Doctrine Political Work

Political Rectification Training in My Eyes | Let the View of Political Achievement Return from 'Looking at Traces' to 'Looking at Real Results'

我眼中的政治整训丨让政绩观从“看痕迹”回归“看实绩”

PLA Daily (解放军报) 2 June 2026

Summary

A headquarters organ official—identified only as Wang Keke—describes conducting grassroots inspections and finding that political work ledgers were formally complete but disconnected from actual soldier experience, then implementing three procedural reforms: banning ledger-based inspections, shifting focus from documentation to problem-solving, and instituting quarterly two-way assessments between headquarters and grassroots units. The article documents a persistent institutional problem the PLA has named but not solved: assessment systems that reward documentation over outcomes create incentives for cadres to invest in 'trace-leaving' rather than substantive work, and headquarters organs that inspect by reviewing materials actively reproduce the behavior they are meant to correct. The three-measure reform described here fits a recurring pattern in PLA political work literature where individual units announce local procedural fixes to formalism—fixes the institution has been announcing, in various forms, for decades—raising the question of whether political rectification training has the structural authority to change the incentive architecture that generates the problem in the first place.

Translation

If It Were True Gold, Why Would It Need Gilding

■ Wang Keke

Not long ago, I led colleagues from the headquarters organ down to grassroots companies and platoons to inspect the implementation of political work. Flipping through ledger after ledger—beautifully bound, meticulously categorized, with complete records and all required elements—the work appeared solid and thorough. But when I walked into the squads and platoons and sat down informally with several soldiers to ask about their experience with theoretical study, psychological services, and other work, some soldiers said frankly that they had not gained much from it.

Back at the headquarters organ, I reviewed the on-site investigation reports previously submitted by the various functional sections and found the same problem. Some reports were formally well-written, but whenever they touched on actual problems or solutions, they either glossed over them with vague generalities or spread attention so thin it amounted to nothing. It was clear that these investigation reports were, in all likelihood, "trace-leaving work" (留痕工作) done simply to fulfill the on-site investigation requirement.

Recognizing the seriousness of the problem, I immediately convened a meeting at the department level and asked pointedly: "When it comes to grassroots development, what real conditions have actually been investigated? Do the 'traces' match the 'real results'? If there is quantity without quality, what use are the reports?" The conference room fell silent, and everyone sank into reflection.

In recent years, leaders and headquarters organs at all levels have continuously deepened political rectification training (政治整训), attaching great importance to rectifying formalism and reducing burdens on the grassroots, and the wind of formalism has been effectively curbed. But we must also soberly recognize that some chronic ailments have not been fully eradicated. The unhealthy tendency of treating "having left a trace" as "having finished the work" continues to grow in the shadows, and at times the management of traces even overshadows the substance itself. At its root, this stems from ideological deviation and an unsolid work style. On one hand, traces are visible, easy to display, and convenient to assess, whereas real results require one to get down to the ground, confront contradictions head-on, and take responsibility—so certain cadres would rather do things for appearances and achieve implementation only on paper, pouring enormous energy into flashy "empty frameworks" (花架子), rather than chewing on "hard bones" or solving genuine difficulties. At the same time, as the saying goes, "What those above favor, those below will pursue to an even greater degree." Headquarters organs, as policy-makers, work guides, and judges of effectiveness, once they adopt "reviewing reports and checking materials" as their standard of assessment, will force the grassroots into the internal drain of supplementing records, organizing ledgers, and coping with inspections—compelled to "pursue fine-sounding names" while "engaging in false deeds."

There is a well-known line of verse: "Fake gold needs true gold to plate it; if it were true gold, it would need no gilding." Treating trace-leaving as political achievement, and treating performance as doing real work, may look splendid on the surface—but once that superficial layer of "gilding" is stripped away, all that is exposed is a false political achievement (假政绩) that looks good but serves no purpose. To continuously deepen political rectification training, we must cut into the chronic malady of "treating traces as political achievement," raise the sword against formalism and bureaucratism, correct the deviation from its ideological roots, eliminate hollow and superficial work, eliminate buck-passing and laxity, truly recover the strict and solid work style of seeing things through to the end, establish the work standard of seeking truth and being pragmatic, and let the view of political achievement return from "looking at traces" to "looking at real results."

Correct understanding must be matched by correct action. Thereafter, we implemented three measures: first, from "paper" to "direct engagement"—when headquarters organ personnel go down to the grassroots, they may not use written materials such as ledgers and reports as the basis for inspection; second, from "posing questions" to "solving problems"—from the headquarters organ to the grassroots, the work focus must be placed on resolving actual problems, not on expending energy in "trace-leaving" and record-making; third, from "conducting assessments" to "being assessed"—each quarter, a two-way assessment (双向讲评) between the headquarters organ and the grassroots is used to verify real work results, forcing the elimination of the chronic malady of "leaving traces" without "leaving results," and achieving the goal of "not seeking complete traces, but only seeking evident practical effectiveness."

Once the concept shifted, practical results appeared immediately. Previously, a soldier's family member encountered a difficult legal rights-protection problem. The security section (保卫科) abandoned its habitual instinct to put materials first and trace-leaving first, went to the company that same day to investigate the actual situation, and within three days coordinated with local departments and connected the family with legal aid, tracking the handling of the matter throughout until the problem was properly resolved. The section's report to leadership was a single sentence: "Problem resolved, family at ease." There were no complex ledgers, no deliberate trace-leaving—yet solid, concrete results earned the recognition of officers and soldiers.

Through these changes, I have also come to a deep understanding: "traces" do not equal real results; leaving "traces" must even more mean leaving "heart" (留心); emphasizing "marks" (迹) must even more mean emphasizing "results" (绩). Treating traces as political achievement loses the hearts of the people; letting real results speak wins cohesion and combat effectiveness. In continuously deepening political rectification training, we must put our effort into investigating real conditions, producing real measures, handling real matters, and seeking real results, so that genuine work achievements truly become the most outstanding political achievement.

Original Chinese

若是真金何须镀 ■王可可前不久，我带着机关同志到基层营连检查政治工作落实情况。翻开一本本装帧精美、分类详细的台账，记录完整、要素齐全，看起来工作扎实、一丝不苟。可当我走进班排随机与几名战士座谈，询问对理论学习、心理服务等工作的感受时，有战士直言获得感不强。回到机关，我翻阅各业务科室之前递交的蹲点调研报告，发现有同样的问题。一些报告虽然行文规范，但一谈到实际问题或解决方案时，要么一笔带过、泛泛而谈，要么大而化之、撒胡椒面。看得出这些调研报告大概率是为了完成蹲点任务而做的“留痕工作”。我认识到问题的严重性，当即在部里召开会议，严肃问道：“对于基层建设，到底摸了什么实情？‘痕迹’与‘实绩’匹不匹配？如果只有数量没有质量，报告有什么用？”会议室一片沉寂，大家陷入了沉思。近年来，各级领导和机关持续深化政治整训，高度重视整治形式主义为基层减负，形式主义之风得到有效遏制。但同时也要清醒看到，一些痼疾仍未彻底清除，把“留痕了”当“干完了”的不良风气仍在潜滋暗长，有时对痕迹的管理甚至超越了内容本身。究其根源，还在于思想偏差、作风不实。一方面，痕迹看得见、好展示、易考核，实绩却要沉下身子、直面矛盾、担当作为，所以个别干部宁愿做表面文章、搞纸面落实，将大量的精力投入到花里胡哨的“花架子”上，也不愿啃“硬骨头”、解真难题。同时，正如人们常说的“上有所好，下必甚焉”，机关作为政策制定者、工作指导者、成效评判者，一旦把“看报告、查材料”作为检验标准，就会倒逼基层陷入补资料、整台账、应付检查的内耗，不得不“采华名”而“兴伪事”。有句诗写得好：“假金方用真金镀，若是真金不镀金。”把留痕当政绩，把作秀当做事，看似花团锦簇，而一旦表面“镀”的这层“金”被剔除掉，暴露的就只会是中看不中用的假政绩。持续深化政治整训，必须向“把痕迹当政绩”的顽瘴痼疾开刀，向形式主义、官僚主义亮剑，从思想根源纠偏正向，整掉漂浮虚功、整掉推诿懈怠，真正把一抓到底的严实作风找回来，把求真务实的工作标准立起来，让政绩观从“看痕迹”回归“看实绩”。认识到位，行动更要到位。此后，我们推行了3项举措：一是从“纸面”到“直面”，机关下基层不能以台账、报告等书面材料作为检查依据；二是从“提问”到“解题”，从机关到基层，工作重点必须放在解决实际问题上，而不是把精力放在“留痕”造册上；三是从“讲评”到“被评”，每季度通过机关基层“双向讲评”来检验工作实绩，倒逼破除只“留痕”不“留绩”的顽瘴痼疾，实现“不图痕迹齐全，只求实效明显”的目标。理念一转，实效立显。此前，一名战士家属遭遇涉法维权难题，保卫科摒弃材料先行、留痕为先的惯性，当天就到连队摸排实情，3天内协调地方部门、对接法律援助，全程跟踪处置，直至问题妥善化解。科室汇报仅一句话：“问题解决，家属安心。”没有复杂台账、没有刻意留痕，却用实打实的成效赢得官兵认可。通过这些转变，我也深刻认识到：“痕迹”不等于实绩，留“痕”更要留“心”，重“迹”更要重“绩”。把痕迹当政绩，丢的是人心；用实绩说话，赢的是凝聚力和战斗力。持续深化政治整训，我们必须把功夫下在察实情、出实招、办实事、求实效上，让工作实绩真正成为最亮眼的政绩。