Transforming the evaluation of officials from a "weak point" into a "breakthrough"

Decision No. 227-QD/TW dated October 19, 2026, of the Central Committee on reviewing and evaluating the quality of collectives and individuals in the political system and throughout the Party aims to transform the evaluation of cadres from a difficult and weak point into a breakthrough in cadre work.

Regulation 227-QD/TW clearly states: It is necessary to accurately and realistically determine the results of task performance based on qualities, capabilities, effectiveness, and contributions; identify collectives and individuals with outstanding achievements and results; promptly screen and handle weak collectives and individuals who fail to complete their tasks, in accordance with the mechanism of "entry, exit, promotion, and demotion"; and to serve as an important basis for the placement, utilization, and promotion of cadres, as well as the implementation of policies and regulations.

Accurately and genuinely evaluating the results of task performance means shifting from a formal assessment based on records, qualifications, and seniority to using specific, verifiable work products and the actual value that the official creates for the agency, organization, and the people as the primary measure.

The core of the "correct identification" method lies in 5 steps.

It's a shift from "selecting people" to "using people," from "assigning positions" to "assigning tasks," from "bestowing titles" to "bestowing authority."

It's about using tangible results as the benchmark. Evaluation shouldn't be based on general reports, self-assessments, or meeting formats, but rather on what problems the employee has solved, what bottlenecks they've overcome, what concrete value they've created, and what capabilities they've left for the organization.

It's about putting results in a specific context. When evaluating officials, we shouldn't just look at dry numbers, but consider the results in relation to the nature and difficulty of the task, the actual conditions, the resources allocated, and the level of accountability.

It's about aligning with job positions and actual capabilities. Officials must be assigned to the right jobs, according to their abilities, because personnel management begins with job requirements and ends with job performance.

It means valuing the people's assessment of the level of service. The results of serving the people and businesses, and the genuine trust of the collective and society, are used as criteria for verification.

Using actual products, work results, and the level of public satisfaction as the main measure to evaluate officials is not only the purpose of Regulation 227-QĐ/TW, but also a guiding principle throughout the work of Party building and national governance reform of General Secretary and President To Lam.

General Secretary and President To Lam demanded a shift in cadre evaluation from a formalistic to a substantive approach, changing the mindset of evaluating cadres based on the number of documents, files, qualifications, procedures, or formal reports to measuring them by concrete outputs and products.

The ultimate measure of a cadre's performance is practical effectiveness, contribution to overall development, and the satisfaction and tangible benefits for citizens and businesses; work results are used as the basis for personnel placement; those who perform well should be valued and given important tasks, while those who do not meet requirements must be dealt with appropriately.

In essence, Regulation 227-QĐ/TW is a new, concrete step to effectively implement Resolution No. 26-NQ/TW dated May 19, 2018, of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam on focusing on building a contingent of cadres at all levels, especially at the strategic level, with sufficient qualities, capabilities, and prestige, commensurate with their tasks.

On August 26, during a meeting with the Central Organizing Committee and relevant agencies regarding the project to summarize Resolution No. 26-NQ/TW, General Secretary and President To Lam emphasized: This is an important strategic decision on personnel work and the building of a contingent of cadres at all levels, especially strategic-level cadres. It is necessary to accurately assess the scale, value, results, and limitations over the past eight years of implementation, using the quality of the cadre force and the results of implementation as the benchmark for evaluating the outcome.

Accurately determining the performance of tasks based on the qualities, capabilities, effectiveness, and dedication of cadres is a clear reflection of the entire process of evaluating, selecting, utilizing, and screening personnel within a collective, organization, unit, or locality.

"Correct identification" requires individuals and organizations to reconsider whether the assignment of tasks to officials has been reformed in the following way: clear objectives, clear authority, responsibilities, resources, timelines, deliverables, and verifiable evidence.

To achieve "accurate assessment," the evaluation of officials must be carried out regularly, continuously, in a multi-dimensional manner, with differentiation, combining qualitative and quantitative aspects, and placing results in relation to authority, resources, conditions, and the difficulty of the tasks…

For "accurate identification" to be effective, the evaluation results must be used genuinely in selection, planning, training, placement, utilization, rewards, discipline, policies, and screening; implemented seriously, fairly, and humanely.

The emphasis on "accurately determining" the results of task performance based on qualities, capabilities, effectiveness, and dedication is particularly important at this time, stemming from several reasons.

First and foremost, this is a way to address the persistent "weakness" that has plagued Party building and the political system over many terms. The evaluation of cadres is often characterized by formality, favoritism, avoidance, averages, or reliance solely on files, reports, and general comments, leading to a failure to clearly distinguish between those who perform well and those who do not.

The 4th Plenum of the 14th Central Committee also set strict requirements for the evaluation of cadres. At the Plenum, the Central Committee summarized Resolution No. 26-NQ/TW and identified three major breakthroughs, with the evaluation, selection, utilization, and screening of cadres being the most important breakthrough.

Furthermore, reforming the Party's leadership methods requires a shift in mindset from focusing solely on administrative management and procedures to prioritizing national development and basing leadership on qualities, capabilities, and genuine talent.

2026 is the first year of the new term, a foundational year to build momentum, strength, and a premise for rapid and sustainable development. Therefore, conducting thorough periodic evaluations of officials (quarterly, every six months, annually) is crucial for timely assignment of tasks, training, reassignment, or decisively removing and replacing those who shirk responsibility, pass the buck, or fail to meet job requirements, without having to wait until the end of the term.

Furthermore, the current clear decentralization of power and authority also requires a more substantive and accurate evaluation of officials.

Failing to "properly determine" the results of task performance based on the qualities, capabilities, effectiveness, and dedication of cadres always leads to many negative consequences. However, as the country enters a new era, and the Party is striving to innovate its leadership methods and personnel management, this becomes even more detrimental.

Firstly, it distorts personnel management, leading to inaccurate placement, planning, appointment, transfer, or rotation of cadres, placing incompetent or untrustworthy individuals in important positions or overlooking truly talented people.

The "seniority-based promotion" mentality continues to take root, prioritizing rank and seniority over actual work performance. Officials who dare to think, dare to act, and make practical contributions but lack tact in their reporting may be retaliated against or disadvantaged.

These countermeasures find fertile ground. Officials chase after illusory achievements, submit superficial reports, avoid difficult tasks, and shirk responsibility instead of focusing on the quality of output and the effectiveness of service to the people.

Ultimately, this leads to a decline in management efficiency—the administrative apparatus becomes sluggish and less dynamic; bottlenecks in work are not addressed promptly.