On May 22, 2026, the Central Organizing Committee issued Guidance No. 02-HD/BTCTW on quarterly periodic evaluations of leading and managerial cadres at all levels within the political system. This guidance requires the immediate replacement of cadres who have received "unsatisfactory performance" evaluations for two consecutive quarters or more. This represents a significant shift in cadre management thinking, demonstrating a determination to tighten accountability, control power, and gradually end the practice of "safe landings" for incompetent cadres.
One of the shortcomings of personnel management in recent times is the overly formal nature of performance evaluations. In many places, year-end reviews and rankings follow a familiar process: self-assessment, collective feedback, and the majority are rated as "having performed their duties well." Meanwhile, in some agencies and units, many cases of prolonged and repeated misconduct occur, yet few officials are rated as "not having completed their duties." This shows that the evaluation process in some places does not accurately reflect the quality of officials. As a result, incompetent officials are not identified in a timely manner, while those who dare to think and act sometimes face more pressure than those who are cautious and passive.
Instruction No. 02 demonstrates a strong commitment to reforming the evaluation of officials, moving towards a regular, continuous, substantive approach linked to outputs, practical effectiveness, and individual responsibility, especially for leaders. This is a very noteworthy point, because for a long time, the biggest difficulty in evaluating officials has not been the lack of regulations, but the lack of mechanisms to quantify responsibility and work efficiency. Therefore, the shift to quarterly evaluations is very important. It helps transform the evaluation process from a year-end summary into a regular, continuous monitoring process. An official can no longer use a few performance reports to mask long-standing weaknesses in management and administration.
The guidelines emphasize the requirement for evaluation based on the "six clear principles": clear person, clear task, clear time, clear responsibility, clear output, and clear authority. Thus, the evaluation of officials will no longer be limited to general comments, but must be measured by specific results, specific outputs, and specific responsibilities. More importantly, when evaluation results are directly linked to dismissal or replacement, all evaluation forms must be taken more seriously.
In any organization, from businesses to government agencies, leadership positions are not permanent privileges. As long as they meet the requirements, they continue to hold the position; when they no longer possess the necessary competence, credibility, or effectiveness, they must be replaced. However, in our country, the process of dismissing or replacing officials has long been very difficult. This is partly due to the mentality that positions are linked to "personal prestige" and "reputation"; and partly because the evaluation mechanisms are not yet truly clear, leading many to avoid confrontation. This makes replacing incompetent officials even more difficult than appointing them. Many incompetent officials remain in their positions because they haven't reached the point of needing disciplinary action. Meanwhile, weaknesses in management, while not always immediately visible in terms of specific losses, have significant consequences: slowing down development, missing opportunities, hindering the reform process, causing bureaucracy, and eroding public trust. An organization without an effective elimination mechanism will find it very difficult to maintain healthy competition...
What is noteworthy in Guidance Document No. 02 is not only the requirement to replace officials who have failed to complete their tasks for two consecutive quarters, but more fundamentally, the shift in the mindset regarding the evaluation and utilization of officials. Previously, evaluations were often formalistic, subjective, and based on favoritism; now, they are placed on the requirement of being substantive, continuous, and directly linked to work efficiency and personal responsibility. Guidance Document No. 02 aims to filter out incompetent officials and focus on identifying, nurturing, and promoting officials with innovative, creative thinking, who dare to think, dare to act, and dare to take responsibility for the common good. This shows that the spirit of this regulation is not to create additional administrative pressure or foster a "clinging to one's position" mentality, but rather to build a healthy competitive environment where officials are evaluated based on actual results.
Another very noteworthy point closely links the responsibility of the leader to the performance of the team. That is, if the team completes less than 70% of the assigned tasks, the leader is classified as "Not completing the task." This regulation clearly demonstrates the requirement that authority must be coupled with responsibility; those in high positions cannot evade responsibility for the overall results of the agency or unit they are in charge of.
A fair, objective, transparent, and performance-based evaluation mechanism is needed. A clear distinction must be made between incompetent officials and those who dare to innovate but face objective difficulties. Focusing solely on short-term results without considering motivation, context, and responsibility can easily lead to a fear of making mistakes, avoidance of responsibility, and a preference for safety. Therefore, the evaluation mechanism must be strong enough to protect those who dare to think and act for the common good, while resolutely removing those who are incompetent, afraid of responsibility, but still hold leadership positions.
Knowing when to resign is also a political culture that needs to be cultivated among current officials. A self-respecting official must know how to recognize their own limitations; when they no longer have the capacity or cannot keep up with the demands of development, they should proactively relinquish their position to someone more suitable. A strong system is not one without flaws, but one that dares to confront mistakes and correct them, dares to replace officials who are no longer worthy, and dares to give opportunities to those who are truly capable, courageous, and responsible.
When the principle of "up and down; in and out" becomes commonplace in personnel management, and when every position must be held based on competence, efficiency, and genuine trust, then the people's trust in the Party will be further strengthened.
Source: https://nhandan.vn/danh-gia-hieu-qua-de-sang-loc-thuc-chat-post970838.html
