Part 3-1: Radical Truth and Radical Transparency

To be great, you can never compromise the uncompromisable. To Dalio, the uncompromisable is finding out the objective truth and making the best decision.

Many other things are compromisable—people’s emotions, ego, anxiety, and “little deals” that distract from the “big deal” of knowing and acting on the truth. All of these can be sacrificed in the name of making the best decision and finding the objective truth.

Radical truth and transparency are critical to building the best idea meritocracy. If you have access to more truthful information, you can make better decisions. When everyone is able to hear what everyone else is thinking, learning compounds and the organization gets better.

In contrast, hiding the truth from people is like letting your kids grow up while still believing in the Tooth Fairy.

Radical Truth

Radical truth means not putting a filter on your thoughts. You reveal your thoughts and questions relentlessly. You surface issues immediately instead of hiding them.

When the entire organization does this, it creates opportunities to have thoughtful disagreement and see things through each other’s eyes. It surfaces disagreements when they first appear, rather than letting them fester under the surface.

In contrast, at many workplaces, people tend to hide their real thoughts, and they bury problems and disagreements. This aggravates misunderstandings or disagreements, and it leads to larger conflicts and distance between team members.

At Bridgewater, everyone has not only the privilege but also the obligation to speak up publicly. For example, an employee sent Ray an email that read, “you deserve a D- for your performance in the meeting...it was obvious that you did not prepare at all.” In how many companies is it encouraged to send the founder/CEO an email like this?

People at Bridgewater are obligated to say what they say to people’s faces, instead of talking behind their backs. Gossip shows a lack of integrity and is considered the worst thing possible at Bridgewater. People who do this are called “slimy weasels.”

Short-Term Painful, Long-Term Helpful

As discussed in the decision-making chapter, some good things in life cause short-term pain but long-term gains. This applies to radical truth.

Often the cost to radical truth is open criticism and the discomfort that follows. But this should be seen as a sign of tough love. It’s a sign of caring and respect to tell people what they need to improve.

Dalio expects that when he does something dumb, other people should tell him so immediately and to his face. To do otherwise would be unproductive and unethical.

In essence, radical truth is an organizational reflection of the idea, “Pain + Reflection = Progress.” People who can internalize this on an individual level can operate similarly on the organizational level.

If you’re clear about why you’re being radically truthful, there won’t be any misunderstandings about your intent. People will understand why you’re being tough on them—because your purpose is to arrive at the truth, not to prove that any one person is right or wrong.

Radical truth creates a powerful freedom of thought. When you align what you feel and what you say, life gets simpler. You can focus on the most important things, and you’ll be happier.

Mistakes are OK

In many organizations, hiding mistakes is standard, and people feel they’ll be punished for mistakes. This has the counterproductive effect of hiding the organization’s weak points and lowers performance.

In reality, mistakes are key opportunities for learning. They inevitably cause pain, but that pain is the signal to reflect and diagnose the mistake. You should create a culture that has this mindset as a core value. Ideally, everyone embodies the Life Principles described in the previous part of this summary.

In the organization, it should be OK to make mistakes, admit them, and learn from them. It should never be OK to hide mistakes or to avoid learning from them.

Radical Transparency

Radical transparency lets everyone see everything. Everyone gets access to the full truthful information, rather than having it filtered through other people first. In turn, people with better information can make better decisions, and the organization draws on the full power of its people.

At Bridgewater, radical transparency means:

  • All meetings and interviews are recorded and made available to the entire team.
  • Baseball cards show each person’s strengths and weaknesses.
  • During meetings, a dot collector tool lets people submit real-time impressions of each other in meetings. For example, while you’re giving a presentation, others might give you ratings of being “a poor presenter” or “great at understanding detail,” and this is made public for everyone to see.

Radical transparency has a range of important benefits:

  • It reduces politics, since everything’s out in the open.
  • It reduces bad behavior, since it can be monitored.
    • At first, lawyers thought recording everything would be a liability in lawsuits and regulatory action. In reality, radical transparency limited bad behavior to begin with, since people knew they were being watched. It even protected people when they were accused of things they didn’t do.
  • It prevents the syndrome of people doing two jobs—their actual job, and the job of managing others’ impressions of them.
  • Justice is more likely to prevail correctly, because decisions aren’t just made behind closed doors by powerful people.
  • Learning is amplified by other people’s experiences. For example, recorded meetings provide training scenarios, where new employees can simulate their responses to real situations.

Dalio suggests that you should be radically transparent as a default, with very few exceptions. Often the most difficult information to share is the most important to share, because it builds the trust of people you are sharing it with. Consider the second- and third-order consequences of not sharing something.

Bridgewater has only a few exceptions to radical transparency:

  • When information is private or personal and doesn’t pertain to the community (such as personal health issues).
  • When information puts the long-term interests of Bridgewater or its clients at risk (such as trading details that competitors can use, intellectual property, or audits of departments).
  • When the value of sharing is low but the risk of distraction is high (such as compensation, or information that will be distorted by the media).
  • People who show they cannot handle transparency lose their privilege to transparency and are often removed from Bridgewater.

When practiced well, radical truth and radical transparency have a flywheel effect that gets stronger. The more care you give each other, the tougher you can be on each other, the better you will perform, and the more rewards you get.

Caveats to Radical Truth and Transparency

Radical truth and transparency aren’t easy to execute. Dalio cautions against a few issues:

Dishonesty Will Happen

People will continue to lie, and there will be dishonest people no matter what you try to do. Don’t be naive about this. When they’re caught, they’ll say they’ll never do it again, but they most likely will.

Yet Dalio doesn’t see it as an absolute rule, since firing everyone who has ever lied would mean he’d have no one to work with.

Instead, treat each case of dishonesty independently, and decide it based on the severity of the transgression and the prior history. Get rid of habitual liars.

Then deter future bad behavior with “public hangings” where violators are made examples of.

Adjustment Time is Needed

Radical truth and transparency are so different from how most places operate that most people need an adjustment period. Bridgewater finds that new employees can take 18 months to adjust fully, and many people never adjust at all and leave.

Radical truth and transparency also need to be managed to avoid excesses. With access to all this information, people can get involved in more things than they should. Likewise, people who can’t weigh information responsibly may draw the wrong conclusions from all the data they see.

How to Get in Sync and Stay in Sync

Getting in sync means getting alignment on all levels, and resolving misunderstandings and disagreements. While it can cost time and energy in the short-term, getting in sync is a great investment, because it helps people resolve their differences and move closer to the truth.

Radical truth, thoughtful disagreement, and radical open-mindedness are necessary to get in sync.

There are endless numbers of disagreements that can possibly be resolved. Prioritize getting in sync on the most important issues with the most believable parties. Make a list of disagreements in priority, then go down the list.

  • Downweigh what Dalio calls “chirping,” which is complaining from people who don’t take the full picture into account or who are close-minded.

Be Open-Minded and Assertive

To resolve disagreements, you need to be open-minded and assertive at the same time. You must see things through the other’s eyes while communicating clearly how you see things. This is essential to the idea meritocracy.

Most people find it easier to be assertive, since it’s easier to share how you see things than to empathize with the other person. Remind these people that the real winners are those who change their minds, since they learned something.

Other people are not assertive enough, and they’re too willing to accept others’ conclusions. Hiding your viewpoints hampers the idea meritocracy, since the best ideas result when all ideas are laid on the table.

Suggestions Are Not Criticisms

Keep in mind that suggesting things and questioning are not the same as criticizing. This is the difference between “watch out for the ice” vs “you’re being careless and not looking for the ice.” Your ego may confuse the two.

A person making suggestions may not have concluded a mistake will be made—they’re just double checking.

Managing Group Meetings

Here are tips managing meetings to be more effective:

  • Make clear who is leading the meeting and what the goals are.
    • A meeting aimed to educate should be run differently from a debate between different opinions.
  • Limit the participation to whom you value most for your objectives.
    • For debating a topic, 3-5 smart people may be better than 20, due to the decreasing marginal benefits of new perspectives, and inefficiency in coordinating a larger group.
    • For educating, more people should be involved, since this increases leverage.
  • Make clear what level the meeting is operating on: the principle/machine level, the case-at-hand level, or the specific-fact level. Be conscious of how the conversation navigates between levels.
  • If someone inexperienced offers an opinion, weigh the cost of exploring their opinion vs. the gain in assessing their thinking.
  • Avoid topic slip by tracking the conversation on a whiteboard so everyone can see where it’s going.
  • For regular meetings, have standardized meeting agendas.

General Tactics for Conversations

Here are tips for navigating conversations, in group meetings or outside of them:

  • Start by assuming you’re not communicating or listening well, rather than blaming the other party.
  • Repeat what you’re hearing to make sure you’re getting it.
    • When hearing a question, repeat the question to be clear what is being asked and answered.
  • Worry about the substance of what is being said more than the style.
    • If you’re bothered by someone’s style of communication, compartmentalize it as a separate issue, and focus on what they’re saying.
  • If someone says “I feel like [X] is true,” ask them, “Is it true? How do you know?” to ground them in facts.
  • If someone is getting interrupted, use the 2-minute rule. This means the person has two minutes to talk without being interrupted. It gives the person a chance to explain her reasoning completely.
  • Beware of “assertive fast talkers”—they say things faster than can be comprehended to deter objections. This is especially effective against people who are worried about looking dumb.
    • To neutralize fast talkers, say “I’m sorry for being dumb, but I need to slow you down to understand what you’re saying.”
  • If either party is too emotional to be logical, defer the conversation by hours or days.
  • End the conversation by stating the conclusions.
    • If there isn’t agreement, say so.
    • If there is further action, make a to-do list, and assign people tasks with specific deadlines.
  • Get leverage in your communications by sharing. Share emails with meeting conclusions or recordings of meetings.