Our “15th Five-Year Plan”
In an era of rapid change and profound uncertainty, five years is a long time. During this period, many new developments beyond our current imagination will emerge, while some of the pursuits we are focused on today may be adjusted or phased out. This article is neither a plan nor a blueprint; it is simply a vision. How near the future feels depends on how far we dare to think.
During the “15th Five-Year Plan” period, the basic framework of the nation’s new pattern of high-quality development will take shape, and our own new development paradigm will likewise become clear. The outcomes of the three strategic initiatives—interdisciplinary integration, industry–education integration, and international expansion—will begin to materialize. A new development landscape characterized by the integration of management with health, science and technology, engineering, culture and tourism, and artificial intelligence will gradually emerge. We will closely align with high-quality development at the national, regional, industrial, and enterprise levels, as an ecosystem of university–industry collaboration, university–local government cooperation, and international partnerships steadily takes form. The School will become a key node in a boundaryless network for talent cultivation, scientific research, and social service, generating platform effects, catalytic momentum, and hub value with broad impact.
Such a new development paradigm will, in turn, have a profound impact on our faculty and staff:
For faculty on the tenure-track system, the most significant impact may be a change in evaluation criteria. By the end of the “15th Five-Year Plan” period, the vast majority of our current tenure-track faculty will have completed their pre-tenure appointments. We hope that all who wish to stay will be able to do so and will achieve reasonably satisfactory promotion. To reach this goal, simply working harder within the existing framework will clearly not be enough. Meeting the contractual requirements of a tenure-track appointment only signifies that one has passed the assessment; whether a tenured position is ultimately available is a separate matter. The allocation structure of resources within the university and across society will inevitably be adjusted in response to shifts in the principal contradictions of social development. The greater the value we create for the university, the more faculty positions and promotion opportunities we will secure; the greater the value we create for the nation and society, the more national support and social resources we will attract. Over the next five years, the boundaries between Business Administration and Management Science and Engineering will become increasingly blurred, as will the boundaries between management and other disciplines. By contrast, the distinction between “outputs” and “value” will become ever clearer: outputs reflect academic level, whereas value defines true talent. At its core, the tenure-track system is a test of one’s value in helping the School “build its foundation.” We have no established domain to defend; we are all early-stage entrepreneurs, and our annual salaries represent the School’s angel investment in this initial venture.
For tenured faculty, the most significant impact may be a shift in the distribution and incentive mechanisms. “Disciplines” are products of social stability and clearly defined divisions of labor. In the future, closed and inward-looking management disciplines will face increasing pressure. The prominence of expert-scholars and scholar-experts will rise, while so-called “generalist scholars” and “independent scholars” who lack high social recognition and influence in the domains, ideas, methods, or tools of management will gradually decline. Faculty whose work is limited to rote instruction and the delivery of generic management knowledge will see their development prospects and income potential sharply constrained. By contrast, those who can directly address real-world problems and actively contribute to the growth of enterprises and learners will receive greater recognition for their value, along with clear advantages in the sources, diversity, and scale of their income. This is precisely the culture the School advocates: “tempering genuine scholarship, resolving real contradictions, and rewarding true value.” As the “territory” changes, the old one can no longer be defended; the structural supports for complacency will be swiftly removed. The best defense is proactive engagement, and the best form of engagement is this: the School treats us as tenured faculty, while we treat ourselves as tenure-track—we, too, must remain entrepreneurs. The School will adjust its distribution mechanisms to facilitate faculty transformation, and income allocation will function as risk capital invested in the entrepreneurial transition of tenured faculty.
For administrative and managerial staff, the most significant impact may lie in changes to work modes and job roles. Over the next five years, the School will fully leverage the value of artificial intelligence. AI will not only become a powerful assistant for faculty in research and teaching, but will also play an important role in various evaluation processes and in administrative and operational management across the School. Positions centered solely on transmitting directives and handling internal affairs by rigidly following procedures—so-called “administrative” roles—will see their scope and value substantially reduced. In contrast, “operational” roles that actively support the School’s development and integrate external resources will expand significantly in both importance and value. Artificial intelligence will enable a finer-grained and more transparent assessment of each individual’s contribution to the School’s development, thereby supporting highly precise incentive mechanisms. The era of “one person, one fixed post” is coming to an end. As the School enhances its agility and capacity for adaptation, job stability will shift from static stability within narrow functional boundaries to dynamic stability across broader operational scenarios. Roles such as Director, Chief Architect, Chief Engineer, and Project Lead will gradually replace fixed positions defined by administrative rank and seniority. Accordingly, mechanisms for allocation and deployment based on contextual value and dynamic roles will inevitably take shape.
Of course, many other changes will unfold at the School over the next five years. For example, the composition of our student body will change significantly: the proportion of learners enrolling primarily to obtain academic credentials will decline, while the proportion seeking to enhance their value and capabilities will increase. The faculty structure will also shift markedly: the share of full-time, theory-oriented faculty will decrease, while the proportion of practice-based, project-oriented faculty drawn from industry will rise. Teaching modes will undergo substantial transformation as well, with less instruction taking place in traditional campus classrooms and more learning occurring in enterprise-based settings. The way talent is engaged will change fundamentally: the proportion of collaborative talent will increase, while the proportion of talent owned or retained in fixed positions will decrease. Funding sources will also be restructured, with a reduced share of vertically allocated funding supporting purely academic research and a growing share of horizontally sourced funding aimed at solving real-world practical problems. To respond to all these changes, the only thing we can truly rely on is our continuous capacity to create and contribute value.
Because we believe, we are able to see. The coming five years will mark a transformation within a transformation—unprecedented in a century. Everyone stands at the same starting line of this era, facing a future for which there is no prior experience, and no one holds an absolute advantage. With “the opening as the decisive battle, and the start as the full sprint,” let us move swiftly into action.
