Beyond KPI: From Contractual Accountability to a Spirit of Responsibility
KPIs matter. Just as health indicators help safeguard the human body, KPIs serve as institutional benchmarks and directional signals for the School’s development. Their value deserves full respect. Yet a collection of impressive medical statistics alone cannot be equated with a person possessing soul, vitality, and warmth. In the same way, we must remain clear-eyed: KPIs are tools, not ends in themselves. No matter how impressive the numbers may appear, they can never replace the School’s mission, educational ideals, or long-term vitality.
KPI systems originated in the business world and are fundamentally rooted in contractual logic. Behind them lies a framework of negotiated obligations, authority, incentives, and performance exchange. Companies reward or penalize employees according to KPI completion, while employees define the boundaries of their responsibilities through those same indicators. Yet a closer look at organizations that obsess over KPIs often reveals a common outcome: despite operational efficiency, they rarely achieve genuine innovation, sustainable growth, or enduring social respect. The same lesson applies to our School and to every faculty and staff member within it.
If we aspire to become China’s most responsible and mission-driven School of Management, we must move beyond the limitations of KPI-centered thinking. This does not mean abandoning accountability; rather, it means transcending basic contractual obligations in pursuit of a broader vision and a deeper sense of responsibility. Contractual accountability emphasizes honoring commitments, fulfilling assigned duties, and meeting expectations. A spirit of responsibility is about initiative, future-oriented leadership, and long-term value creation. The two are not contradictory; the latter is an elevation of the former. When the School’s value, resource allocation, and individual contribution are judged solely through KPIs, short-termism, inequity, and opportunism can easily emerge, causing education to lose sight of its original purpose.
It is often emphasized that we should align with national strategies and respond to the needs of society and industry. Yet we must also confront a more fundamental question: what is a university ultimately for? How are universities fundamentally different from corporations or research institutes? Once institutional roles become blurred, educational direction inevitably loses clarity. The talent we cultivate and the research we produce may then fail to meet the deeper needs of the times. Today’s employment market presents growing challenges. Some prominent companies have even begun recruiting directly from high schools rather than universities. Behind these phenomena lies not only a lack of confidence in higher education, but also a deeper misalignment between societal expectations of universities and universities’ own understanding of their mission. Unless these foundational questions are addressed, even the busiest reforms and transformations may yield only limited results.
As an old Chinese maxim, “Those who fail to plan for the long term cannot manage the present; those who fail to consider the whole cannot govern a part.” In this spirit, education and research should not passively chase trends; they should anticipate transformation and lead social progress through talent cultivation and knowledge creation. Neither education nor innovation can be rushed. Artificial intelligence may accelerate processes, but it cannot replace years of sustained intellectual commitment. In an age defined by uncertainty, it is impossible to predict precisely what future talent will look like and continuous iteration. Therefore, continuous iteration and adjustment of KPIs is often employed as a means of responding to this challenge. Such indicators are important and necessary. Yet meaningful talent development and scientific breakthroughs both require long-term perseverance before qualitative breakthroughs. Even with the rise of AI, neither knowledge creation nor human development can become instantaneous. Excessive concentration of energy and resources on short-term indicators inevitably weakens long-range judgment and strategic preparation. The result is often either dramatic cycles of expansion and contraction, or rushed disciplinary restructuring and large-scale personnel adjustments. Neither represents the healthy developmental path our School seeks.
As we prepare for the “15th Five-Year Plan” period, we will continue to fulfill every task assigned by the university and respect every KPI requirement. At the same time, we will embed a larger vision and a stronger spirit of responsibility into our School’s strategy. In the future, our internal evaluation and incentive systems will gradually move beyond rigid KPI frameworks, ensuring that those willing to take responsibility are recognized, valued, and properly rewarded.
Around us are many faculty members who fulfill contractual expectations with admirable professionalism: they first examine assessment requirements, then determine their actions; they carefully weigh gains and losses while conscientiously performing their duties. Yet our deepest respect and greatest reliance go to those who are truly committed to the School, and who devote themselves wholeheartedly to its shared future. They do not calculate every short-term gain or loss. Instead, they willingly shoulder difficult responsibilities, devote themselves to the School’s progress, and invest their wisdom, passion, and resources into the School’s shared future. This entrepreneurial commitment to the School represents the most inspiring form of responsibility. A traditional Chinese saying observes: “If the skin no longer exists, the hair has nowhere to attach,” meaning that individual success ultimately depends upon the survival and flourishing of the larger whole. Those who demonstrate genuine responsibility must therefore receive fair recognition and meaningful incentives. More importantly, the School must show responsibility toward such people — by providing platforms, opportunities, recognition, and security, and by supporting firmly behind those willing to shoulder responsibility.
Ultimately, the School will stand with those who demonstrate a strong sense of responsibility for its development; and its future will be shaped by all who possess vision, commitment, and a genuine spirit of responsibility. Put more broadly, the more capable AI becomes at fulfilling contractual tasks, the more society will need people capable of responsibility beyond contract.
