2.2 be crystal clear on what thedeal is
火眼金睛 了如指掌
To have a good relationship, youmust be clear with each other about what the quid pro quo is—what is generous,what is fair, and what is just plain taking advantage—and how you will be witheach other.
One important thing thattypically divides people is how they approach their work. Are they working justfor their paycheck or are they looking for something more? Each of us has ourown views about what is most important. I’ve made a lot of money through mywork, but I see my job as much more than as a way to make money—it’s how Ichoose to live out my values around excellence, meaningful work, and meaningfulrelationships. If the people I worked with were primarily interested in making money,we would have conflicts whenever we had to choose between upholding our valuesand making an easy buck. Don’t get me wrong—of course I understand that peopledon’t work for personal satisfaction alone, and that a job must be economicallyviable. But we all have definite ideas about what we value and what we want ourrelationships to be like, and employers and employees have to be in sync onsuch things.
Naturally there will be disagreementand negotiation, but some things cannot be compromised and you and youremployees must know what those things are. This is especially true if you’reseeking to create an environment that has shared values, a deep commitment tothe mission, and high standards of behavior.
At Bridgewater, we expect peopleto behave in a manner that is consistent with how people in high-quality,long-term relationships behave—that is, with a high level of mutualconsideration for each other’s interests and a clear understanding of who isresponsible for what. On the surface, that sounds nice and straightforward, butwhat exactly does that mean? It is important to be clear.
Take for example a case in whichan employee’s family member is diagnosed with a severe illness, or an employeedies tragically, leaving his or her family in a precarious situation. Thesethings happen far more often than any of us would like them to, and there areof course customs and laws that define the basic accommodations and benefits(such as personal vacation days, short- and long-term disability insurance, andlife insurance) that are required. But how do you determine what kinds ofassistance should be provided beyond that? What are the principles for decidinghow to handle each specific situation fairly—which may not always mean doingthe same thing in every case?
None of this is easy, but thefollowing principles provide some guidance.
a. Make sure people givemore consideration to others than they demand for themselves. This is arequirement.
Being considerate means allowingother people to mostly do what they want, so long as it is consistent with our principles,policies, and the law. It also means being willing to put others ahead of yourown desires. If the people on both sides of an argument approach theirdisagreements in this way, we will have many fewer disputes about who isoffending whom.
Still, judgments will have to bemade and lines will have to be drawn and set down in policies.
This is the overarchingguideline: It is more inconsiderate to prevent people from exercising theirrights because you are offended by them than it is for them to do whatever itis that offends you. That said, it is inconsiderate not to weigh the impact ofone’s actions on others, so we expect people to use sensible judgment in notdoing obviously offensive things. There are some behaviors that are clearlyoffensive to many people, and it is appropriate to specify and prohibit them inclear policies. The list of those specifics, and the policies pertaining tothem, arise from specific cases. Applying this principle to them is done inmuch the same way that case law is created.
b. Make sure that peopleunderstand the difference between fairness and generosity. Sometimes peoplemistake generosity for not being fair. For example, when Bridgewater arrangedfor a bus to shuttle people who live in New York City to our Connecticutoffice, one employee asked, “It seems it would be fair to also compensate thoseof us who spend hundreds of dollars on gas each month, particularly in light ofthe New York City bus.” This line of thinking mistakes an act of generosity forsome for an entitlement for everyone.
Fairness and generosity aredifferent things. If you bought two birthday gifts for two of your closestfriends, and one cost more than the other, what would you say if the friend whogot the cheaper gift accused you of being unfair? Probably something like, “Ididn’t have to get you any gift, so stop complaining.” At Bridgewater, we aregenerous with people (and I am personally generous), but we feel no obligationto be measured and equal in our generosity.
Generosity is good andentitlement is bad, and they can easily be confused, so be crystal clear on whichis which. Decisions should be based on what you believe is warranted in aparticular circumstance and what will be most appreciated. If you want to havea community of people who have both high-quality, long-term relationships and ahigh sense of personal responsibility, you can’t allow a sense of entitlementto creep in.
c. Know where the line isand be on the far side of fair. The line is what’s fair, appropriate, orrequired, as distinct from what’s generous, in light of the defined quid proquo relationship between parties. As mentioned earlier, you should expectpeople to behave in a manner consistent with how people in high-quality,long-term relationships behave—with a high level of mutual consideration foreach other’s interests and a clear understanding of who is responsible forwhat. Each should operate on the far side of fair, by which I mean giving moreconsideration to others than you demand for yourself. This is different fromhow people in most commercial relationships generally behave, as they tend tofocus more on their own interests than on the interests of others or of thecommunity as a whole. If each party says “You deserve more,” “No, you deservemore,” rather than “I deserve more,” you are more likely to have generous, goodrelationships.
d. Pay for work. While itisn’t all about the quid pro quo between the company and the employee, thisbalance must be economically viable for the relationships to be sustainable.Set policies that clearly define this quid pro quo, and be measured, but notexcessively precise, when shifting it around. While you should by and largestick to the arrangement, you should also recognize that there are rare,special times when employees will need a bit of extra time off and there aretimes that the company will require employees to give it extra hours. Thecompany should pay for above-normal work one way or another, and employeesshould be docked for below-normal work. The give-and-take should roughly equalout over time. Within reasonable boundaries, nobody should worry about theexact ebbs and flows. But if the needs of one side change on a sustained basis,the financial arrangement will need to be readjusted to establish a new,appropriate relationship.
译文：
想拥有好的关系，你必须对彼此间能交换的了如指掌—什么是慷慨，什么是公平，什么是利用—你们将如何相处。
人们之间典型的分别的重要的一件事是他们如何完成工作。仅仅为了报酬还是追寻其他东西？对于什么是最重要的，我们每个人都有各自的观点。我从工作中赚的了很多钱，但我将我的工作视为远比赚钱的工具多的多—也就是为什么我选择践行我的价值比如优秀，有意义的工作，有意义的关系。如果和我一起工作的人主要兴趣在于赚钱，那么我们必然在轻松赚钱和践行价值之间选择时发生冲突。不要误会我—当然我知道人们不仅仅为了个人满足感工作，工作同时必须是经济可行的。我们肯定有确定的办法确定何为价值和决定关系的走向，雇员和雇主必须在这方面达成一致。
自然就会有不一致和谈判，但有些事是不能妥协的，你和你的雇员一定要明白那些事情是什么。尤其是你视图建立一个分享价值，承诺，高标准的环境时这些尤其真实。
在桥水，我们期望人们坚持一致的方式-高素质，长期关系应有的方式。就是高度默契，认可，欣赏成人之间的价值观和兴趣爱好，明晰责任。至少在表面上听起来很美好和简单，但这究竟意味着什么呐？必须明确。
举例一个雇员的家庭成员诊断得了重病，或者雇员不幸死亡，而留给他或她的家庭带来不幸。这些情况通常比我们希望发生多得多，当然有法律和规则会保证基本的居住和个人利益（例如个人休假，短期-长期残疾保险，生命保障）
需要。但你怎么确定除此之外的保障那？怎样公平对待每一种特殊情况的原则是-可不是每次都做同样的事情能解决的？
没有一样是容易的，但接下来的原则会提供一些指导。
a. 确保人们有能力和意愿为他人提供必要的考虑。这是必要条件。
体贴入微意味着允许他人做他们想做的，只要符合我们的原则，规则，法律。也意味着愿意为他人的愿望而牺牲自己。如果人们能多这样处理纠纷，我们将少很多纠纷。
当然，任然需要评判，制定规则，制定政策。
这是总的指导原则。如果因为人们行使自身权利而冒犯自己就阻止人们是轻率的，那就是说，不衡量个人行为对他人的影响一样是不周的。所以我们期望人们能明白适可而止，有分寸。有一些很明显出格的行为，这时就应该在政策里明确规定与禁止。那些特定活动列表，有关的政策，从特定活动产生的政策。与法律针对特定情况制定一样，针对特定事件也有特定原则。
b. 确保人们理解公平与慷慨的区别。有时人们会误将慷慨认为是不公平。举例，当桥水为居住在纽约城的人安排巴士运输到康涅狄格的办公室，一个雇员问，“看起来为我们这些在纽约村的人，补偿几百美金的燃气巴士是很公平的”这种错误的思维方式就是一种将某些人的慷慨当做所有人的公平了。
公平与慷慨是不同的。如果你买了两个生日礼物为你的两个最亲密的朋友，一个礼物比另一个要贵重，如果拿到便宜礼物对朋友对此指责你会怎么想？也许有些事就像“我甚至没有礼物，所以停止抱怨吧”在桥水，我对雇员们很慷慨（我个人的慷慨），但我没义务衡量和平均我的慷慨。
慷慨是好的，而权利不好，他们通常容易混淆，所以请搞清楚他们。决策应该基于你在特定环境下得以保障的信任和最赞赏的。如果你想与那些好素质，有着长期联系，良好的责任感的人产生链接，你不能让权力参与其中。
c. 知道界限在哪里。站在公平的一侧。界限就是公平，恰当或者被需要。这就是慷慨的独特属性，与他人交换关系的准则。就像早前提到的，你应期待人们拥有与那些高素质，长期紧密关系的人应该拥有的行为方式—尊重各自的兴趣和爱好，并清楚双方的责任。每个人都遵守公平原则，多为他人着想。这就是商业场合的关系的区别，他们总是将自己的兴趣和需要凌驾于他人或者团体利益之上。如果一个团队认为“你应该得到更多”你很可能得到了慷慨的，好的链接。
d.公平支付报酬。当然这不全是公司和雇员之间的那种交换关系，必须是经济学上的动态的持续的可行的平衡状态。必须为这种交换设定明确的政策，可衡量的，但又不过分苛刻，适当可调。同时你应该是可控的，你应该也知道很少，特殊的时候雇员需要多一点额外的时间，而公司会要求雇员加班。公司应该为工作之外付加班费或报酬，而雇员也会因为低效工作而停止。而在时间维度上这种互让应该大致保持平衡。在可推理的范围内，没有人会担心起伏，但如果一方的要求改变了这种持续的基础，经济学就会重新矫正并建立一个新的，恰当的关系。
z
网友评论