In the current bureaucratic system, accountability has become particularly common, which has become one of the main reasons for the increased pressure on grassroots civil servants.
In practice, it seems that the authorities are more accountable than bottom-to-top.
This top-down form of accountability often makes grassroots civil servants the direct bearers of pressure, which is an imbalance in the system.
Under such a system, superiors can promote the progress of work by delegating responsibilities and supervising and holding accountable, while they can be relatively free from pressure.
Grassroots civil servants, who are closest to the people, should be the most able force to care for the people's suffering, but in the face of limited power and resources, they often find their good intentions unsustainable.
Sometimes, even if the upper level knows that certain tasks are impractical, they still push them to the lower level to carry them out.
Labeled as "territorial management", the pressure is increasing layer by layer, accountability has become the norm, and grassroots civil servants are often under tremendous work pressure.
They are asked to perform tasks that should be done by higher-level officials, such as key areas such as production safety, and when problems arise, grassroots civil servants are often the first to bear the blame.
From firefighting to food safety, from preventing children from drowning to sudden temporary policy tasks, grassroots civil servants are required to bear the brunt.
Over time, grassroots civil servants need to install various applications, perform ad-hoc inspections, etc., all of which translate into their work indicators and assessments.
The rigidity of the system has led to the fact that grassroots civil servants have to do their best to achieve formal perfection. Because in such a system, as long as the form is passable, the results are often not concerned and difficult to pursue.
Although this approach can meet the inspection needs of the higher authorities in a short period of time, it does not really solve the problem, and ultimately provides little help to the public.
To change this situation, it is necessary to fundamentally optimize the accountability mechanism. First, there is a need to clearly delineate the boundaries between functions and responsibilities.
In the established hierarchical relationship, each level of officials should assume their own responsibilities, rather than shifting all responsibilities to the grassroots level.
Supervision and operational guidance should not be a mere formality, and substantive measures should be taken. If the subordinate fails to complete the task, it may also reflect the ineffectiveness of the superior in the process of supervision and guidance. In this case, both parties should share the responsibility.
The formulation of scientific and reasonable assessment rules is very important to prevent the emergence of chaos. The indicators of the year-end assessment are usually too cumbersome and superficial, and have little to do with the actual interests of the masses.
The assessment system should focus on bringing practical benefits to the masses and reduce formalistic assessment items.
As a means of managing officials, the purpose of accountability is supposed to be to rectify those bureaucratic disorders, such as lazy government, mediocre government, usurpation, and disorderly behavior.
However, in practice, many grassroots officials are often implicated, and they may not be derelict in their duties, but they still have to bear the consequences of accountability.
Grassroots bureaucrats should also be given a certain fault-tolerant mechanism in due course. Civil servants who truly want to serve the people, if they want to innovate and challenge the status quo, they must have a certain amount of room for operation and room for error.
The central authorities have repeatedly encouraged grassroots officials to boldly try new methods and do practical things for the people, and this encouragement needs to be translated from paper to practical action.
Changing the status quo of grassroots civil servants who are "busy and free" requires us to adjust our attitude from top to bottom, and unite and work together from multiple dimensions such as clarifying functions, scientific assessment, prudent accountability, and providing fault-tolerant guarantees.
In this way, we may be able to gradually achieve a reasonable reduction in the work pressure of grassroots civil servants, so that they can have more energy and resources to provide truly valuable services to the people.
Change is not easy, but once we work at the institutional and cultural levels, reform will have its effects.
Grassroots civil servants are the bridge between the government and the people, and only when they can work in a fair, reasonable and efficient system can their potential be fully realized, so as to drive the progress of the whole society.
This is not only a support and encouragement for grassroots civil servants, but also a commitment to the well-being of the people. Let us all look forward to realizing the dream of shared well-being for both citizens and public servants in a society in which everyone is accountable and everyone has equal opportunities.
#头条创作挑战赛#