Measuring employee quality by work performance

The country is entering a phase of development with very high demands: double-digit growth, digital transformation, innovation in the national governance model, and building a more efficient, effective, and effective operational system. However, these goals are difficult to achieve if the system continues to operate according to old management thinking, with outdated and largely formalistic methods of evaluating officials, and if the implementation mechanisms lack clear accountability.

The reception and results delivery department at Binh Khanh commune, Can Gio district, Ho Chi Minh City. (Illustrative photo: Huu Duyen/TTXVN)

In recent working sessions with the Standing Committee of the National Assembly Party Committee and the Standing Committee of the Hanoi City Party Committee, General Secretary and President To Lam repeatedly emphasized the need to continue shifting strongly from a management mindset to a development-oriented mindset; from "if you can't manage it, ban it" to creating a legal framework to promote innovation, unleash productive forces, and mobilize resources for development.

Notably, this requirement is not only applied to legislative work or administrative reform, but is also directly linked to the implementation capacity of the apparatus and the quality of the staff.

The reality over the years has shown that many correct policies and guidelines are slow to be implemented at the grassroots level. In some places, procedures are lengthy, processing is slow, and documents have to go through many intermediate layers. Some matters within the authority of officials are met with hesitation and fear of responsibility. In some areas, there is a tendency towards a one-size-fits-all approach in terms of organization, structure, and staffing. In some places, the capacity for implementation has not kept pace with the demands of greater decentralization.

That is why General Secretary and President To Lam has requested continued review and removal of major institutional bottlenecks; acceleration of amendments to laws related to investment, land, finance, science and technology, data, and digital transformation; and strengthening supervision of implementation to ensure that policies, once enacted, are truly put into practice.

In the context of new development requirements, institutions are not merely management tools but are recognized as a crucial resource for development. If institutions are slow to innovate, heavily reliant on bureaucratic thinking, and burdened with numerous barriers and overlapping procedures, it will be difficult to create new growth drivers. An economy aiming for rapid growth cannot operate with a protracted system of granting permits or a cumbersome, slow-moving bureaucracy.

However, for institutions to truly become a driving force for development, it cannot simply be a matter of amending regulations or cutting administrative procedures. It is crucial to improve the effectiveness of the system's implementation, clearly defining the responsibilities of each stage, level, and individual official in the process. This is also why the need to improve institutions always goes hand in hand with the need to reform personnel management, decentralize power, and enhance implementation capacity.

That spirit is being concretized through numerous policies and administrative documents. Decision No. 282/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister on the promulgation of the Plan for key state administrative reform for the period 2026-2030 continues to emphasize the need to review and reduce administrative procedures, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public service delivery. In Official Letter 412/TTg-TCCV, the Prime Minister requested the acceleration of decentralization and delegation of power, coupled with improving the capacity of officials and accountability in implementation.

But more importantly, the need for innovation in cadre evaluation is being clearly emphasized. Cadre evaluation cannot be merely a formality; it must be substantive, specific, and measurable through results, products, work efficiency, and the level of satisfaction of citizens and businesses. Cadres who perform well must be recognized and valued, while those who do not meet requirements must be promptly adjusted or replaced appropriately. We cannot set very high development standards while being complacent with a workforce lacking ambition, innovation, and responsibility, and working half-heartedly.

During a meeting with the National Assembly Party Committee, General Secretary and President To Lam requested that cadre evaluations be "closely linked to work results," and that the situation of "very good evaluations but stagnant and ineffective work" cannot be allowed; and that the egalitarian evaluation mechanism cannot be allowed to diminish the motivation for striving, innovation, and creativity.

This request is particularly noteworthy because, for a long time, the evaluation of officials in many places has been heavily based on averages. In some areas, the percentage of those deemed "performing their duties well" is very high, but the processing of tasks remains slow; citizens and businesses still have many concerns about the quality of service.

The Ministry of Interior's 2025 Satisfaction Index on Public Service (SIPAS 2025) report shows that the level of public satisfaction with the services of state administrative agencies is 83.09%, a slight decrease compared to before. This result indicates that although administrative reforms have brought about many positive changes, a segment of the population is not yet truly satisfied with the quality of service and the efficiency of work resolution by the administrative apparatus.

Even in Hanoi, a locality consistently ranking among the top in the country for administrative reform, the plan for 2025 must simultaneously improve three indicators: the SIPAS index, the Public Administration Reform Index (PAR INDEX), and the Provincial Public Administration and Governance Performance Index (PAPI), with 9 indicators aimed at improving SIPAS and 28 indicators aimed at improving PAPI.

This shows that the current bottleneck lies not only in regulations or procedures, but also in the implementation capacity and accountability of the staff. Therefore, that is also why performance-based evaluation of officials is being strongly promoted. Decree No. 335/2025/ND-CP, effective from January 1, 2026, stipulates that the evaluation of civil servants will be carried out regularly on a monthly or quarterly basis, linked to tasks and work performance.

Some localities have begun to concretize this approach. In Da Nang, the evaluation of officials, civil servants, and public employees is carried out on a 100-point scale with two main groups of criteria, in which the group of criteria on task performance results accounts for up to 70 points. This represents a change in the perspective on public service responsibility. When work results are quantified and linked to individual responsibility, it will be difficult for general, indiscriminate evaluations or the situation of "everyone performing their duties well" to exist.

The requirement that "if performance is unsatisfactory, adjustments and replacements must be made" also reflects a clearer emphasis on personnel screening. In a more streamlined system with stronger decentralization and delegation of power, coupled with higher development demands, the mindset of working half-heartedly and avoiding responsibility cannot continue. Simultaneously, decentralization must be accompanied by improved implementation capacity, enhanced inspection and supervision, and clearly defined responsibilities. We cannot allow a situation where decentralization is hampered by insufficient resources, personnel, and capacity to carry out tasks.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of institutional reform must be measured by the results of serving the people and the actual development results. As the demands of national development increase, the way cadres are evaluated and utilized must also change. We cannot allow a situation where cadres are highly evaluated but their work remains stagnant and inefficient; nor can we allow a egalitarian evaluation mechanism that diminishes the motivation for innovation, creativity, and accountability within the system.

Source: https://baotintuc.vn/thoi-su/do-chat-luong-can-bo-bang-ket-qua-cong-viec-20260530093651045.htm