Accordingly, the annual performance rating of civil servants is determined based on the average score of monitoring and evaluation periods on a monthly, quarterly, or product/work cycle basis, ensuring a comprehensive and continuous reflection of the task performance process. The performance ratings for civil servants are: excellent performance; good performance; satisfactory performance; and unsatisfactory performance.
The failure to complete the task falls under one of the following cases: having a monitoring and evaluation score below 50 points; being concluded by the competent authority to have signs of ideological and political degradation, moral decay, lifestyle deviations, "self-evolution," and "self-transformation"; violating the rules that Party members are not allowed to break; violating the responsibility of setting an example, negatively affecting the reputation of oneself and the agency or unit where one works; having committed violations related to official duties that resulted in disciplinary action ranging from reprimand upwards during the evaluation year.
In addition, officials are considered to have failed to complete their duties when complaints, denunciations, or feedback arise regarding their service attitude or the quality of service not conforming to the regulations of their sector, field, or unit in the provision of public services. Organizations and units under their direct supervision and management are involved in embezzlement, corruption, and waste and are subject to legal penalties…
Evaluating civil servants is a crucial prerequisite for understanding their moral character, capabilities, and work performance. It also serves as an objective basis for placement, utilization, training, development, appointment, rewards, disciplinary actions, and the implementation of policies aimed at improving the quality of the civil servant workforce and the effectiveness of agencies and organizations. However, in reality, the evaluation of civil servants remains a weak point and does not accurately reflect the true results of task performance.
Specifically, as affirmed by the Ministry of Interior , the evaluation process still heavily relies on qualitative assessments, lacking quantitative measurement tools for products and work according to job positions. It is not linked to progress, quantity, or quality of output; and it is not implemented in a comprehensive, continuous, and multi-dimensional manner. There is still a tendency towards favoritism and a one-size-fits-all approach, leading to the majority of civil servants being rated as having performed their duties well or better. This diminishes the significance of the classification, fails to create motivation for improving work efficiency and quality, and does not truly serve as a tool for selecting qualified personnel.
The reasons for these shortcomings and limitations are the lack of a standardized, quantitative evaluation framework linked to the products and work of each job position. There is also a lack of a mechanism for regularly and continuously monitoring and recording the results of task performance. The evaluation methods remain rigid and unsuitable for the diverse characteristics of various sectors and fields of work.
Therefore, the requirement is to develop a framework of evaluation criteria as a basis for quantifying the results of task performance through specific products and work. This involves empowering public service units to choose evaluation methods and tools appropriate to their specific operations, ensuring that the work performance of employees is measured objectively and transparently.
Fundamentally reforming the evaluation of civil servants towards a modern and substantive approach is an objective and inevitable requirement in the current context. This process needs to be monitored and evaluated regularly and continuously. The evaluation results must be substantive and used for rewarding achievements, considering appointments to higher or lower positions, or dismissing those who do not meet job requirements, thereby removing them from the system.
Source: https://daibieunhandan.vn/danh-gia-thuc-chat-dinh-luong-ro-rang-10411324.html
Comment (0)