每日原则: 要保持极度透明

如果你认同真正的创意择优具有极为强大的作用，你就不会觉得让员工有权自己了解情况有多困难，这比强制向他们灌输信息要好得多。极度透明能使问题摆到桌面上，最重要（同时也最令人不安）的是，要把人们正在应对的问题及应对方式公之于众，使机构能够利用所有员工的智慧和能力来寻求解决之道。最终，对习惯于此的人来说，相比身处重重迷雾而对事情发展、人们的真实态度一无所知，生活在极度透明的环境里更令人感到舒坦。同时，这是极其有效的。但需要说明的是，跟多数极好的事物一样，它也有自己的缺点。最大的不足在于，大多数人最初很难应对令人不适的现实。如果管理不善，可能使大家卷入很多不相干的事务，导致那些不能甄别信息的人得出错误结论。 

例如，如果把机构遇到的所有问题都公之于众，并指出每个问题都不可容忍，可能会使得一些人错误地以为自己所在的机构比另一家隐瞒事实的机构面临了更多无法容忍的问题。但哪个机构更可能成就卓越呢？究竟是揭露问题并宣称问题不可容忍的机构，还是隐瞒事实的机构？ 

别误解我的意思：极度透明绝非纤毫毕现。它是指比一般情况下要更透明。我们当然也会就一些情况保密，例如涉及个人的健康状况或很私密的问题、知识产权或安全保卫的敏感细节、重要交易的执行时间，以及若泄漏给媒体至少在短期内易被歪曲、大肆渲染或恶意误读的事项。在之后的原则中，你将详细了解我们的观点，即什么时间、什么情况下透明是有益的，而什么时间、什么情况下不宜公开。

坦率地说，当初我提出要做到极度透明时，我也不晓得会发生什么情况。我只知道这极其重要，必须坚决推行并使之实现。我不断确立新的极限，并惊叹其良好的效果。例如，当我们开始对所有的会议进行录音时，我们的律师认为我们疯了，因为我们这是在保存证据，一旦遇上法律诉讼，或者监管机构如美国证券交易委员会的调查，便可用来对付我们。在回应这个问题时，我给出的理论解释是，极度透明会降低我们做错事的风险以及我们不当处置错误的风险。从这个意义上来说，录音实际上是在保护我们自己。如果我们做得好，这样的透明度就可以明确地传递出这个信息（当然，这是假设所有各方都是理性的——虽然并不能总是做这样的假设）；如果我们做得很糟糕，这样的透明度会确保我们得到应有的教训，而从长期看来，这对我们也是有益的。

当时，我还不太有把握，但我们的经历已经多次证明了这个理论的正确性。桥水受到的法律诉讼或监管调查少之又少，很大程度上是缘于我们的极度透明。因为在极度透明的情况下，做坏事更难，发现事实、解决纠纷则更容易。在过去的几十年间，我们从未经历过重大的法律诉讼或监管处罚。 

随着规模的增大、经营的成功，公司自然会招致更多的媒体关注，记者也深知用声色犬马、充满争议的故事比不偏不倚的报道能吸引更多的眼球。桥水在此类报道面前尤其显得脆弱，因为我们秉承的是把问题摆到桌面上，在公司内部公开分享的文化，而这也让我们面临信息泄漏的问题。我们应该放弃坚持透明从而避免这类问题吗？我发现，受那些观点影响最大的人，也是最了解我们的人，即我们的客户和员工。极度透明原则在这方面对我们帮助极大，它不仅促使我们实现更好的业绩，也建立了与员工和客户的互信，让他们对媒体的不实报道都不屑一顾。当我们与员工和客户讨论相关问题时，他们认为，我们不保持公开透明才会让他们更害怕。

这样的理解和支持，推动着我们去做正确的事，这是极为宝贵的。想想如果我们没有这样坚持极度求真和极度透明，我们是不可能有如此巨大的收获的。

If you agree that a real idea meritocracy is an extremely powerful thing, it should not be a great leap for you to see that giving people the right to see things for themselves is better than forcing them to rely on information processed for them by others. Radical transparency forces issues to the surface—most importantly (and most uncomfortably) the problems that people are dealing with and how they’re dealing with them—and it allows the organization to draw on the talents and insights of all its members to solve them. Eventually, for people who get used to it, living in a culture of radical transparency is more comfortable than living in the fog of not knowing what’s going on and not knowing what people really think. And it is incredibly effective. But, to be clear, like most great things it also has drawbacks. Its biggest drawback is that it is initially very difficult for most people to deal with uncomfortable realities. If unmanaged, it can lead to people getting involved with more things than they should, and can lead people who aren’t able to weigh all the information to draw the wrong conclusions.

For example, bringing all an organization’s problems to the surface and regarding every one of them as intolerable may lead some people to wrongly conclude that their organization has more intolerable problems than another organization that keeps its issues under wraps. Yet which organization is more likely to achieve excellence? One that highlights its problems and considers them intolerable or one that doesn’t? 

Don’t get me wrong: Radical transparency isn’t the same as total transparency. It just means much more transparency than is typical. We do keep some things confidential, such as private health matters or deeply personal problems, sensitive details about intellectual property or security issues, the timing of a major trade, and at least for the short term, matters that are likely to be distorted, sensationalized, and harmfully misunderstood if leaked to the press. In the following principles of the day, you will get a good explanation of when and why we’ve found it helpful to be transparent and when and why we’ve found it inappropriate. 

Frankly, when I started off being so radically transparent, I had no idea how it would go; I just knew that it was extremely important and that I had to fight hard and find ways to make it happen. I pushed the limits and was surprised by how well it worked. For example, when I started taping all our meetings our lawyers told us we were crazy because we were creating evidence that could be used against us in court or by regulators such as the SEC. In response, I theorized that radical transparency would reduce the risk of our doing anything wrong—and of not dealing appropriately with our mistakes—and that the tapes would in fact protect us. If we were handling things well, our transparency would make that clear (provided, of course, that all parties are reasonable, which isn’t something you can always take for granted), and if we were handling things badly, our transparency would ensure that we would get what we deserve, which, in the long run, would be good for us. 

I didn’t know for sure at the time, but our experience has proven this theory correct time and again. Bridgewater has had uncommonly few legal or regulatory encounters, largely because of our radical transparency. That’s because it’s tougher to do bad things and easier to find out what’s true and resolve claims through radical transparency. Over the last several decades, we have not had a single material legal or regulatory judgment against us.

Naturally, growing bigger and more successful attracts more media attention, and reporters know that salacious and controversial stories draw more eyeballs than balanced ones. Bridgewater is especially vulnerable to this kind of reporting because, with our culture of bringing problems to the surface and sharing them transparently within the company, we leave ourselves open to leaks. Would it be better not to be transparent and so avoid such problems?I’ve learned that the people whose opinions matter most are those who know us best—our clients and our employees—and that our radical transparency serves us well with them. Not only has it led to our producing better results, but it also builds trust with our employees and clients so that mischaracterizations in the press roll off their backs. When we discuss such situations with them, they say that for us to not operate transparently would scare them much more.

Having this sort of understanding and support to do the right things has been immeasurably valuable. But we wouldn’t have known about these great payoffs if we hadn’t so steadfastly pushed the limits of this truth and transparency.

瑞·达利欧官方微信公众号: raydalio_

《每日原则》为瑞·达利欧(Ray Dalio) 原创，

《原则》团队翻译，欢迎分享，转载请注明出处。