Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of genuine implementation over superficial actions, criticizing the tendency of some officials to focus on "labeling" their work rather than achieving real results [1][2][3][4] Group 1: Issues with Current Practices - Some local departments equate holding meetings and writing reports with actual implementation, leading to a superficial approach that fails to address underlying issues [1][2] - The "labeling" approach is rooted in a distorted performance view among officials, prioritizing appearances over substantive achievements [2][3] - There is a lack of deep engagement and problem-solving capabilities among some officials, resulting in a focus on superficial metrics rather than real progress [2][3] Group 2: Importance of Genuine Results - The true measure of officials' performance lies in tangible development outcomes and genuine public feedback, rather than the quantity of reports or the quality of labels [3][4] - Real achievements come from addressing challenges, building public trust, and delivering concrete benefits to the community [3][4] - The article advocates for a shift from formality to practicality, emphasizing the need for officials to engage directly with issues and communities to achieve meaningful results [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of genuine implementation and effectiveness over superficial measures, criticizing the tendency of some officials to focus on "labeling" their work rather than achieving real results [1][2][3][4] Group 1: Issues with Current Practices - Some local departments are more focused on appearances, such as holding meetings and creating reports, rather than achieving tangible outcomes [1][2] - The "labeling" approach leads to a superficial understanding of progress, where officials equate "talking" with "doing" and prioritize flashy presentations over solving real problems [2][3] Group 2: Consequences of Superficial Implementation - The lack of depth in implementation results in stagnation and dissatisfaction among the public, as the true measure of success lies in addressing real issues and improving people's lives [3][4] - The article argues that the public's perception is the ultimate evaluation of officials' performance, highlighting the need for genuine engagement with community concerns rather than self-serving displays [3][4] Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - To combat superficial practices, there is a call for a shift in mindset towards valuing substantive achievements over mere documentation and appearances [4] - The article suggests enhancing accountability and focusing on real-world outcomes, encouraging officials to engage directly with challenges and prioritize effective problem-solving [4]