1. The appraisal objects are basically covered, but the appraisal power is too centralized.
In a feudal society with a strict hierarchy, it is commendable to be able to accept the assessment from the prime minister, ministers to state and county officials and petty officials, and to accept rewards and punishments according to the results of performance appraisal, which embodies a certain principle of fairness. The ancient government paid special attention to the performance evaluation of local officials at all levels. From Yao Shun's "five-year tour", Yu Xia's "accounting" vassal, to the "accounting" system after the Warring States Period, it was all designed for local governors. Because local officials are far away from the emperor, it is difficult to control, and they are in charge of one party's power, so it is of great significance to use the performance appraisal system to control the constraints, which is of great significance for cleaning up the bureaucratic team and maintaining the long-term stability of the country.
The organizational structure of the ancient government in China was centralized, which emphasized the government's control over society in the relationship between society and the state. The government emphasizes the control of superiors over subordinates, and the evaluation of officials is mainly promoted by the government from top to bottom. The opinions of ordinary people have no influence on the evaluation results. Especially because of the tradition of "being at home in the whole world", the power of performance evaluation and reward and punishment is excessively concentrated on the monarch, and the monarch's level of understanding, likes and dislikes and emotions largely determine the implementation effect of the performance evaluation system. When the emperor was enlightened and enterprising, the performance appraisal system was better adhered to and the management of officials was clearer; When the emperor is incompetent, the performance appraisal system is useless, and officials manage corruption. This chaotic cycle has become the biggest problem in China's ancient performance appraisal system.
2. The assessment criteria are comprehensive, but there are vague and weak factors.
Past dynasties paid attention to comprehensive content and clear standards in performance appraisal. Beijing officials are emphasized to have both ability and political integrity, while local officials pay special attention to political achievements. They not only put forward general political and moral standards, but also put forward specific professional standards, which set feasible performance appraisal targets for different official positions, let officials know what they should do and how much effort they should make, and at the same time, performance appraisal managers can objectively measure the pros and cons of the people being assessed. Both sides have rules to follow, which is helpful to realize the performance management goal of setting up posts according to posts and awarding awards according to quantity. Especially in the Han dynasty, the performance evaluation was pragmatic, and the performance of local officials was examined by numbers, focusing on economic and social development indicators such as population growth and economic development, fiscal revenue and expenditure, and social security. Performance appraisal standards are objectively quantified, and performance appraisal is more operable. In the Ming Dynasty, when evaluating the "third-class" (competent, average and incompetent), it also treated them differently according to the complexity of post affairs, and put forward "simple and competent, complex and ordinary", which broke egalitarianism and encouraged officials' enthusiasm and creativity.
Since the Han Dynasty, Confucianism has gradually occupied a dominant position, and all previous dynasties believed in "taking morality as the foundation and taking morality as the second". Some illusory "morality" indicators have risen in status and been given a special position that takes precedence over other specific performance indicators. In the Tang Dynasty, "courtesy is the foundation of politics and religion", a whole set of official management system, from the selection of officials to the assessment of political achievements to supervision, respected the so-called "courtesy" in every link, which opened a convenient door for officials to escape from reality and muddle through in the assessment. Virtue, which is difficult to measure by scale, can be obtained by means of human feelings and bribery, which led to the prevalence of bribery, buttering up and asking for help in officialdom in the middle and late Tang Dynasty. In the era of Tang Suzong, in the performance evaluation standards of "Four Virtues, Twenty-Seven Virtues and Nine Virtues", everyone was above the "upper middle class". In the Yuan Dynasty, in addition to the standard of merit, the so-called "year-counting system" was also implemented, and political qualifications were taken as the main criteria for performance evaluation and promotion. These practices have contributed to the style of officials' keeping their posts, not striving for progress, pursuing honor and despising practice, making the performance appraisal system useless.
3. The assessment system is relatively standardized, but effective social supervision is insufficient.
In order to ensure the smooth progress of performance appraisal activities, special officials or institutions have been set up in past dynasties to exercise their functions in accordance with the prescribed time limit and performance appraisal procedures. This regular performance appraisal system, which is carried out regularly by the permanent institutions in accordance with standardized procedures, has played a continuous role in encouraging and restraining most officials. Many supervisory officials, such as Shi Yu, have been required to participate in the performance appraisal in the past dynasties, so as to "examine the truth and make up the deficiency", and initially formed an institutional system combining performance appraisal with supervision, grading appraisal management with central vertical supervision, and substantive institutional arrangement with procedural institutional arrangement.
However, in the final analysis, the system still depends on people to implement it. How to ensure that the system does not go out of shape in the implementation process has always been a difficult problem that successive dynasties hoped to solve but could not solve well. In ancient China, officials were often regarded as people's parents, and their sense of service, public interest and responsibility were not strong, so ordinary people could not input their interests and hopes into the political system in a daily way. Due to the lack of bottom-up supervision mechanism and arbitrary centralization and decentralization between central and local governments, the responsibilities and authorities of governments at all levels lack legal and institutional provisions. Performance appraisal is only the supervision of superiors to subordinates, which easily leads to "an official eager to listen to a word from superiors", which not only makes the performance appraisal results inaccurate and formalistic, but also strengthens the dependence of lower-level officials on superiors. A man of integrity is disgraceful and flattering.
4. Pay attention to rewards and punishments according to results, but lack of refined management.
Most rulers of past dynasties attached importance to the performance appraisal activities, and regarded the results of performance appraisal as the basis for the appointment, dismissal, promotion, reward and punishment of officials. In primitive society, Yao, Shun and Yu had to go through important post exercises before they formally ascended the throne. In the Han dynasty, "the performance appraisal is successful, except for things, the meritorious person will be rewarded and the guilty person will be punished", in the Song dynasty, "the upper, middle and lower levels will be awarded and punished by imperial edict", in the Ming dynasty, both rewards and punishments will be paid equal attention, supplemented by criminal sanctions, and in the Qing dynasty, "correction" will be implemented. The period when the reward and punishment promotion mechanism is strictly linked to the results of performance appraisal is often a period of political clarity, good social operation and rapid economic development.
However, the ancient government only paid attention to the performance appraisal and rewards and punishments of individual officials, but lacked continuous attention and improvement to the overall performance of the government. To a great extent, this is related to the objective historical conditions of low social productivity, streamlining of government institutions and equality between officials and the government (imperial court). On the one hand, due to the lack of scientific and effective management, performance evaluation has fallen into the misunderstanding of "seeing the micro, not the macro", and it is impossible to evaluate and improve government performance as a whole. On the other hand, officials lack the evaluation of the overall performance of the organization and the protection of the organizational team, which makes them look small in front of the huge bureaucratic system. In order to protect themselves and improve themselves, they often build and operate networks to attack their opponents and defuse risks, and then develop into vicious competition of cronyism, cronyism and party seeking for profit. Once the performance appraisal is linked to the political struggle in officialdom, it will become a tool to exclude dissidents and vent personal anger, and will attack and belittle a large number of talented officials with different political lines. This is a great lesson of the ancient performance appraisal system.