每日原則：持續培訓、測試、評估和調配員工

你的員工和設計都必須要進步來使你的機器更完善。當你把個人發展做好，回報就會非常顯著。隨著員工表現越來越好，他們就越能獨立思考、深入提問，幫你改進機器。他們進步得越快，你的成果提高也就越快。

你在員工個人進步中發揮的作用始於對其優缺點的真實評估，隨後是制定計劃來透過培訓或換崗讓他們揚長避短。在橋水，新員工常常被這類對話的坦率和直接嚇著，但它既非個人攻擊，也非基於等級，沒人能躲過這種批評。總體而言，對管理層及其部下而言，這一過程很艱難，但長期來看，它使人們更愉快，使橋水更成功。要記住，令多數人最開心的是，他們能夠不斷完善，發揮專長，並不斷提升自我。所以認識到你員工的短處，與認識到他們的長處（對他們和對你）一樣有價值。

即使你在推動別人發展，你也要不斷評估他們是否出色地履行了他們的職責。這並不容易做到客觀，因為你通常與下屬的關係很好，可能不願意在他們表現不達標時準確地評價他們。同樣地，你可能會給在某個方面觸怒你的員工，他/她本不該得的差評。創意擇優需要客觀，我們開發的很多管理工具就是出於這個目的，給我們提供不帶偏見的員工情況和業績表現，獨立於任何管理者的偏見。當管理者和下屬對一項評估意見不一致，需要其他人介入解決分歧時，這方面的資料就很關鍵。

幾年前，我們有一位員工想擔任某部門的負責人。那個部門的前任負責人已離職，時任CEO格雷格需要評估這位此前擔任部門副手的員工是否具備添補這個空缺的能力。那位員工認為他行，格雷格和其他人認為他不行。但是這個決定並不像CEO“說了算”那麼簡單，我們想有依據地做出決定。藉助了我們能持續收集反饋資訊的集點器系統，針對那項工作的素質要求，我們有數百個資料點，包括綜合推理、瞭解他所未知的、在合適的層面開展管理。於是，我們把所有資料打到螢幕上，共同認真審視。然後我們問那位員工，看著這些證據，如果讓他決定是否應聘用自己出任那個職位，他會怎麼做。他退後一步，接受了客觀的證據，同意調到橋水更適合他能力的其他崗位上。

幫人獲得技能很容易，通常只要給他們提供適當的培訓就行，要想提升能力卻很難，但這對長此以往有能力承擔更大責任來說至關重要。而你絕對不能依靠的是改變一個人的價值觀。在每種關係裡，總會有某個時刻你必須決定雙方是否適合彼此，這在私人生活裡和秉持高標準的機構裡都很普遍。在橋水，我們清楚我們的文化根基不可妥協，所以如果一個人不能在一段時期內適應，那就必須走人。

每個領導者都要在如下兩種情況中選一：（1）辭掉能力不足但倍受喜愛的人，從而獲得成功；（2）留下能力不足的好人，等待失敗。不管怎樣，能否做出這些艱難的抉擇會對你的成敗有決定意義。在橋水這樣的文化裡，你沒有選擇。即便當時可能很難，但你必須選擇卓越，因為這對所有人都是最好的。

Both your people and your design must evolve for your machine to improve. When you get personal evolution right, the returns are exponential. As people get better and better, they are more able to think independently, probe, and help you refine your machine. The faster they evolve, the faster your outcomes will improve.

Your part in an employee’s personal evolution begins with a frank assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, followed by a plan for how their weaknesses can be mitigated either through training or by switching to a different job that taps into their strengths and preferences. At Bridgewater, new employees are often taken aback by how frank and direct such conversations can be, but it’s not personal or hierarchical—no one is exempt from this kind of criticism. While this process is generally difficult for both managers and their subordinates, in the long run it has made people happier and Bridgewater more successful. Remember that most people are happiest when they are improving and doing the things that suit them naturally and help them advance. So learning about your people’s weaknesses is just as valuable (for them and for you) as is learning their strengths.

Even as you help people develop, you must constantly assess whether they are able to fulfill their responsibilities excellently. This is not easy to do objectively since you will often have meaningful relationships with your reports and may be reluctant to evaluate them accurately if their performance isn’t at the bar. By the same token, you may be tempted to give an employee who rubs you the wrong way a worse evaluation than he or she deserves. An idea meritocracy requires objectivity. Many of the management tools we have developed were built to do just that, providing us with an unbiased picture of people and their performance independent of the biases of any one manager. This data is essential in cases where a manager and a report are out of sync on an assessment and others are called in to resolve the dispute.

A few years ago, one of our employees was serving in a trial role as a department head. The prior department head had left the firm, and Greg, who was then CEO, was assessing whether this employee, who had previously been a deputy, had the right abilities to step into the role. The employee thought he did; Greg and others thought he did not. But this decision was not as simple as the CEO “making the call.” We want decisions to be more evidence-based. As a result of our Dot Collector system of constant feedback, we had literally hundreds of data points on the specific attributes required for the job, including synthesis, knowing what he didn’t know, and managing at the right level. So we put all this data onto the screen and stared hard at it together. We then asked the employee to look at that body of evidence and reflect on what he would do if he were in the position of deciding whether he’d hire himself for the job. Once he was able to step back and look at the objective evidence, he agreed to move on and try another role at Bridgewater more suited to his strengths.

Helping people acquire skills is easy—it’s typically a matter of providing them with appropriate training. Improvements in abilities are more difficult but essential to expanding what a person can be responsible for over time. And changing someone’s values is some- thing you should never count on. In every relationship, there comes a point when you must decide whether you are meant for each other— that’s common in private life and at any organization that holds high standards. At Bridgewater, we know that we cannot compromise on the fundamentals of our culture, so if a person can’t get to the bar in an acceptable time frame, he or she must leave.

Every leader must decide between 1) getting rid of liked but incapable people to achieve their goals and 2) keeping the nice but incapable people and not achieving their goals. Whether or not you can make these hard decisions is the strongest determinant of your own success or failure. In a culture like Bridgewater’s, you have no choice. You must choose excellence, even though it might be difficult at the moment, because it’s best for everyone.