The formation of a new development pattern necessitates the implementation of appropriate evaluation and allocation mechanisms

China's economy is entering a new development paradigm, and similarly, the School of Management urgently needs to establish its own new development framework. While the national economy is facing the compounded challenges of the "three overlapping phases" (the shift in growth rate, structural adjustment, and the digestion of previous stimulus policies), the School encounters not only parallel challenges but also greater ones due to its limited room for maneuver. The School's new development paradigm should be built upon a virtuous cycle among interdisciplinary integration, industry-education collaboration, and international outreach. This framework must continuously respond to national needs for talent cultivation, scientific research, and social service as part of building a new type of productive relationship. Ren Zhengfei once wrote an article titled Huawei’s Winter. We, too, are currently experiencing a challenging "winter." To make it through the next three to five years, we must embrace an entrepreneurial spirit, step out of our comfort zone, and build a new development paradigm for the School of Management.

It is difficult for individuals to step out of their comfort zones purely out of self-awareness—especially for those with greater past successes and vested interests. Therefore, the School of Management must establish new evaluation and distribution mechanisms to encourage every faculty and staff member to move beyond their comfort zone. Only by doing so can we endure this long winter, adapt to the demands of ongoing social transformation, and ultimately realize a new development paradigm. This is the only path toward sustainable growth for both the School and its members.

The foundation of the new evaluation and allocation mechanisms lies in the following three fundamental transitions:

First, a transformation in the philosophy behind disciplinary orientation and faculty promotion. Currently, the foundation of management as a discipline is largely rooted in the context of Western industrialization, with efficiency and reliability as its core goals. However, this foundation must shift toward the construction of a knowledge system with Chinese characteristics, toward serving China’s modernization, and toward meeting the demands of new productive forces and a new economic structure. These shifts represent the core values pursued in the School’s new development paradigm.Such changes will necessitate corresponding adjustments in our disciplinary structure and evaluation systems. The layout of academic programs, the composition of our faculty, and the criteria for faculty promotion will all evolve accordingly. The establishment of "National First-Class Undergraduate Programs" six years ago should not become an unshakable anchor for our current development. The School will begin to dismantle the traditional boundaries between courses and departments, and gradually adopt a project-based, agile approach to talent development aligned with specific strategic goals. New academic programs will emerge through interdisciplinary integration, while research strengths will be redefined through industry-academia collaboration and the integration of research and practice—these are the inevitable directions of the School’s future. Faculty titles are a public and scarce institutional resource, and their allocation must dynamically align with the needs of the School's disciplinary development. Faculty promotion should not be based solely on academic evaluation of research conducted out of personal interest, but rather on contributions to the development of the School's disciplines. A professor should not be someone who merely produces academic results in isolation, nor someone who only excels at "churning out papers." Professors selected under the School’s new paradigm should be leaders in the emerging directions of our disciplines. In other words, independent scholars with excellent academic outputs may be considered for promotion as research-focused faculty if their work aligns with the School’s disciplinary direction, but they should not be prioritized for tenured professorships. After all, contributing to academia is not the same as contributing to the School’s disciplinary advancement. The scope of the School’s responsibility for academic development must be defined based on our institutional values, strategic goals, and practical conditions. The School bears a limited responsibility for academic development.

Second, a transformation in talent cultivation methods and the purpose of performance evaluation. At present, our approach to talent development is primarily knowledge-based, but it must shift toward a focus on capability building. Currently, student recruitment largely operates under a seller’s market; moving forward, it must adapt to a buyer’s market. Today, the quality of talent cultivation is mainly judged by academic degrees and credentials; in the future, it must be assessed by students’ employability, entrepreneurial potential, and long-term career value. Accordingly, our performance evaluation system must also shift—from emphasizing the quantity of published papers, journal rankings, workload, and course types, to focusing on contributions to disciplinary development, the societal impact of academic outcomes, student feedback on courses, and evaluations from graduates and employers. Prominent practitioners from outside the university will increasingly participate in the competition for teaching positions in professional master's degree programs. Students will have greater autonomy in choosing their instructors. The traditional idea of the teacher as the unquestioned authority who "imparts knowledge and resolves doubts"—based on the assumption that teachers know more, are more capable, and are more virtuous than students—often does not hold true, especially in the context of business schools. As the saying goes, “Students are not necessarily inferior to their teachers, and teachers are not necessarily superior to their students.” This is particularly evident in the relationships between faculty and students in programs such as MBA, EMBA, MEM, and executive education. Therefore, to be qualified to teach a course, faculty members must continuously enhance their academic expertise, practical experience, and pedagogical methods. They must also develop strong course marketing awareness and skills, and be prepared to face the challenge of “competing for course delivery opportunities.” Possessing a doctoral degree, a professorial title, prestigious talent awards, or a long publication list is no longer a sufficient condition for securing a place in the classroom. Attempts by a few individuals to monopolize certain courses are especially unacceptable. This is precisely why the School has established a dedicated Faculty Development Fund—to support faculty members in improving their capabilities. The abilities, behaviors, and contributions that promote the School’s development constitute the value chain and the basis of performance evaluation under the new development paradigm.

Third, a transformation in the premises and principles of income distribution. There is a basic premise and a fundamental principle underlying income distribution. The premise is "spending within our means", and the principle is "fairness." These are common-sense tenets of management, yet they are often overlooked. Although the School is a non-profit educational institution, it does not mean that faculty and staff should work purely for public good without receiving income. Educators also deserve decent living conditions, and the fact remains that without competitive compensation, we cannot attract or retain talent. Such competitive income is not automatically granted based on staffing quotas or “falling from the sky.” Instead, it must be earned primarily through the value we create by empowering enterprises and individuals and by providing meaningful services to society. If we cannot make either direct or indirect, present or future contributions to the School’s pool of distributable income, then the virtuous cycle of "income → talent → distributable income" will break down. This will lead to a rupture in the funding supply chain, undermining both the School’s development and the sustainability of personal income. The proverb, “Who knows how much hard work lies in each grain of food on our plates,” is a lesson taught in primary school—yet in this “winter,” it carries a much deeper relevance. As the saying goes, “When the skin is gone, what can the hair cling to?” Those who focus solely on their personal interests without considering the School’s core challenges—and who are unwilling or unable to contribute to solving them—cannot reasonably expect to receive high economic returns. That would be fundamentally unfair to the School. Likewise, income distribution mechanisms that prioritize immediate financial gain without regard for the School’s long-term sustainability—such as over-spending today at the cost of tomorrow—are also unjust. The School’s income structure must evolve to support the demands of the new development paradigm. Compensation and incentive systems must work in a complementary and mutually reinforcing manner. Each year, the School’s investment in research and development (R&D)—specifically aimed at fostering new disciplines and improving faculty capabilities—will exceed the R&D spending ratio of many high-tech enterprises. Moreover, we must ensure that such funding is truly spent on R&D activities that serve the School’s development. As a School of Management charged with cultivating future management professionals, our distribution mechanism must not fall behind those of innovative enterprises. Both overt and covert forms of "equal pay regardless of contribution" and inefficient administrative expenditures must be minimized or eliminated.

The country is currently advocating a policy of frugality to get through the difficult stage of the “triple pressures”, and our School is no exception. We must be prepared for a tough winter and actively establish a new development paradigm. Doing so requires everyone to step out of their comfort zones—and that process is inevitably painful. Just as wartime management practices cannot be judged by peacetime standards, we too cannot continue to view the management discipline through the lens of a seller’s market when the reality is now a buyer’s market, with buyers’ needs constantly evolving. Turning a blind eye to the transformation of the times or clinging to unrealistic expectations about future evaluation and distribution mechanisms will only lead to greater pain down the road.