What are the reasons young grassroots cadres cannot be retained
Recently, while talking with a friend who works at the grassroots level, I learned that of the three young cadres who started their jobs together with him, two had already left after passing examinations in just a few short years, and he too was eager to make a move. When asked why, the answer was: on the one hand, it does not feel very good; on the other hand, since others have left, he himself also cannot stay put.
In another interview, several grassroots leading cadres also lamented that the grassroots level now cannot retain young cadres, especially outstanding young cadres, and that this has a certain impact on grassroots work.
In fact, the question of whether young grassroots cadres stay or leave is not as exaggerated as the “wave of civil servants resigning” played up in some public opinion circles; many cases are mobility within the system, especially vertical mobility from the grassroots level to higher-level Party and government departments. It should be recognized that this kind of talent mobility has its rationality. After being tempered at the grassroots level, young cadres understand the needs of the grassroots masses better and have deeper feelings for the masses. Entering higher-level organs with this experience and sentiment will make them more “down-to-earth.” At the same time, the grassroots level also benefits from the supplement of “fresh blood.” Newly recruited young cadres are often daring and energetic, quick-thinking, and full of vitality, bringing a fresh breeze to grassroots work.
However, the lament that “the grassroots level cannot retain young cadres” is indeed an objective fact in many places, and its impact on grassroots work should not be underestimated. The frequent mobility of young cadres will affect the stability of the grassroots cadre team, inevitably causing people's minds to waver and easily forming a “butterfly effect” of brain drain. The loss of some outstanding young cadres will also, to a certain extent, leave the grassroots level short-handed when employing people. The grassroots level, with its multiplicity of affairs, is originally a rare “great school” for training young cadres, and the cost of cadre training is also a considerable burden for the grassroots level, which is not “well-off.” In addition, grassroots work mostly involves direct dealings with the masses. Just as the masses have become familiar with someone, that person is replaced by a new face, which inevitably affects the quality of serving the masses.
It cannot be denied that many young cadres have honed themselves and increased their abilities at the grassroots level and then moved on to other posts to continue shining. But there are also quite a few young cadres who come from the university “ivory tower” to the “front line” of serving the masses, and the awkwardness of “ideals are plump but reality is bony” often catches them unprepared. The reason lies in the fact that the friend's simple phrase “it does not feel very good” actually expresses a complication that is not simple at all. Some young cadres do not know how to deal with the masses, and what they have learned is seriously disconnected from practice; with a bookish air about them, they cannot go down to the fields. Some are arrogant and proud, believing that the masses' demands are all trivial matters, and they have neither the patience nor the inclination to deal with them. Some have a restless style of work; from the moment they “come,” they are thinking about how to “leave” in the future, always feeling that it is difficult to realize their self-worth at the grassroots level and always wanting to do some great undertaking…… Whether it is “skills panic” or “high aspirations but low ability,” all these make it impossible for these young cadres to serve the masses steadily and solidly at the grassroots level.
The objective environment also makes it difficult for many young cadres to adapt. Common complaints such as “tiring work and low pay,” “insufficient sense of achievement,” and “harsh living conditions” are, to a certain extent, a portrayal of reality. Moreover, problems in the grassroots political ecosystem, such as seniority-based promotion and appointment and intricate interpersonal relationships, also leave some young cadres facing a contradictory choice similar to “escaping Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou” and “escaping back to Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou.” In addition to material incentives, promotion and appointment are an important means of motivating grassroots cadres. At the grassroots level, however, the limited number of leadership posts leads to very fierce competition. Many young cadres see the “ceiling” of their lives too early, and the once promising “vast world” is reduced, for some young cadres, to “eking out a corner” in the office.
In this way, many young cadres actively or passively choose to leave the grassroots level.
If young cadres are to stay at the grassroots level in greater numbers, it would be advisable to show them more care and give them more incentives both materially and spiritually. At the same time, it is also necessary to continue strengthening strict management of officials, create a fairer and more just grassroots working environment, and build a good platform for young cadres to display their talents.
Young grassroots cadres themselves should also strengthen their self-cultivation: a little more resolve, a little less following the crowd; a little more steadiness, a little less restlessness. They should temper themselves in grassroots posts, work diligently, increase their abilities while serving the masses, and realize their own value while serving the masses.