Balancing Personal Freedom and Greater Freedom
Human beings possess two inseparable dimensions: an individual dimension and a social one. The freedom that fulfills our individual needs may be called personal freedom, while the freedom that enables us to fulfill our social responsibilities may be understood as greater freedom. Viewed through Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the freedom to secure one’s physiological and safety needs belongs to the realm of personal freedom, whereas the freedom to achieve social belonging, earn respect, and realize one’s full potential belongs to greater freedom.
The boundary between personal freedom and greater freedom is ultimately defined by the scope of responsibility we are willing to embrace. The broader our responsibility, the greater the freedom we enjoy; the narrower our responsibility, the more our freedom remains confined to the personal sphere. Greater freedom is the freedom that comes from pursuing a meaningful cause and creating lasting value, while personal freedom is the freedom to determine how we accomplish our individual tasks. In the age of artificial intelligence, the authority and exclusivity of knowledge are rapidly diminishing. AI may process information and generate ideas, but it cannot assume human responsibility. Those who are content with personal freedom alone will find it difficult to gain the resources and opportunities that become available only through taking on broader responsibilities. This is why our academic work should be guided not merely by personal curiosity but also by the major needs of our nation and society. It is also why we aspire to build a college whose vision extends beyond itself to serve the university, society, the nation, and ultimately the global community. Just as individuals must choose between personal freedom and greater freedom, so too must the College pursue a broader sense of mission and responsibility.
Many of us choose careers in higher education because universities promise a relatively high degree of freedom. In practice, however, this often refers to personal freedom: flexible schedules outside the classroom, the autonomy to pursue research aligned with our own interests, greater room for independent thinking, and relative freedom from hierarchical constraints. Yet these very advantages may also create unintended consequences. Flexible schedules can weaken collaboration among colleagues; highly individualized research interests may encourage intellectual isolation and mutual detachment; excessive independence can gradually reduce our influence within the academic community and even diminish our visibility to institutional leaders. In the end, such conditions make it difficult to create meaningful social value, let alone enjoy the greater freedom that comes from making a lasting contribution.
Personal freedom and greater freedom appear to stand in tension, yet they are ultimately complementary. Their relationship resembles the classic tension between private interest and the common good. The Tao Te Ching offers a profound insight: only by transcending self-interest can one ultimately fulfill it. This is a nonlinear way of thinking. Rather than remaining trapped in an inward-looking pursuit of personal gain, it expands into a broader process in which contributing to the collective ultimately enriches the individual. The underlying logic is straightforward. The real challenge lies in an unavoidable variable: time lag. The efforts we make today seldom generate immediate returns. Whether those returns will come, when they will arrive, and how significant they will be all remain uncertain. It is precisely this uncertainty that causes hesitation. Some are reluctant to step away from publishing papers to engage in practice, reluctant to give up leading a small project in order to contribute to a larger team, or reluctant to replace familiar courses with innovative ones. The reason is simple: personal freedom offers immediate and tangible rewards, whereas greater freedom lies in an uncertain future that cannot yet be seen or measured.
To address this challenge, we can pursue two complementary approaches. The first is institutional. By redesigning the structure and timing of incentives, the College can increase the certainty of returns when faculty members choose to exchange personal freedom for greater freedom. Shortening the cycle of value recognition allows sacrifices made today to receive faster and more stable rewards. The effectiveness of this approach depends on the College’s investment capacity and resource base. It is best suited to clearly defined strategic priorities and operates essentially as a performance-based support mechanism implemented through incentive-oriented commitments. The second approach is entrepreneurial. By launching new initiatives and expanding into emerging fields, the College can identify and encourage faculty members who demonstrate both entrepreneurial spirit and a strong sense of responsibility. In this model, faculty members take the initiative to create new opportunities, contributing to the College while simultaneously expanding their own future possibilities for greater freedom. Its success depends on whether individual aspirations resonate with the College’s strategic vision, as well as on the initiative, ambition, and pioneering spirit of our faculty. At its core, this is a process of value co-creation. These two approaches will complement one another and evolve in parallel, though their incentive mechanisms will differ, with the latter becoming increasingly diverse and personalized.
Freedom is earned through responsibility. Management is, by its very nature, a discipline grounded in responsibility. Only those who are willing to shoulder greater responsibilities can earn greater freedom, and only greater freedom can, in turn, better safeguard the personal freedom we value. Balancing personal freedom and greater freedom is therefore a lifelong pursuit. Our willingness to exchange the comfort of immediate autonomy for the possibilities created by broader responsibility will determine not only the scale of our professional influence but also whether we live and work with confidence, purpose, and lasting fulfillment.
