Page 418 - Ray Dalio - Principles

If not, what didn’t go as it should have? What broke? This is called the
proximate cause and this step should be easy to get to if you
laid out the mental map clearly. You can do this via yes/no

questions as well because it should just require referring back
to the key components of your mental map and pinpointing
which the RP or RPs didn’t do well.

Say your mental map of how the machine should have
worked has two steps: that Harry should have either 1) done
his assignment on time or 2) escalated that he couldn’t. All
you have to do is pinpoint the two steps. 1) Did he do it on

time? Yes or no. And if not, 2) did he escalate? Yes or no.

It should be this simple. But this is when the conversation
often gets dragged into gobbledygook, where someone goes
into a detailed explanation of “what they did.” Remember: It’s
your job to guide the conversation toward an accurate and
clear synthesis.

You also have to synthesize whether the problem was
meaningful—that is, whether a capable person would have

made the same mistake given the circumstances, or whether
it’s symptomatic of something worth digging into. Don’t focus
too much on rare events or the trivial problems—nothing and
no one is perfect—but be sure you are not overlooking a clue
to a systemic machine problem. It’s your job to make that

determination.
Why didn’t things go as they should have? This is where you have

synthesized the root cause in order to determine whether the
RP is capable or not—or whether the issue is with the design.
In order to anchor back to a synthesis rather than get lost in the
details you might:

• Try to tie the failure to the 5-Step Process. Which step
was not done well? Everything ultimately fits into those

five steps. But you may need to get more specific, so:

• Try to crystallize the failure as a specific key attribute or
set of attributes. Ask yes/no questions: Did the RP not
manage well? Not perceive problems well? Not execute
well?