Political Work

Behind the Experience of a Survey Questionnaire Going Through "Three Drafts"…

一次调查问卷“三易其稿”的经历背后……

PLA Daily (解放军报) 2 June 2026

Summary

A Southern Theater Command Air Force Radar Brigade Party committee forced its Political Work Department through three successive drafts of a 问绩于兵 ('soliciting performance assessments from soldiers') survey questionnaire, rejecting the first two for using vague satisfaction scales and rejecting the second for asking about misconduct in the abstract rather than naming specific authority nodes—NCO promotions, cadre reassignment decisions, spouse-relocation paperwork timelines, and headquarters inspection conduct. The final version drew 47 discrete complaints from across the brigade, which the Party committee logged in a rectification ledger with named responsible parties and tied directly to departmental quarterly assessments, disqualifying low-scoring departments from commendation nominations. The article documents an internal accountability mechanism designed to correct what the brigade leadership explicitly frames as a distorted 政绩观 (performance-achievement outlook) among headquarters cadres—the institutional habit of designing evaluations to produce favorable results rather than surface real grievances—and its value is as a record of how the PLA frames this problem and the specific procedural levers it is testing to address it.

Translation

The Party Committee of a Southern Theater Command Air Force Radar Brigade Guides Headquarters Party Member Cadres to Set Aside Face and Listen to Honest Opinions——

Questionnaire Goes Through Three Drafts, Questions Strike at the Heart of the Matter

■ Shen Jie, Liu Yichao

By soliciting opinions through a survey questionnaire, the brigade Party committee's headquarters optimized its inspection and guidance methods, giving officers and soldiers more time and energy to devote to training for war. Photo by Guan Gaoliang.

Staring at the freshly printed copy of the "Soliciting Performance Assessments from Soldiers (问绩于兵) Survey Questionnaire" on his desk, Staff Officer Li of the Political Work Department of a Southern Theater Command Air Force Radar Brigade furrowed his brow and sank into deep thought.

The initial draft of the questionnaire, which he had led the effort to draft, had just been returned by brigade leadership for the second time, with the explanation that "the questions are neither here nor there and serve no investigative purpose."

The matter began when the brigade Party committee, in order to rectify the performance-achievement outlook (政绩观) of headquarters Party member cadres, organized a "Soliciting Performance Assessments from Soldiers" evaluation. In the past, the headquarters had organized similar satisfaction surveys, but the questionnaire designs mostly remained at the level of sweeping questions like "Are you generally satisfied with headquarters services?" and "Do you think the improvement in headquarters work style has been noticeable?" When officers and soldiers filled them out, scores were often not low, opinions were few, and the evaluation results appeared to be overwhelmingly positive—yet the nagging problems and frustrations at the grassroots level were rarely resolved, and the surveys even provoked resentment among officers and soldiers.

This time, the brigade Party committee's position was clear: whether work is being done well cannot be determined solely by one's own account—the power of evaluation must be handed to the grassroots officers and soldiers, and their innermost thoughts must be heard. One brigade leader's requirement for the questionnaire being drafted was that it truly point directly at sensitive spots and scratch where it actually itches, bringing to the surface the issues that officers and soldiers "are unwilling to raise, dare not raise, or raise to no effect," and using the opinions and suggestions from the grassroots as a mirror so that headquarters cadres could arrive at an objective understanding of their own original aspirations, work style, and actual performance.

When he first received the assignment, Staff Officer Li thought it was just a routine survey questionnaire and did not take the leadership's requirements much to heart. The first draft followed the usual approach: the questionnaire set up broad categories of "service attitude," "efficiency in handling matters," and "work style and image," with the tired formula of options reading "very satisfied," "satisfied," and "basically satisfied." Brigade leadership, however, responded after reviewing it: "What difference does it make whether this kind of questionnaire gets filled out or not?"

After the first draft was returned, Staff Officer Li immediately adjusted his thinking and made revisions, adding somewhat sharper items such as "whether buck-passing and shirking of responsibility exists" and "whether soliciting of gifts or favors exists." Unexpectedly, after resubmission, brigade leadership again pointed out the shortcomings: "The questions may seem to have an edge, but they skim the surface. What officers and soldiers truly care about is whether the selection and appointment of personnel is fair and impartial, whether the awarding of merits and commendations is open and transparent, and whether welfare benefits are handled in a timely manner. If officers and soldiers are not allowed to comment on these specific matters, soliciting performance assessments becomes an exercise in talking to oneself, and it becomes very difficult for headquarters Party member cadres to receive any education or wake-up call."

The brigade leader's words made Staff Officer Li flush with embarrassment. Back at his desk, he first engaged in a period of self-reflection: designing the questionnaire to skirt the sensitive points that officers and soldiers care about was, on the surface, a fear that the questions would be "too glaring," but at its root it was his own insufficiently correct performance-achievement outlook—worrying that questions asked too specifically and too sensitively would amount to exposing contradictions in the open, and that once officers and soldiers gave low scores or actively raised problems, headquarters would lose face and he himself would easily be blamed by colleagues. He also worried that too many questions would affect the image and authority of leadership and the headquarters.

"Fear of losing face means you will never hear the truth!" At a special discussion session, the brigade Party committee's leadership team once again stated their position plainly: soliciting performance assessments means asking about what is critical, asking about what is painful. The satisfaction of grassroots officers and soldiers with sensitive matters affecting their immediate interests is precisely the "touchstone" for testing the work style and actual performance of headquarters Party member cadres. If you cannot even bring yourself to pierce the paper window on a questionnaire, what is there to say about establishing and practicing a correct performance-achievement outlook? What is there to say about serving the grassroots?

After deep reflection and investigation, Staff Officer Li produced the third draft of the questionnaire. The previously sweeping "service evaluation" was broken down into more than ten specific items pointing directly at sensitive matters. "During last year's non-commissioned officer promotion process, were there instances of simplified procedures, making phone calls, or passing notes?" "How do you assess the credibility of cadre reassignment and utilization decisions?" "How long on average does it take from submitting an application to completion of procedures for a spouse to join the unit, and has there been any buck-passing or delay?" "Has headquarters inspection and supervision engaged in making mountains out of molehills or deliberate obstruction?"… Every question was aimed at critical nodes in the exercise of authority and at the difficulties and bottlenecks officers and soldiers encounter in their daily dealings, leaving no room for ambiguity and striking directly at the crux of the problems.

At the end of the questionnaire, a special column was added: Please list longstanding, difficult problems that have been raised multiple times but have never been properly resolved.

After this questionnaire was distributed, grassroots officers and soldiers generally filled it out carefully and conscientiously, and the previous phenomena of "checking straight through" or hastily turning it in within a minute or two did not recur. A soldier at a certain sea-island radar station left a message on the questionnaire: "The questions are asked so honestly and so specifically—you can genuinely feel that headquarters values us and is sincere about discovering and resolving problems."

After collection and tabulation, officers and soldiers across the brigade raised 47 prominent problems through the questionnaire. The brigade Party committee, concealing nothing, organized special study sessions, established a rectification ledger item by item, specified responsible parties, timelines, and acceptance standards, and directly linked the questionnaire evaluation results to departmental quarterly assessments—those whose satisfaction scores fell below the baseline were disqualified from being nominated for commendations and awards.

The experience of this questionnaire going through "three drafts" also became a vivid practical exercise through which the brigade Party committee educated and guided headquarters Party member cadres to establish and practice a correct performance-achievement outlook. A headquarters section chief against whom officers and soldiers had raised a relatively large number of problems reflected: in the past, he was actually aware of some problems in his work, but always felt that as long as grassroots officers and soldiers did not raise them, there was no need to invite trouble. Now it is clear that the eyes of grassroots officers and soldiers are sharp and bright; going forward, we must proactively uncover problems and put them on the table, and can no longer engage in self-deception and self-congratulation.

Today, this questionnaire—one that dares to expose shortcomings—has become an important reference for investigative work at all levels of the brigade. A member of the brigade Party committee standing committee told this reporter that in the next phase they will continue to carry out "Soliciting Performance Assessments from Soldiers," so that those questions that are concrete, person- and event-specific, and that strike directly at sensitive and critical issues will serve as a constant reminder to headquarters Party member cadres: the performance-achievement answer sheet for fighting and preparing for war must ultimately be graded by combat effectiveness and by the grassroots officers and soldiers.

Eyewitness Account ①

Do Not Let "Face" Cover Up Real Problems

■ Xiao Zhao, Headquarters Cadre, Southern Theater Command Air Force Radar Brigade

As a headquarters cadre, witnessing the process of this questionnaire going through multiple drafts was a profound education for me and struck me deeply.

To be honest, when I first saw leadership send the questionnaire back, I had my own private calculations (小九九): if the questions are too detailed and too direct, and grassroots officers and soldiers give low scores without giving face, or if the problems they point out are too sharp, where does that leave headquarters? Will the image and authority of headquarters plummet? Looking back now, this mindset was essentially placing personal face above the voices of officers and soldiers—a textbook case of a misaligned performance-achievement outlook.

Going through the 47 pointed problems reflected in the officers' and soldiers' feedback one by one, quite a few of them made me flush and sweat. For example, some officers and soldiers raised the problem of delays in processing marriage and spouse-joining-the-unit paperwork—in the past, I always felt that I was busy with work and had many matters to attend to, and that it was no big deal if soldiers' affairs were handled a couple of days late. But for officers and soldiers, these are major matters bearing on personal happiness and the stability of military morale. Every day of delay in paperwork may add one more measure of anxiety and one more measure of heartache for officers and soldiers, and may even shake their resolve to train for war.

Headquarters exists to serve the grassroots. How well it does its job ultimately depends on the evaluation of grassroots officers and soldiers. In the past, we feared that low questionnaire scores would cost us face, and our investigative work often stopped just short of the mark. Now I understand: failing to listen to the genuine voices of officers and soldiers out of fear of "losing face"—that is the greatest dereliction of duty a headquarters cadre can commit.

Only when we truly bend down to listen to honest words and settle our minds to handle real problems, making "whether officers and soldiers are satisfied" the starting point and ultimate goal of all our work, can we ensure that our work stands up to scrutiny by officers and soldiers and by practice.

Eyewitness Account ②

I Felt That My Voice Was Being Heard

■ Xiao Li, Senior Master Sergeant (二级军士长), Southern Theater Command Air Force Radar Brigade

In the past, when headquarters organized similar questionnaire surveys, faced with those familiar-looking questions, some comrades either treated it as going through the motions—checking straight through "very satisfied" and "satisfied"—or could not find a direction for their answers and hastily wrote "no opinions or suggestions." The things that were truly nagging at them, they did not know how to bring up or put into words, and sometimes could only raise them individually through separate inquiries.

This questionnaire gave me a different experience. It no longer had sweeping questions or vague options, but instead directly named sensitive matters and hard questions: "Were there any phone calls made during non-commissioned officer promotions?" "Were there delays in spouse-joining-the-unit procedures?" "Did headquarters inspections involve deliberate obstruction?" This candor in daring to confront problems head-on let me feel headquarters' determination to hear the truth and handle real problems.

In particular, when I saw the column at the end of the questionnaire—"Please list longstanding, difficult problems that have been raised multiple times but have never been properly resolved"—I hesitated for a long time, but in the end carefully wrote down something I had been holding inside for a long time: the problem of applying to use housing provident fund (住房公积金) for renovating a self-built home in my hometown. At that moment, I felt the pen in my hand had weight, and the words in my heart had somewhere to go.

Later, watching as problems were listed one by one and resolved and checked off the ledger, and seeing that the problem I had raised was soon followed up on by headquarters personnel who proactively came to inquire, I genuinely felt that my voice had truly been heard. That feeling of being respected does more to boost morale than any material reward. As a frontline combatant rooted on a sea island, my conviction to devote all my thoughts to training for war has grown even stronger.

Original Chinese

南部战区空军雷达某旅党委引导机关党员干部抛开面子听真言—— 问卷三易其稿问题切中要害 ■沈杰刘义超通过调查问卷听取意见，该旅党委机关优化检查指导方式，让官兵有更多时间精力投身练兵备战。管高亮摄盯着办公桌上那份刚打印出来的《问绩于兵调查问卷》，南部战区空军雷达某旅政治工作部李干事眉头紧锁，陷入深思。这份由他牵头拟制的问卷初稿，已是被旅领导第二次退回了，退回的理由是“问题不痛不痒，起不到调研作用”。事情要从旅党委为端正机关党员干部政绩观，组织“问绩于兵”测评说起。以往，机关也组织过类似的满意度调查，但问卷设计多半停留在“您对机关服务总体是否满意”“您认为机关作风改进是否明显”这类笼统的问题上。官兵填下来，往往分数不低，意见不多，测评结果看似一片大好，可基层的挠头事、烦心事解决不了多少，甚至引发官兵反感。这一次，旅党委态度很明确：工作干得好不好，不能仅凭自己说了算，必须把评价权交给基层官兵，听听官兵的心里话。一名旅领导对正在拟制的问卷要求是，真正直指敏感点、挠到真痒处，将官兵平时“不愿提、不敢提、提了也白提”的问题摆到台面上来，以基层意见建议为镜子，让机关干部对自己的初心作风、工作实绩有个客观认识。受领任务之初，李干事觉得就是一份例行的调查问卷，并未过多把领导要求放心上，第一稿就沿用了以往常用做法，问卷设置“服务态度”“办事效率”“作风形象”几个大项，选项是“非常满意”“满意”“基本满意”的老套路。然而，旅领导看后反馈说：“这样的问卷，填和不填有什么区别？” 初稿第一次被退回，李干事立即调整思路进行完善，增加了诸如“是否存在推诿扯皮”“是否存在吃拿卡要”等稍显尖锐的条目。没想到送审后，旅领导再次指出不足：“问题看似有了锋芒，却浮在面上。官兵真正关心的，是选人用人是否公平公正、评功评奖是否公开透明、福利待遇是否办得及时。这些具体事不让官兵评说，问绩就成了空对空，机关党员干部也很难受到教育警醒。” 旅领导的话让李干事红了脸。这次回来，他自己先进行了一番反思：问卷设计绕开官兵关注的敏感点，表面上是怕题目“太刺眼”，根子上还是自己的政绩观不够端正——担心问题问得太具体、太敏感，等于把矛盾暴露在明面上，一旦官兵打了低分或是积极反映问题，机关脸上无光，自己也容易被同事埋怨，还担心问题太多，会影响领导和机关的形象威信。 “怕丢面子，就听不到真话！”专题研讨会上，旅党委一班人再次鲜明表态：问绩就是要问到关键处、问到痛点上。基层官兵对涉及切身利益的敏感事项的满意度，正是检验机关党员干部作风和实绩的“试金石”。如果连一份问卷都不敢戳破窗户纸，还谈什么树立和践行正确政绩观？谈什么服务基层？深刻反思后，李干事经过调研，拿出了问卷的第三稿。原先笼统的“服务评价”被细化为10多个直指敏感事项的具体条目。“去年军士选晋过程中，是否存在简化程序、打招呼递条子的情况”“对干部调整使用的公信度如何评价”“家属随军手续从提交申请到办结平均耗时多久，有无推诿拖延”“机关检查督导有没有小题大做、刻意刁难”……每个问题都瞄准权力运行的关键节点，以及官兵日常办事的难点堵点，不留模糊空间，直指问题要害。问卷末尾还专门增设一栏：请列出多次反映但始终未得到妥善解决的老大难问题。这份问卷下发后，基层官兵普遍认真填写作答，没有出现以往那种“一勾到底”、一两分钟匆匆交卷等现象。某海岛雷达站一名战士在问卷上留言：“问题问得这么实在、这么具体，能真切感受到机关对我们的重视，对发现问题解决问题的诚意。” 经过回收统计，全旅官兵通过问卷反映的突出问题有47项。旅党委不遮不掩，组织专题研究，逐条建立整改台账，明确责任人、时间线、验收标准，并将问卷测评结果直接与科室季度考评挂钩——满意度低于基准线的，取消评先评优资格。这次问卷“三易其稿”的经历，也成了该旅党委教育引导机关党员干部树立和践行正确政绩观的一次生动实践。被官兵反映问题较多的一名机关科长感言，以往其实也能意识到工作中的一些问题，但总觉得只要基层官兵不反映，也就没必要自找麻烦。现在看来，基层官兵的眼睛是雪亮的，今后我们要主动把问题揭开、放到台面上，不能再搞自欺欺人、自鸣得意那一套了。如今，这份敢于亮丑的问卷已成为该旅各级开展调研的重要参考。一名旅党委常委告诉笔者，下一步他们将持续开展“问绩于兵”，让那些见人见事、直击敏感要害的问题时刻提醒机关党员干部：为战务战的政绩答卷，最终要由战斗力和基层官兵来评阅。亲历者说① 莫让“面子”掩盖真问题 ■南部战区空军雷达某旅机关干部小赵作为一名机关干部，目睹这份问卷数易其稿的过程，我很受教育，触动很深。说实话，起初看到领导把问卷打回，我心里也有自己的“小九九”：问得太细、太直接，万一基层官兵不给面子打了低分，或是指出的问题太尖锐，我们机关的脸往哪儿搁？机关的形象威信会不会一落千丈？现在看来，这种心态本质上是把个人面子看得比官兵心声还重，是典型的政绩观错位。逐一审视官兵反馈的47条辣味十足的问题，有不少让我脸红出汗的内容。比如有官兵反映结婚、随军材料办理迟滞的问题——过去一直觉得自己工作忙、事务多，官兵的事迟办两天无妨，但这对官兵而言却是关乎人生幸福、军心稳定的大事。材料每拖延一日，都可能让官兵多一分焦虑、多一分寒心，甚至动摇练兵备战的意志。机关是服务基层的，干得怎么样，最终要看基层官兵的评价。以前我们怕问卷分数低了没面子，开展调研往往点到即止。现在才明白，因为怕“丢面子”而不去听官兵的真实声音，这才是机关干部最大的失职。只有我们真正俯下身子听真话、沉下心来办实事，把“官兵满不满意”作为一切工作的出发点和落脚点，才能让工作经得起官兵和实践的检验。亲历者说② 感到自己的声音被听到了 ■南部战区空军雷达某旅二级军士长小黎以往机关组织类似问卷调查，面对那些似曾相识的问题，有些战友要么当成走过场，对“非常满意”“满意”等一勾到底，要么找不到回答的方向，草草写上“无意见建议”，自己真正挠头的事情却不知道从何开口、如何落笔，有时只能个别反馈、单独询问。这次的调查问卷给了我不一样的感受，问卷不再有宽泛的问题、模糊的选项，而是直接点名“军士选晋有无打招呼”“随军手续拖没拖延”“机关检查有没有刻意刁难”这些敏感事、硬问题。这种敢于直面问题的坦诚，让我感受到了机关想听真话、想办实事的决心。特别是当我看到问卷末尾“请列出多次反映但始终未得到妥善解决的老大难问题”这一栏时，我犹豫了很久，最终还是把我心里憋了很久的，关于翻修老家自建房申请使用住房公积金的问题，认真写了上去。那一刻，我感觉手中的笔有了分量，心里的话有了去处。后来，看着一个个问题被拉单列表、挂账销号，我提出的问题也很快有机关人员主动过问，我真切感到自己的声音真的被听到了。这种被尊重的感觉，比任何物质奖励都更能鼓舞士气。作为一线战斗员，我扎根海岛，把全部心思投入练兵备战的信念更加坚定。