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 do something similar to the CD trick: I'll set a timer and tell myself I have to do focused work for that amount of time. I pause the timer for any interruption (including bathroom breaks).
I'll often just do an hour. At the end of the hour I can check Slack messages, look at Twitter, etc. I'll only do this once or twice a day. Otherwise, I just work "normally".
For me, it's less about hardcore grinding and more about making sure I'm holding myself to a reasonable standard. It's an hour - is that too much to ask?
I've found 3 big benefits:
1. Personally, I focus better with the timer. I don't know why. But I'm less distractible. I'm an order of magnitude more productive in that hour.
2. I'm the type of person that feels guilty when I'm not productive. I find that, because I've met a productivity goal (and have been genuinely productive), I don't feel that guilt. I'm both more productive and less burnt out.
3. You'd be shocked at how long it takes to get through that hour sometimes. That's probably the biggest benefit: it teaches you how you're managing your focus time. Everyone thinks they're good at time (and focus) management but nobody measures it.
I love the "what's your greatest weakness" question. It's pretty silly to interpret this as looking for something deeply personal. This is a professional context.
You should answer this question with your greatest weakness in the context of the interview. It's such a good opportunity! It's so awful feeling like an interview went great but stressing about something you didn't talk about - maybe your lack of experience or lack of degree. Whatever you're worried about that you didn't get to talk about. You get to actually talk about it and address it to the best of your ability.
It also looks great that you're talking about something real. Something you're nervous about. You are being honest and vulnerable.
It reflects incredibly well on you if you can be vulnerable and professional.
If I don't get the opportunity to answer a question like this in an interview, I'll use some of my question time (usually with the hiring manager) for it. Having the ability to anticipate and address a teammate's (interviewers) hard-to-discuss questions is such a strong, positive signal.
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.