改变工作职责。一般是因为情势变化或临时需要。 职责错位会给工作职能的设计带来不良影响，往往会导致错误的人承担错误的职责，也会使人弄不清到底谁应该负责什么事。

... 186) Think clearly how things should go, and when they aren’t going that way,acknowledge it and investigate. First decide which issue to address first: finding the reason the machine isn’t working well or executing the tasks required to get past the problem (in which case you need to come back to the reasons later) . Either way, don’t pass the problem by without discussing the reasons. Otherwise, you will end up with job slip. 

... 186) 考虑清楚工作应该如何开展，如果事情不是朝预期的方向发展，需要及时发现并展开调查。 首先，决定应该从哪里开始下手，即找到机制无法正常运行的原因，或者跳过问题执行其他任务，这种情况下，你需要稍后再调查问题原因。不论怎么选择，千万不要不讨论问题原因直接跳过问题。否则，你最终会陷入职责错位之中。

... 187) Have good controls so that you are not exposed to the dishonesty of others and trust is never an issue. A higher percentage of the population than you might imagine will cheat if given an opportunity, and most people who are given the choice of being “fair” with you and taking more for themselves will choose taking more for themselves. Even a tiny amount of cheating is intolerable, so your happiness and success will depend on your controls. Security controls should be viewed as a necessary tool of our profession, not as a personal affront to an individual’s integrity. Just as a bank teller doesn’t view a check on the money in his drawer as an indication that the bank thinks he is dishonest, everyone here should understand the need for our security controls. Explain this to your people so they see it in the proper context. Even the best controls will never be foolproof, and trustworthiness is a quality that should be appreciated. 

... 187) 加强监管，谨防他人的不诚实，使信任不再成为问题。只有给机会，比你预想多很多的人会选择弄虚作假，而大多数人在面临是选择公平还是占更多便宜时，总会选择占更多便宜。但是对公司运营而言，任何最小的欺骗也是不能容忍的，你的幸福和成功都取决于你的监管能力。安全控制应该被看做是职业所必须的工具，而不是针对个人人品的冒犯。就像银行柜员不会觉得查看他柜面的钱款数额是出于银行对他的不信任，所有员工必须理解安全控制的必要性。请向员工进行解释，让他们理解这样做的思路。但是，即便是最好的监管，也不可能毫无漏洞，应该鼓励员工提升自己的可靠度。

187a) People doing auditing should report to people outside the department being audited, and auditing procedures should not be made known to those being audited. 

187a) 审计人员应该向被审计部门之外的人汇报审计结果，同时审计程序不能向被审计对象透露。

187b) Remember: There is no sense in having laws unless you have policemen (auditors) .

187b) 记住，如果没有警察（审计人员），法律则形同虚设。

... 188) Do What You Set Out to Do 

... 188) 坚持到底

 

So… 
因此：

... 189) Push through! You can make great things happen, but you must MAKE great things happen. Times will come when the choice will be to plod along normally or to push through to achieve the goal. The choice should be obvious. 

... 189) 坚持到底！你能做出伟大的事情，前提是你必须要去做。总有一天，你需要选择是和往常一样拖沓行事还是排除万难达成目标。选择很明显。

As Lee Ann Womack’s country and western song says, when you have a choice between sitting it out or dancing, I hope you'll dance. 
就像李安沃马克在乡村西部歌曲中唱到的那样，当你面临逃避还是跳舞的选择，我希望你选择跳舞。

 

 

... 192) Understand that the ability to deal with not knowing is far more powerful than knowing. That is because there’s way more that we don’t know than what we could possibly ever know. 

... 192) 要知道，处理无知的能力要比知道能力更强大。这是因为一个人的所知一定远远少于未知。

 

197d) Don’t bet too much on anything. Make 15 or more good, uncorrelated bets. 

197d) 任何事情都不能押过多赌注，要留15%或更多余地给无关联的赌注。

 

... 198) Remember the 80/20 Rule, and Know What the Key20% Is 

... 198）牢记80/20法则，并知道那关键的20%是什么

199a) Don’t be a perfectionist, because perfectionists often spend too much time on little differences atthe margins at the expense of other big, important things. Be an effective imperfectionist. Solutions that broadly work well (e.g., how people should contact each other in the event of crises) are generally better than highly specialized solutions (e.g., how each person should contact each other in the event of every conceivable crisis) , especially in the early stages of a plan. There generally isn’t much gained by lots of detail relative to a good broad solution. Complicated procedures are tough to remember, and it takes a lot of time to make such detailed plans (so they might not even be ready when needed) . 

199a) 不要做完美主义者。因为完美主义者在细微差别上过于耗时，因小失大。要成为有效率的非完美主义者。宽泛的解决方案（比方说，遭遇危机时，大家如何保持联络）一般比极为专业的解决方案（比方说，面对任何一种可能想到的危机时，大家如何保持联络）要更好，这在方案设计初期尤为明显。宽泛合理的解决方案比充斥了一堆繁杂细节的方案能带来更多益处，因为过程太复杂不易记住，制定细节庞杂的方案也很耗时间，甚至到需要派上用场时，也可能还未完成。

199d) Don’t mistake small things for unimportant things, because some small things can be very important (e.g., hugging a loved one) . 

199d) 不要混淆小事情和不重要事项，因为小事情也可能很重要（举个例子，给爱的人一个简单的拥抱就是这如此）。

... 204) Understand the concept and use the phrase “by and large.” Too often I hear discussions fail to progress when a statement is made and the person to whom it is made replies, “Not always,” leading to a discussion of the exceptions rather than the rule. For example, a statement like “The people in the XYZ Department are working too many hours” might lead to a response like “Not all of them are; Sally and Bill are working normal hours,” which could lead to a discussion of whether Sally and Bill are working too long, which derails the discussion. Because nothing is 100% true, conversations can get off track if they turn to whether exceptions exist, which is especially foolish if both parties agree that the statement is by and large true. To avoid this problem, the person making such statements might use the term “by and large,” like “By and large, the people in the XYZ Department are working too many hours.” People hearing that should consider whether it is a “by and large” statement and treat it accordingly. 

... 204）理解并运用“总体来说”的概念。我老听到这种情况，当有人提出了一个观点，参与讨论的人回复说，“也不总这样啊”，这时，讨论就会陷入僵局。因为他那样一说，大家就会开始不谈常规情况，而开始商讨各种例外情况。举个例子，有人说：“某某部门的员工工作时间太长了。”那别人可能就会回应说：“也不全是吧，萨莉和比尔上班时间就挺正常的呀。”这样一说，大家讨论的重点就会变成萨莉和比尔上班时间到底长不长，这就偏离了讨论要点。因为事事无绝对，讨论重心若放在研究是否存在例外情况的话，对话就偏离了正轨，要双方本来就都觉得这件事“总体来说”没问题的话，这样做就更蠢了。为避免这个问题，发表论述的人可能会说“总体来说”，比如：“总体来说，某某部门的员工工作时间挺长的。”听者就要考虑着是不是“总体来说”句式，并依此处理。

204a) When you ask someone whether something is true and they tell you that “It’s not totally true,” it’s probably true enough. 

204a) 当询问某事的真实性时，若对方告诉你“也不完全是事实”时，其实也八九不离十了。

... 207) Understand what an acceptable rate of improvement is, and that it is the level and not the rate of change that matters most. I often hear people say, “It’s getting better,” asthough that is good enough when “it” is both below that bar and improving at an inadequate rate. That isn’t good enough. For example, if someone who has been getting 30s and 40s on tests raised his grade to the 50s, you could say he’s improving but the level is still woefully inadequate. Everything important you manage has to be on a trajectory to be “above the bar” and headed for “excellent” at an acceptable pace. For example, in the chart below, the trajectory of A might be acceptable, but B’s trajectory is not. A gets us above the bar in an acceptable amount of time. 

... 207）知道可接受的改善速度是多少，因为改变的程度比改变的速度更重要。我老听人讲“情况越来越好了”。然而实际情况是低于预期，改善速度还很慢，这样的情况根本就称不上好。举个例子，假如有个老是考30-40分的人这次考到了50多分，你可以说他进步了，但离令人满意的分数还差得远。你所掌握的每件事情，都应朝着“高于预期”，争取“卓越”的轨迹上稳步前进。如下表所示，A的运行轨迹是可以接受的，但B的运行轨迹无法令人接受。A的轨迹高于预期，并在合理的一段时间内实现。

... 210) Don’t try to please everyone. Not everyone is going to be happy about every decision you make,especially the decisions that say they can’t do something. 

... 210）不要试图取悦所有人。你做的每个决策都不可能让每个人都满意，尤其是当决策否决了某些人的做法时，他们更是不会满意的。

 

转载于:https://www.cnblogs.com/infocodez/p/7898677.html