I interviewed at Bridgewater a few years ago. I ended up passing on the job but it was tempting.
I love the idea of strong feedback. I've always wanted work to feel like I'm lifting weights with my buddies: We constantly critique each other. We all want to get better and any advice or critique is welcome.
In general, withholding criticism is a sign that either:
1. The person needing advice is more concerned with their ego than actually getting better. They get mad about criticism or find it hurtful.
2. The person who is withholding advice either has nefarious purposes, has a low option of you (they assume you fall into category 1), or simply doesn't care about helping you.
Criticism is the respectful, professional thing to do. It assumes the best in people - that they're trying their best and want to get better.
You shouldn't be an asshole by the way. If you phrase your criticism in a way where someone is likely to get defensive then it's less likely to be effective. Empathy is an important skill in teaching.
After years spent working with companies in SF - where criticism is generally avoided at all costs - Bridgewater piqued my interest.
I tried to discern if Bridgewater shared my outlook but, ultimately, I just couldn't tell. I asked extremely pointed questions - uncomfortable things I wouldn't normally ask in an interview. But I figured they wanted radical candor, right?
I asked every interviewer things like "How important is making sure people actually hear this criticism?", or "Couldn't people just use this as an excuse to be a jerk?". All the answers were wishy-washy.
Plus, they force constant feedback. More feedback is good. But constant? It felt like it'd be, at best, distracting. And at worst, like it would lead to a lot of false criticism. If you _have_ to criticize, even if you don't have an opinion, then are you really making people better?
In the end I got the impression that they value criticism for the sake of criticism. And it generally seemed like giving criticism was more highly valued than ensuring people actually heard what you were saying (communication skills and empathy weren't emphasized). They'd confused the forest for the trees.
I had a chat with someone working at Bridgewater. After meetings they basically debrief with feedback. Even internal meetings. This person seemed pretty happy with it, but it seemed like a bit of overkill? I have 3-6 meetings a day, am I really going to hear feedback for each?
And the issue I have with feedback is that there is a big difference between feedback to improve something where the person is deficient (e.g. you should learn about net present value), and feedback that is just about the person's style (e.g. you ask too many questions).
People are different. There is more than one way to skin a cat. For example, some people develop a solution through an analytical approach - defining a goal, looking at all options, coming up with some objective way to rank them, then filtering down.
Other people do it in a very "messy" way (or what some percive as messy). They immediately come up with a solution, then refine as they go based on what they learn and what other people think (e.g. questions, opinions, etc).
Is one way better than the other? No. But if someone kept giving me feedback on my particular style, I'd start to get annoyed. If it's not wrong, then there shouldn't be feedback. You actually want people with different styles, it can prevent group think and personally, I learn a lot by working with people who approach problems different.
I get the sense Bridgewater feedback is just used to shape behaviors in the model of some ideal form (i.e. the New Soviet Man), not feedback that improve people whatever their style is. But I might be wrong.
I love the idea of strong feedback. I've always wanted work to feel like I'm lifting weights with my buddies: We constantly critique each other. We all want to get better and any advice or critique is welcome.
In general, withholding criticism is a sign that either:
1. The person needing advice is more concerned with their ego than actually getting better. They get mad about criticism or find it hurtful.
2. The person who is withholding advice either has nefarious purposes, has a low option of you (they assume you fall into category 1), or simply doesn't care about helping you.
Criticism is the respectful, professional thing to do. It assumes the best in people - that they're trying their best and want to get better.
You shouldn't be an asshole by the way. If you phrase your criticism in a way where someone is likely to get defensive then it's less likely to be effective. Empathy is an important skill in teaching.
After years spent working with companies in SF - where criticism is generally avoided at all costs - Bridgewater piqued my interest.
I tried to discern if Bridgewater shared my outlook but, ultimately, I just couldn't tell. I asked extremely pointed questions - uncomfortable things I wouldn't normally ask in an interview. But I figured they wanted radical candor, right?
I asked every interviewer things like "How important is making sure people actually hear this criticism?", or "Couldn't people just use this as an excuse to be a jerk?". All the answers were wishy-washy.
Plus, they force constant feedback. More feedback is good. But constant? It felt like it'd be, at best, distracting. And at worst, like it would lead to a lot of false criticism. If you _have_ to criticize, even if you don't have an opinion, then are you really making people better?
In the end I got the impression that they value criticism for the sake of criticism. And it generally seemed like giving criticism was more highly valued than ensuring people actually heard what you were saying (communication skills and empathy weren't emphasized). They'd confused the forest for the trees.