Bridgewater's approach sounds interesting, albeit not for everyone.

Ideally, you want to catch mistakes sooner rather than later. People don't want to admit they made a mistake; or people don't want to sincerely criticise others.

One way of fixing this is creating an environment where people feel safe about making mistakes.

AFAIU Bridgewater's approach is the opposite; everything gets exposed. e.g. Modelling different personalities that people have, or whatever, so that these can be taken into account. The upside is stuff like you can tell the CEO you think he did a bad job. The downside is just how exposed it feels compared to normal social/political interaction.

Yeah, I highly doubt that any line employee is going to tell the CEO they did a bad job.

These happy clappy "systems" usually fail to take into account (almost biological) realities of how power structures work.

The story I was thinking of was where a director sent him the criticism, and he shared the criticism within the company. From this summary of a TED talk Dalio gave in 2017: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/employee-sent-hedge-fund-gian...

I'm not familiar with other companies that have the same reputation of using a system like this the same way Bridgewater does.

That's a cherry-picked example by a person promoting himself and his own system. Not really a useful data point, more an example of an aspirational goal.

Actually this happens all the time in firms using dot collector.

You have to remember you give real-time feedback during the meeting itself.

>> line employee is going to tell the CEO they did a bad job

> happens all the time

Hmm how do the CEOs react to that? I imagine that the good ones are happy for feedback

The others though?

(I understand if you were exaggerating a bit, wrt "all the time")