KPIs - Criteria for Evaluating Employees Effectively

The Central Organizing Committee has just issued a Guideline on some aspects of quarterly periodic evaluation of leading and managerial cadres at all levels in the political system (Guideline No. 02-HD/BTCTW). With the requirement of "six clear points" - "clear person, clear task, clear time, clear responsibility, clear output, clear authority" and "one task - one main point of responsibility," this new regulation will ensure more substantive evaluation of cadres.

Personnel evaluation is a crucial step, serving as the basis for training, assigning, and appointing personnel. However, personnel evaluation remains one of the "difficult and weak points" due to numerous shortcomings, including a lack of specific evaluation criteria and a formalistic implementation process. In reality, evaluations are often conducted with deference and reluctance to confront issues, especially among leaders. The tendency to prioritize harmony in evaluations often results in a one-sided, undifferentiated assessment. There is no clear distinction between those who perform half-heartedly and those who dedicate themselves fully to their work. This deference-based, leveling, and "everyone gets along" approach is one of the reasons why many agencies and units have a very high percentage of "excellently completed tasks" or "successfully completed tasks," but the overall performance of the agency is sometimes disproportionate. This fails to motivate and encourage the dedication of those who dare to think and act for the common good of the agency or unit.

To improve the effectiveness of cadre evaluation, it is necessary to harmoniously combine qualitative and quantitative evaluation, with an emphasis on quantitative criteria regarding the quality of output, the effectiveness of task performance, and its connection to assigned responsibilities and duties; ensuring compliance with the "six clear requirements: clear person, clear task, clear time, clear responsibility, clear output, clear authority"; and thoroughly overcoming the situation of subjective, biased, evasive, and insubstantial evaluation.

To ensure objective employee evaluation, quarterly evaluations must be linked and consistent with the year-end evaluation and be reflected in the tangible results of the final product. Each employee's capabilities should be quantified by specific products, considering this as a crucial basis for assessing their level and competence. Shifting from primarily annual evaluations to quarterly evaluations makes employee monitoring more practical. Regular evaluations will address the issue of employees consistently receiving high ratings for many years but failing to meet the demands of important tasks when assigned.

Notably, the regulations stipulate that only individuals with outstanding performance, producing high-quality and effective work that exceeds the set requirements, will be considered for the "Excellent Performance" rating. This regulation contributes to ensuring fairness and objectivity, accurately reflecting the capabilities, sense of responsibility, and level of contribution of each individual. At the same time, it serves as motivation for each person to continuously innovate, improve the quality of their work, and strive to complete their tasks at the highest level. This evaluation aims to honor individuals with truly outstanding achievements, while also contributing to building a positive work environment, encouraging a culture of competition, and enhancing the operational efficiency of the agency or unit.

At the recent conference to approve the draft report on the second inspection of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly Party Committee, the General Secretary and President To Lam once again emphasized the importance of cadre evaluation: “Cadre evaluation must be genuine, substantive, thorough, continuous, multi-dimensional, and closely linked to work results, specific products, the level of completion of political tasks of agencies and units, and the satisfaction of the people. In particular, cadre evaluation must be linked to cadre placement and utilization. Those who perform well should be valued and given important tasks. Those who do not meet the requirements must be promptly replaced or transferred appropriately. We cannot allow a situation where cadres are highly evaluated but their work is stagnant and inefficient, nor can we allow a leveling-off evaluation mechanism that reduces motivation and innovation among cadres.”

In the face of extensive reforms and international integration, there is a growing demand for officials with increasingly higher capabilities and qualifications. To achieve this, the evaluation of officials must be reformed and made more substantive. When evaluations are truly objective and linked to concrete results, there will be no room for favoritism or subjective assessments, and the selection and utilization of officials will become increasingly accurate. This will allow for timely correction, screening, and replacement of officials with limited capabilities, a lack of responsibility, or who fail to meet job requirements – those who don't do their jobs should be sidelined. This is the foundation for building a service-oriented, effective, and efficient administration that meets the demands of national development in the new era.

Source: https://daibieunhandan.vn/kpi-tieu-chi-danh-gia-can-bo-thuc-chat-10418728.html