能让分歧双方都同等满意的解决方式十分罕见。想象一下，你与邻居争吵，因为他们家的树倒了而砸了你家的房子。谁来负责把树运走？谁拥有这棵可作为柴火的树？谁赔偿损失？你们可能无法自行解决争端，而司法体系具备一定的程序和规定，可以用来确定事实是什么，该采取什么行动，而且一旦做出判决，就可结束争议，尽管你们中有一方没有得偿所愿。生活就是这样。 在桥水，我们的原则和规定也是这样发挥作用的，为解决争议提供了路径，但与你在法庭见到的情况不一样（也不那么正式）。在创意择优下，这种设置是必不可少的，因为你不能鼓励员工独立思考，却又不允许他们为自己所认为的事实抗争。你应该给他们提供一种超越争议、继续前行的途径。 It is the rare dispute that is resolved to both parties' equal satisfaction. Imagine you are having an argument with your neighbor about a tree of theirs that has fallen onto your property. Who is responsible for its removal? Who owns the firewood? Who pays for the damage? While you might not be able to resolve the disagreement yourselves, the legal system has procedures and guidelines that allow it to determine what's true and what to do about it, and once it renders its judgment it's done, even if one of you didn't get what you wanted. That's just the way life is. At Bridgewater, our principles and policies work in essentially the same way, providing a path for settling disputes that's not unlike what you'd find in the courts (though it's less formal). Having such a system is essential in an idea meritocracy, because you can't just encourage people to think independently and fight for what they believe is true. You also have to provide them with a way to get past their disagreements and move forward.
