Chen Jiaxi: Improving the Performance Evaluation System and Making Good Use of the Assessment "Baton"
“The fundamental key to governance lies in securing the right people; securing the right people lies in careful selection; and careful selection lies in verifying reality.” The evaluation of official performance is a foundational task in cadre management. It serves as an essential institutional arrangement for observing and identifying cadres, incentivizing responsibility and action, and calibrating the orientation of governance, playing a vital role as a “conductor’s baton,” a “weather vane,” and a “booster.” General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: “We must improve the evaluation system for cadre performance to guide cadres in establishing and practicing a correct outlook on performance,” and “We must refine differentiated evaluation systems to improve the relevance and scientific rigor of assessments, ensuring the conductor’s baton of evaluation is truly effective.” These important expositions by General Secretary Xi Jinping profoundly clarify the internal connection between a correct outlook on performance and a scientific evaluation system, providing the fundamental follow-through for improving scientific performance evaluation systems in the New Era.
An internal relationship of mutual influence and mutual shaping exists between the outlook on performance and the performance evaluation system. On one hand, the outlook on performance, as a value orientation, dictates the fundamental direction of "why to evaluate, what to evaluate, how to evaluate, and how to use the results." Educating and guiding Party members and cadres to establish and practice a correct outlook on performance requires an evaluation system that persists in a people-centered approach, takes high-quality development as its guide, and uses the ability to withstand the test of practice, the people, and history as its standard. On the other hand, the evaluation system, as an institutional arrangement, profoundly influences and shapes the governance behavior and work orientations of cadres. Wherever the conductor’s baton of evaluation points, the energy and resources of cadres will follow. If the institutional design is scientific, a correct outlook on performance can be consolidated and strengthened; if the design is improper, a faulty outlook on performance may grow and spread. Therefore, improving a scientific performance evaluation system is essentially about transforming the correct outlook on performance from a principled requirement into institutional norms, and implementing political requirements, the people’s position, and the development orientation into rigid evaluation standards and long-term mechanisms, making them the basic follow-through for cadres at all levels when considering problems, making decisions, and handling affairs.
At a time when the whole Party is deeply engaged in study and education on establishing and practicing a correct outlook on performance, further improving a scientific performance evaluation system carries important and urgent practical significance. The more we are in a critical stage characterized by heavy development tasks, numerous risks and challenges, and difficulties in tackling core reforms, the more we need to establish clear orientations, calibrate behavioral coordinates, strengthen institutional constraints, and create positive incentives through an improved scientific performance evaluation system. This will effectively transform the evaluation orientation into an orientation for action and institutional advantages into governance efficacy, guiding the broad masses of Party members and cadres to create achievements that can withstand the test of practice, the people, and history.
Taking the Correct Outlook on Performance as the Lead to Establish the Value Coordinates of the Performance Evaluation System
Only when the scale is straight will the direction remain true; only when the orientation is clear can evaluation truly play its role in incentivizing the advanced, spurring the backward, regulating behavior, and promoting development. To improve a scientific performance evaluation system, we must first solve the problem of "what scale to use to measure performance." Only by organically unifying political standards, the people's position, the requirements of high-quality development, and the spirit of seeking truth from facts can we establish scientific, stable, and implementable value coordinates for the performance evaluation system.
Political standards are the primary scale for performance evaluation. Performance is a comprehensive manifestation of political position and governing capacity in practice; thus, performance evaluation is first and foremost a political evaluation. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: “In establishing and practicing a correct outlook on performance, it is Party spirit that plays the decisive role. Only by possessing strong Party spirit and discarding selfish motives can we ensure the outlook on performance does not deviate.” In practice, some cadres are keen on building "image projects" within the "line of sight" [1] of their superiors, tying their undertakings to personal fame and fortune. On the surface, this appears to be a problem of work methods or evaluation formats; in substance, it reflects a deviation in political stance, insufficient cultivation of Party spirit, and a fading of the sense of purpose. In measuring a cadre’s performance, we must first look at whether they firmly uphold the "Two Establishments" and resolutely achieve the "Two Upholds," whether they implement the decision-making deployments of the Party Central Committee without fail, and whether they are adept at viewing problems, grasping work, and planning development from a political perspective. Political standards are not abstract or empty, nor are they detached from professional work; rather, they run through the entire process of a cadre’s performance of duties. They are manifested in specific tasks such as implementing the New Development Philosophy, carrying out major national strategies, balancing development and security, maintaining social stability, improving people's well-being, and preventing and resolving risks. Therefore, we must establish prominent political standards in evaluation and integrate political loyalty, political focus, political responsibility, political capability, and political self-discipline throughout the entire evaluation process.
The people's position is the value stance of performance evaluation. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The Communist Party of China regards doing work for the people and bringing benefits to the people as the most important performance, and takes how many good and practical things have been done for the common people as the important standard for testing performance.” To improve a scientific performance evaluation system, we must persist in the people-centered development philosophy, taking the people’s sense of gain, happiness, and security as important measurement criteria. We must take the resolution of the people’s urgent anxieties and yearnings [2], the improvement of public services, the maintenance of equity and justice, and the enhancement of governance efficacy as vital evaluation content. Since the dawn of the New Era, various regions and departments have maintained focus on improving people's livelihoods. For example, reform measures such as “At Most One Trip” [3], “Single Window Service,” and “Cross-Provincial Procedures” have focused on solving prominent problems like the difficulty and slowness of handling affairs, as well as the need for citizens to travel back and forth or make repeated trips. These have significantly enhanced the convenience and satisfaction of the masses and won their recognition. The performance evaluation system must adapt to these changes, shifting from a focus on "visible images" to "tangible results," and from a focus on superior-level evaluations to a greater emphasis on the reputation among the masses, truly regarding bringing benefits to the people as the greatest achievement.
High-quality development is the era-defining orientation for performance evaluation. High-quality development is the primary task in building a modern socialist country in all respects, constituting the distinct theme of performance evaluation in the New Era. Entering the new stage of development, the environment, conditions, and tasks of our country's development have undergone profound changes. An evaluation method that judges "heroes" based purely on speed and scale is no longer suited to the requirements of modernization. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: “At no time can we take the path of 'quick-fix' [4] results, 'draining the pond to catch the fish' [5], or 'GDP-only' development.” This dictates that performance evaluation can no longer remain at the level of simply looking at economic aggregates, investment scales, or the number of projects. Instead, it must pay closer attention to development quality, structural optimization, innovation capacity, green benefits, security resilience, and progress in common prosperity. For instance, in recent years, some localities have formed new advantages in fields such as new energy, high-end manufacturing, the digital economy, biomedicine, and artificial intelligence. These have not only driven economic growth but also optimized industrial structures, improved the quality of employment, and enhanced the stamina for development. This type of development better reflects the requirements of high-quality development. Similarly, some regions have persisted in water governance and pollution control, ecological restoration, and industrial restructuring. In the short term, this may increase governance costs and affect certain indicators, but in the long run, it improves the development environment, enhances sustainable development capacity, and raises the quality of life for the masses. This should also be fully affirmed in the evaluation. This profoundly enlightens us that performance truly reflecting the requirements of the era is not about simply increasing "quantity," but about institutionalizing, standardizing, and concretizing high-quality development requirements, forming new development advantages through the pursuit of transformations in quality, efficiency, and driving forces.
Seeking truth from facts is the basic criterion that must be upheld in performance evaluation. A correct outlook on performance reflects both a value stance and a practical methodology. Our country is vast, and different regions vary greatly in terms of resource endowment, development foundations, functional zoning [6], historical conditions, and governance tasks. We must persist in seeking truth from facts during evaluation. If we conduct "one-size-fits-all" [7] evaluations detached from reality, it will be difficult to evaluate accurately and will easily create a faulty orientation, inducing blind competition, duplicate construction, and "performance impulses." General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “Each region should, based on its own conditions and possibilities, both fully implement the New Development Philosophy and focus on pushing forward by addressing weak links. They cannot act recklessly in defiance of reality, and even more so, they should not try to do everything regardless of conditions just to produce performance results, only to end up accomplishing nothing.” Persisting in seeking truth from facts requires that the performance evaluation system must unify the consideration of objective conditions, historical foundations, and realistic possibilities, and balance the understanding of "manifest achievements" versus "latent achievements" [8], the present versus the long term, and the local versus the global. Those efforts that do not show immediate results but lay foundations, increase stamina, and benefit the long term should be fully affirmed in evaluations. Only by seeking truth from facts can the performance evaluation system truly play its vital role in calibrating the direction and guiding development.
Taking Precision and Efficacy as the Guide to Optimize the Indicator System for Performance Evaluation
After establishing the value coordinates, the key lies in transforming the correct outlook on performance into measurable, comparable, and applicable institutional content, effectively answering the question of what to evaluate. Whether the setting of evaluation content is scientific and precise directly determines whether the evaluation can truly play a guiding role. Only by refining content design around bringing benefits to the people and promoting high-quality development can we ensure that "what is evaluated" is more consistent with "what is done," and that institutional arrangements better reflect the people’s position, development orientation, and practical standards.
Focusing on key indicators to enhance the pulling force and binding force of evaluation. Scientific performance evaluation does not mean that the more indicators, the better; rather, the more precise and effective they are, the better. In practice, some local evaluation projects have too many items, excessively dense forms, and overly detailed indicators, even involving redundant evaluations across multiple departments for the same matters. On the surface, this appears to be comprehensive and meticulous; in reality, it increases the burden and breeds formalism, causing cadres to spend a large amount of time and energy "matching indicators," "producing materials," and "chasing reports," rather than focusing on implementation, solving problems, promoting development, and benefiting the people's livelihoods. To improve the content design of the performance evaluation system, we must persist in being "concise but refined, accurate but substantial, and effective," highlighting key, leading, and binding indicators. In terms of political construction, we should focus on the implementation of the Party Central Committee’s decisions, the execution of major national strategies, and the observance of political discipline and rules. In terms of high-quality development, we should focus on technological innovation, industrial upgrading, the business environment, green transformation, and risk prevention and control. In terms of livelihood protection, we should focus on employment, education, medical care, elderly care, housing, social security, and public service supply. In terms of ecological civilization, we should focus on pollution prevention and control, resource conservation, ecological restoration, and green, low-carbon development. In terms of safety and stability, we should focus on production safety, debt risks, social governance, emergency response, and grassroots stability. By optimizing the indicator system, we can drive performance evaluation from single economic assessments toward comprehensive governance assessments, and from a bias toward short-term results toward a greater emphasis on the unity of process and efficacy.
Basing evaluations on differentiation and categorized policies to improve relevance and scientific rigor. Differentiated evaluation is not about lowering standards, but about improving the fit between standards and the evaluated subjects; it is not about loosening requirements, but about achieving precise evaluation through seeking truth from facts and adapting to local conditions. Only by truly matching standards to subjects can we fully mobilize the initiative of different regions, departments, and posts. Our country has large regional differences, varying development situations, and distinct functional zoning. If we simply use a single set of standards to measure regions with different resource endowments, development foundations, ecological carrying capacities, and governance tasks, it may lead some localities to deviate from their own functional positioning in order to "meet the standards." Therefore, improving the indicator content of performance evaluation must integrate categorized evaluation throughout. At the regional level, economically developed areas should place more emphasis on innovation leading, structural transformation, institutional opening-up, and governance modernization; underdeveloped areas should emphasize addressing weak links, strengthening foundations, increasing stamina, and improving livelihoods; ecological functional zones should emphasize ecological protection, green development, and basic public service guarantees; and major agricultural production areas should emphasize food security, comprehensive rural revitalization, and agricultural modernization. At the departmental and post levels, evaluation focuses and indicator weights should also be reasonably set according to different responsibilities, such as general management, economic development, livelihood services, professional technology, and those on the grassroots front line. Only by unifying evaluation standards with functional positioning, development stages, and realistic conditions can we truly achieve accurate and substantial evaluations that provide clear guidance.
Coordinating manifest and latent achievements to include foundation-laying and long-term work within the scope of evaluation. Performance has temporal dimensions and structural layers, including both "manifest achievements" (visible during a term of office and tangible to the masses) and "latent achievements" (laying foundations, increasing stamina, and benefiting the long term). To improve a scientific performance evaluation system, we must prevent cadres from focusing only on work that is easily "showy" [9] in the short term, easily produces high numbers, or is easily seen, while neglecting foundational, strategic, and long-term work. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized:
"One must strive both for visible achievements and for latent achievements [10], disregarding personal fame and fortune to pursue the good reputation of the masses and the true evaluation that comes from historical sedimentation." In reality, some cadres are more focused on work that easily "takes the limelight," while showing insufficient enthusiasm for foundational work that is slow to yield results or has a long cycle. One reason for this is the unsound mechanism for identifying latent achievements. For example, tasks such as pollution control, the renewal of underground pipe networks, the construction of grassroots medical capacities, and the improvement of educational quality often find it difficult to create a "sensational effect" in the short term, yet they are directly related to the long-term development of a region and the vital interests of the masses. If the assessment and evaluation system pays insufficient attention to or fails to identify these tasks, it easily leads to cadres valuing visible achievements over latent ones, valuing "scenery-making" over "foundation-laying" [11], and valuing "short-term, level, and fast" [12] results over "long-cycle" ones. Therefore, visible and latent achievements must be uniformly integrated into the political performance assessment and evaluation system. We must look both at the tangible, touchable results achieved during a term of office and at the continuous investment in laying foundations, benefiting the long term, and improving people's livelihoods; we must look both at how contemporary problems are solved and at how issues left over from history are resolved. We must improve the mechanisms for identifying, confirming, evaluating, and incentivizing latent achievements. Major projects, major reforms, and major foundational pillars initiated during a term that continue to yield results subsequently should be included in tracking evaluations, pushing cadres to perform both practical deeds that are perceptible and accessible today and good deeds that build momentum and empower the future.
Adhere to the unity of "knowing the task" and "knowing the person," and improve the ways and methods of political performance assessment.
Whether political performance assessment is scientific depends not only on whether the design of the content is accurate but also on whether the methods used can truly, comprehensively, and deeply identify performance. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: "One must combine the study of people with the study of tasks, avoiding moving from abstraction to abstraction or drawing conclusions based on intuition." To improve a scientific political performance assessment and evaluation system, we must center on the core requirement of "knowing the task to know the person" [13] and improve mechanisms for routine assessment, close-range assessment, specialized assessment, and mass participation, thereby increasing the authenticity, penetration, and public credibility of assessments.
Strengthen routine assessment to master the true performance of cadres through regular understanding. The formation of political performance is process-oriented, continuous, and cumulative. Relying solely on a single concentrated year-end assessment or an inspection prior to a leadership transition makes it difficult to accurately grasp true conditions and consistent performance. Only by putting in the work during ordinary times and integrating assessment into the entire process of daily management can we truly master a cadre's long-term performance and sustained actions. General Secretary Xi Jinping criticized the assessment work in some localities: "In some places, there is no assessment without promotion, no assessment without a leadership transition, and no assessment until the end of the year; there is insufficient understanding of the daily work and ordinary performance of cadres." This practice of "no assessment without immediate use" turns assessment into a "commando action" at specific nodes, making it difficult to fully understand a cadre's consistent performance and leaving room for "temporary packaging," "sudden scenery-making," and "pre-exam sprinting." Routine assessment must be grasped as a foundational project; the focus is not simply on increasing reports and ledgers, but rather on dynamically mastering a cadre's political performance, mental state, working methods, and actual results during daily work through methods such as work chronicles, tracking key tasks, recording major matters, periodic analysis and judgment, and observation of daily performance. In particular, we must see whether a cadre is diligent and responsible in ordinary times, whether they can charge forward at critical moments, whether they can hold their ground in the face of complex situations, and whether they exert continuous effort in advancing long-term tasks. For cadres working long-term on the front lines at the grassroots, in hard-hit areas, or in complex environments, routine tracking and long-term observation must be strengthened to prevent them from being ignored due to a "low level of exposure." The more solid the routine assessment, the better the foundation for the annual assessment, the more basis there is for selecting and appointing personnel, and the stronger the authenticity and authority of the assessment system.
Strengthen close-range assessment to identify the "karat" of political performance [14] at the frontline. Political performance assessment cannot stop at listening to reports, looking at materials, and checking ledgers; it must go deep into the front line, stay close to the scene, and approach the masses to observe cadres in real-world contexts. Practice shows that the most common bias in performance assessment is being detached from reality, separated from the scene, and suspended in the air, eventually forming a judgment like "looking at flowers through a fog" [15]. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: "One must bring a 'telescope' and a 'microscope' to engage in close-range contact and multi-angle inspection of cadres." The so-called "telescope" means looking at trends, potential for future development, and long-term impact, preventing a narrow focus on the present while neglecting the long term; the "microscope" means looking at details, the "capillaries" of implementation [16], and the actual grounding of policies, preventing merely listening to summaries without observing the actual situation. The core of close-range assessment lies in extending the reach of assessment from meeting rooms to work sites, project frontlines, grassroots communities, rural fields, service windows, and the sides of the masses, mastering first-hand information through on-site inspections of project progress, understanding policy implementation on the ground, and conducting face-to-face interviews with grassroots cadres and the masses. At the same time, one must be adept at using multiple channels and multi-dimensional information for cross-verification, organically combining the results of inspections, audits, specialized supervisions, public petitions, and media supervision to construct a three-dimensional and penetrating assessment method.
Improve the mechanism for mass participation, using the reputation among the masses to calibrate the evaluation of political performance. The masses are the most direct feelers and judges of policy effects, as well as the most persuasive testers of the authenticity of political performance. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "A cadre's achievements lie in practice; a cadre's reputation lies among the people," and "To measure whether a cadre's performance is good, the key is to see whether their reputation among the common people is good." This profoundly demonstrates that mass evaluation is not an auxiliary link in performance assessment, but an important yardstick for identifying performance. For mass evaluation to truly play its role, the key lies in ensuring its authenticity and effectiveness through scientific institutional design. On one hand, channels for mass participation must be smoothed, and mechanisms such as opinion polls, satisfaction surveys, random interviews, field research, on-site visits, and analysis of online public sentiment must be improved to expand the scope of random sampling and ensure anonymous evaluation and honest feedback. For work closely related to the vital interests of the masses and business entities—such as social welfare, public services, grassroots governance, and the business environment—the weight of evaluations from the masses and service targets should be reasonably increased. On the other hand, we must prevent simply replacing mass evaluation with online popularity or the volume of public opinion, and prevent mechanically equating individual opinions or transient emotions with overall judgment. We must unify the real feelings of the masses with long-term interests, individual experiences with overall results, and immediate feedback with continuous observation for analysis and judgment; only then can mass evaluation avoid becoming a mere formality and truly become an important yardstick for performance assessment.
Adhere to the combination of strict management and "kindness and care" [17], and improve the supervision and correction mechanism for political performance assessment.
The vitality of a system lies in its execution; the public credibility of an assessment lies in its supervision. No matter how accurate the value coordinates, how scientific the institutional content, or how precise the methods, if there is a lack of an effective supervision and correction mechanism, the assessment and evaluation system may still become distorted in execution. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The problem of the outlook on political performance is highly correlated with the willful abuse of power; power must be confined in the cage of institutions." Supervision and correction must be integrated into the entire process of assessment to discover and rectify deviations in execution in a timely manner, earnestly safeguarding the seriousness, fairness, and credibility of assessment and evaluation.
Construct an all-round supervision system to form institutional synergy. Deviations in the outlook on political performance are often hidden and gradual; they are not formed overnight but are accumulated step-by-step across multiple links such as decision-making, execution, statistics, assessment, and personnel selection. A single supervision channel finds it difficult to effectively identify and prevent them. We must establish and improve a supervision and correction mechanism that covers the entire process, incorporating performance assessment supervision into the systems of discipline inspection and supervision, intra-Party inspection, organizational supervision, audit supervision, and statistical supervision, achieving information mutual-communication, joint governance of problems, and sharing of results. For nascent or trending problems found, we must achieve early discovery and early correction through methods such as reminder talks, feedback for supervised handling, and specialized rectifications, preventing small problems from evolving into systemic deviations. We should explore the establishment of "negative lists," "warning lists," and "rectification ledgers" for the outlook on political performance, especially implementing whole-process monitoring and dynamic management of issues such as "half-finished projects" [18], illegal borrowing of debt, distorted data, false reporting and exaggeration, policy reversals, and "adding layers at each level" [19]. The key to supervision and correction is not simply after-the-fact accountability, but moving risk identification forward, placing problem disposal in advance, and plugging institutional loopholes to reduce the space for the emergence and spread of an erroneous outlook on political performance from the source.
Explore cross-cycle evaluation to solve the problem of short-termism. The formation, manifestation, and impact of political performance often have a long cycle. Some tasks do not show obvious results in the short term but will manifest their value in subsequent development; some tasks are "bustling and lively" and "outstanding in achievement" at the moment, but after the cadre leaves, they leave behind problems such as debt burdens, ecological destruction, abandoned projects, and disordered governance. If assessment and evaluation only look at short-term results, it is difficult to accurately identify the quality of performance, and it is easy to induce short-sighted behaviors like seeking quick success, "eating the food of next year today" [20], and "draining the pond to catch the fish." Therefore, we must explore the establishment of a cross-cycle evaluation mechanism, promoting the institutionalization and normalization of effect evaluations for major decisions, major projects, and major reform matters, and conducting continuous tracking of their long-term effects, social impact, mass evaluation, risk consequences, and sustainability. This is conducive both to identifying latent achievements that lay foundations and benefit the long term, and to constraining behaviors that are reckless or over-eager for success. Especially during periods when local leadership adjustments and transitions are concentrated, the corrective function of cross-cycle evaluation must be brought into play to guide cadres to enhance their "historical patience," persist in "drawing one blueprint to the end," and prevent phenomena such as "new officials refusing to handle old debts," "flipping the pancake" [21], or "changing the racetrack."
Adhere to precise accountability to incentivize cadres to take action. Accountability is an important means of supervision; to use this means well, one needs to grasp the "proper degree." If accountability is too loose, it will indulge erroneous behavior; if accountability is generalized or indiscriminate, it will dampen enthusiasm and suppress creativity. Both will damage the credibility and institutional orientation of assessment and evaluation. The key to precise accountability is to ensure clear basis, clear targets, and clear procedures. A "clear basis" means there must be explicit institutional provisions and factual determinations—accountability cannot be launched based on impressions, public opinion, or emotions. "Clear targets" mean accurately distinguishing between leadership responsibility, direct responsibility, and indirect responsibility to prevent the generalization of responsibility or "adding layers." "Clear procedures" mean insisting that responsibility must be investigated and accountability must be strict, while strictly following regulations, discipline, and the law. In particular, one must well distinguish the boundaries between mistakes/errors and violations of discipline/law, between exploratory innovation and illegal recklessness, and between subjective intent and objective factors. We must neither be too lenient nor too harsh, earnestly protecting the enthusiasm of cadres for doing business and creating endeavors.
Adhere to the combination of assessment and application, strengthening the incentive and guidance role of political performance assessment results.
In political performance assessment, "assessing" is the foundation and "using" is the key. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: "We must establish a scientific and rational assessment and evaluation system, using assessment results as an important basis for the reward, punishment, promotion, and use of leadership teams and leading cadres at all levels." If there is assessment without use, or use without substance, the assessment system easily falls into "idling." Only by truly using the assessment results and closely linking "how one is assessed" with "how cadres are used, how work is improved, and what orientation is established" can we form a favorable situation of promoting work, improvement, and excellence through assessment.
Guide a correct personnel selection orientation through assessment results. The selection and appointment of personnel is the most powerful "vane." Whatever kind of cadres are heavily used, the broad masses of cadres will work in that direction. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The greatest incentive for cadres is the correct personnel selection orientation; using one person well can inspire a whole area." The core of applying performance assessment results to selection and appointment is to establish a systematic "performance–evaluation–use" channel, allowing cadres who truly do work, accomplish tasks, master difficult tasks, and achieve things that lay foundations and benefit the long term to stand out. For outstanding cadres who are politically sound, have prominent achievements, possess a pragmatic style, and are recognized by the masses, we must accurately identify and boldly use them. Especially for cadres who have taken root at the grassroots for a long time and withstood tests in urgent, difficult, dangerous, and heavy tasks, we must discover and use them in a timely manner. For those cadres who lack a sense of responsibility, are keen on showmanship and creating hype, or engage in "image projects" and "performance projects" that waste manpower and money, we must not let them gain an advantage because they are "good at packaging," "good at reporting," or "good at creating hype." Through the dual force of "stepping up" and "stepping down" and the organic linkage of "reward" and "punishment," we should promote the formation of a distinct orientation that advocates hard work, emphasizes actual results, and encourages responsibility.
Drive the precise improvement of capacity through assessment results. Assessment is not only about identifying people but also about nurturing them. The weaknesses and shortcomings discovered during the assessment process are also the focal points for cadre training. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out:
"If the underlying issue is insufficient capacity, training must be strengthened, practical exercise intensified, and the summarization of experience improved; if it is a lack of responsibility and spirit, responsibilities must be clarified and supervision increased; if it is a failure to act, then serious criticism and education must be conducted, and discipline and accountability must be earnestly enforced." This requires transforming assessment results into targeted cultivation measures. For those whose political standing [22] needs improvement, we must strengthen theoretical arming and political training; for those lacking professional competence, we must enhance specialized training and practical experience; for those who have not mastered or applied the methods of mass work [23] sufficiently, we must reinforce education on our fundamental purpose [24] and training at the grassroots level [25]; and for those lacking the capacity to tackle tough reforms, we must emphasize "loading the burden" and "tempering the seedlings" [26] within major tasks. By applying assessment results to education and cultivation, the assessment becomes not only a "diagnostic report" for identifying problems but also a "construction blueprint" for promoting capacity enhancement, thereby driving the continuous growth of cadres.
We must use assessment results to create a political ecosystem that encourages responsibility and action. A scientific performance assessment and evaluation system must not only spur on those who lag behind but, more importantly, protect those who are advanced; it must not only prevent passive slackening but also encourage proactive enterprise. As reform moves into deeper waters, there is a greater need to encourage exploration, support innovation, and tolerate mistakes. General Secretary Xi Jinping has emphasized:
"We must distinguish between errors and mistakes made by cadres due to lack of experience or while conducting 'first-try' experiments in the process of promoting reform, and violations of discipline and law committed knowingly; distinguish between mistakes and errors in exploratory trials where there are no clear restrictions from higher levels, and violations of discipline and law that persist even after explicit prohibitions from above; and distinguish between unintentional slips made in the pursuit of development, and violations of discipline and law committed for private gain." This explicitly requires that, in improving a scientific performance assessment and evaluation system, we must unify positive incentives with "error tolerance and correction." For cadres who act out of public concern, follow compliant procedures, are diligent and responsible, and do not seek private gain, even if mistakes occur during reform exploration, they should be evaluated objectively and handled prudently; we cannot demand perfection or resort to simple negation. For cadres who encounter misunderstanding because they dare to take charge and manage, who are overlooked because they immerse themselves in hard work, or who carry the burden of stress due to false reports, the Party organization must promptly clarify the facts, vindicate their names, and provide support and encouragement. At the same time, the policy boundaries must be strictly maintained; the "error tolerance and correction" mechanism must never be alienated into a "shield" for violations of discipline and law. Only by unifying the encouragement of responsibility and exploration with the protection of solid work and the imposition of strict discipline can we form a political ecosystem conducive to cadres working with a free hand and forging ahead with determination.
General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out:
"In everything we do and every task we undertake, if we achieve what is beneficial to the state above and the people below; if we meet the requirements of both the immediate and the long-term interests of the state and the people; and if we can promote both economic and social development as well as national prosperity and people's happiness, then we have produced the true achievements required by the Party and the people." This important discourse profoundly reveals the complete connotation of "political performance" and provides the fundamental yardstick for improving the performance assessment and evaluation system. True political performance is neither a "short, level, and fast" [27] approach that seeks only superficial sensation regardless of long-term consequences, nor a "performance show" that is detached from the needs of the masses and exists in a self-circulating loop. Rather, it is a commitment to performance that remains people-centered, follows the laws of economic and social development, accords with the inherent requirements of Chinese-path modernization, and can withstand the test of practice, the people, and history. In improving the performance assessment and evaluation system, we must combine the establishment and practice of a correct outlook on political performance with the complete, accurate, and comprehensive implementation of the New Development Philosophy, the promotion of high-quality development, the advancement of common prosperity for all, and the maintenance of security and stability. We must continuously improve assessment content, optimize assessment methods, strengthen supervision and correction, and make the application of results substantive. This will truly ensure that the assessment "conductor's baton" points toward the areas most needed for the construction of Chinese-path modernization, the fields of greatest concern to the masses, and the most critical links of cadre responsibility and action, allowing the practice of seeking truth, being pragmatic, and doing solid work to become the prevailing trend.