Some leading officials are facing "performance anxiety," according to a commentary published by People's Daily on July 14. The article categorizes this anxiety into two types: the "impatient type," driven by a desire to quickly prove personal ability through visible results, and the "worrying type," characterized by fears of ranking low in assessments, seeing little near-term results from long-term tasks, or falling behind in industrial competition.
The article stresses that the breakthrough point for resolving such anxiety is to establish and practice a correct view of achievements. The focus of work must be the interests and needs of the people, not personal honor. Officials should prioritize the political ledger of benefiting the people over self-serving career calculations. Delivering on annual lists of livelihood projects in areas such as education, healthcare, and elderly and childcare services, and ensuring a stronger sense of gain, happiness, and security among the public, constitutes a correct view of achievements.
Achievements must be made in line with objective laws. The article criticizes practices such as abruptly shutting down high-energy-consuming, high-pollution, and high-emission industries for rapid carbon reduction, or blindly offering tax incentives to attract investment in hot industries, arguing that these missteps stem from a lack of scientific decision-making. Only by ensuring reform ideas and development plans meet scientific requirements can the foundation for high-quality development be consolidated.
Behind the view of achievements lies the view of power and values. The article emphasizes that selflessness and a clear distinction between public and private interests open broad horizons for one's career. Treating achievements as a personal show or resorting to fraud will only leave behind a mess. Establishing a correct view of achievements means finding the right orientation between individual and collective interests, private gain and public benefit, superficiality and pragmatism.
External factors also cannot be ignored. Over-reliance on hard indicators like GDP growth and investment scale in evaluations, or a "numbers-only" approach to selection and appointment, can trigger performance anxiety. The article advocates improving the evaluation system by increasing the weight of indicators reflecting livelihood improvements and ecological benefits. It also calls for optimizing the orientation of personnel selection, supporting officials who dare to tackle tough problems, and improving fault-tolerance and error-correction mechanisms to reverse the mindset that "the more you do, the more mistakes you make."