Summary of Key Points
This article uses Wang Hong’s Fields Medal win as a starting point to criticize the limitations of “performanceism”: it is essentially a set of uniform, standardized rules that, while enhancing efficiency and stability, are inherently at odds with creativity. When taken to extremes, performanceism can lead to dishonest practices such as cheating and plagiarism. True innovation, on the other hand, requires freedom, uncertainty, and time for development, which cannot be forced by key performance indicators (KPIs) or a single standard. The article concludes that Wang Hong’s award is a slap in the face of performanceism, but changing this system is very difficult.
Detailed Analysis
1. Performanceism: A Set of Rules to Make Everyone “Obey”
Performanceism essentially imposes a unified set of evaluation criteria on everyone, such as exam scores, performance KPIs, and rankings. Why implement these? For the sake of convenience in management—everyone follows the same rules, making the system stable and easier to optimize for maximum efficiency. For example, companies may use a “last one out” policy, and schools may publish grade lists, all with the aim of making people follow the rules: high scores bring glory, low scores bring shame, thus preventing distractions and motivating everyone to work in the direction desired by the system. These rules also make people justify their actions, leading them to actively contribute to the system without questioning it.
2. Creativity and Performanceism: Natural Enemies
What is creativity? It’s about creating something from nothing, finding the 101st option among 100 known possibilities. It requires inspiration and freedom; it cannot be forced. Forcing someone to come up with a new idea within two days, for example, will likely result in nothing. Performanceism, however, seeks certainty, focusing on finding the best solution from the existing options and eliminating the rest. It dislikes risk and values efficiency and replicability. Companies may require proposals to follow templates, forbidding creative thinking because mistakes could occur. Creativity and performanceism are fundamentally incompatible: one emphasizes chaos and uncertainty, while the other demands stability and control.
3. The Extreme Forms of Performanceism: Breeding Grounds for Cheating and Plagiarism
When performanceism becomes a “result-only” mindset, people may resort to dishonesty. The system only cares whether a goal is met (such as the number of papers published or sales figures), regardless of how they are achieved. Plagiarism is the fastest option; someone can simply copy existing work to meet the requirements, and fraud is even easier—altering data or fabricating content will suffice. Cases like Jiang Fangzhou’s alleged plagiarism and Jia Qianqian’s controversial poems illustrate how these rules drive people to quickly achieve “high performance” at the expense of innovation, as the cost and risk of failure are too high.
4. The Disappearance of Corporate Creativity: Not People Change, but Rules Do
Why do many startups, once acquired by larger companies, lose their creativity? On the surface, it seems that the team size increases and bureaucracy emerges, but the real reason is the change in “rules of the game.” Startups operate under rules that encourage innovation and allow for mistakes. Acquired companies, however, must follow the larger company’s performanceism, with monthly targets and annual growth requirements. Teams then abandon innovation in favor of tasks that yield quick results, as failure can lead to elimination.
5. Wang Hong’s Award: How Much Can It Wake People Up?
Why does Wang Hong’s Fields Medal win represent a slap against performanceism? Her research in mathematics requires long-term dedication and cannot be achieved through short-term KPIs or rankings. She wasn’t pressured into producing immediate results but had the freedom to explore the unknown. However, whether this wake-up call will last is uncertain, as performanceism has permeated education and the workplace, making it difficult for one person’s success to change the status quo.
Conclusion
This article reminds us not to treat “high performance” as the sole measure of value. Sometimes, taking things slower and allowing some deviation from the rules can lead to truly valuable outcomes. After all, humanity’s greatest innovations have never come from following standard answers.