Central Commission for Discipline Inspection website: Don't Let Traces Management Become "Traceism" Courage | Burden | Central Commission for Discipline Inspection
Recently, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the National Supervisory Commission publicly reported 10 typical problems of formalism and bureaucracy that have increased the burden on grassroots levels. It is mentioned that the Agricultural Ecological Environment and Resource Protection Station in Bijie City, Guizhou Province, has engaged in excessive tracing issues, increasing the demand for tracing data layer by layer, and turning tracing management into "tracing ideology", greatly increasing the burden on grassroots. Focusing on "scars" rather than "achievements", leaving "traces" but not "hearts", wasting a lot of time and energy on grassroots cadres, is a typical case of putting the cart before the horse.
Traces management refers to the use of tangible and visual materials such as text, charts, and audiovisual materials for management, and is one of the commonly used auxiliary means in grassroots governance. Introducing trace management into grassroots governance helps to achieve concretization and refinement of the governance process, which can clearly restore the execution of grassroots work. It is conducive to achieving clear rights and responsibilities, standardized management, reducing buck passing and arbitrary use of power, and has a certain degree of scientificity and rationality.
Too much is not enough, and excessive force can easily lead to deformation and even backfire. Traceism is a distorted product of excessive force in the process of trace management, with some places and cadres overly relying on and using trace management, resulting in alienation. For example, in some places, requirements are raised layer by layer and traces are everywhere, which leads to some grassroots cadres taking leaving traces as their main business and visiting people's homes, spending a lot of time asking the people to cooperate in taking photos and filling out forms; In some places, traces are used as the main criterion for evaluating work performance. Whoever can provide a complete variety and sufficient quantity of trace materials will be more likely to receive recognition from superiors; There are also some grassroots cadres who have weak work abilities and leave traces everywhere to show that "there is hard work without merit", and even lead to fraud and leaving traces. When trace management breaks away from auxiliary functions, takes the lead, deviates from the original intention, and moves towards "trace ism" where form outweighs content. In my communication with grassroots cadres, I found that everyone does not reject trace management, but is very dissatisfied with excessive leaving of traces, and even laments that "trace ism" has been bitter for a long time.
Why did it give rise to "trace ideology"? We say that only with demand can there be a market. In terms of work requirements, some higher-level departments in certain areas require traces, even layers of extra emphasis and repeated requests. For example, going to villages and households, the city requires grassroots cadres to locate and clock in, and the county requires taking photos with the public while checking in; In terms of evaluation criteria, some leading cadres often use tight schedules and heavy tasks as excuses, and during assessments and research, they take a quick glance, using traces as an important basis to prove policy implementation. In the end, they rely on sitting in the office reading materials and listening to reports to determine the results. In such an environment, some grassroots cadres themselves have also started to rely on traces. On the one hand, they record the process to prove their labor, and on the other hand, they hope to avoid the risk of being held accountable for inaction and slow actions. Traceism is a typical problem that manifests at the grassroots level and has roots at the top. Its root cause is a biased performance oriented approach, which eventually evolves into evidence proving work and replacing work, with cadres complaining and the masses resenting it.
To rectify "trace ism", it is necessary to make changes from top to bottom, so that trace management can return to its auxiliary function positioning. Superior departments should do a good job of subtraction in trace requirements, promote the transformation of trace management towards precision and practicality, leave traces in key areas, and neither require nor adopt unnecessary traces, providing clear guidance for correct trace retention. Superior leaders and cadres should change their work style, have the courage to give themselves extra strength, and devote themselves to understanding the actual work of grassroots cadres. They should listen more to the evaluation of grassroots cadres by the masses. Grassroots cadres should focus on their achievements and keep their hearts in mind, not being led by their noses by traces, and naturally leave traces in their practical work.
