General Secretary To Lam has declared 2026 a year of “breakthrough action and widespread results” - a defining moment in the implementation of Resolution 57 and a preparatory milestone for the upcoming 14th Party Congress.

His message emphasized not only the continued promotion of science, technology, innovation, and digital transformation but, more critically, the urgent need to strengthen implementation capacity, tighten action discipline, and focus squarely on outcomes.

This shift marks more than just an acceleration of administrative tempo. It reflects a fundamental transformation in governance thinking: from emphasizing policy issuance to prioritizing execution; from measuring progress by planned milestones to evaluating tangible outputs and societal impacts.

This approach aligns with global trends in modern public management, as more countries move from process-heavy bureaucratic models to value-based governance. Here, the ultimate measure of success is the real-world impact on society - not internal compliance or formality.

When leadership becomes the anchor of execution

A consistent theme in the General Secretary’s directive is the emphasis on the role and responsibility of top leaders.

Ministries, sectors, and localities must be held directly accountable for both progress and outcomes. Cases of delay or inefficiency must be reviewed and addressed. Execution results must serve as a key criterion for evaluation, commendation, and rewards.

Classical organizational theorist Max Weber once stated that bureaucracies only function effectively when authority is tied to responsibility and orders are channeled through a unified command. When authority is fragmented and responsibility is unclear, organizations may appear “procedurally correct” yet fail to deliver meaningful outcomes.

Modern principal–agent theory builds on this: when task assigners cannot control outcomes and executors are not held responsible for results, public administration tends to fall into a cycle of “doing enough work but no one is accountable for impact.”

In reality, many government structures still operate with a segmented division of labor: one deputy oversees technology, another finance, a separate unit handles data. Each part completes its assigned task, but without a centralized coordinator, the process drags on and collective effectiveness falls short.

This fragmentation is especially evident at the provincial level, where inter-sectoral initiatives are often broken down into functional silos. Each segment may follow the rules, but without unified command, the whole system struggles to generate effective, coherent solutions.

The General Secretary’s emphasis on leadership accountability seeks to directly address this root problem - especially in highly interconnected domains such as science, technology, innovation, and digital transformation.

Taking initiative and breaking institutional inertia

Another crucial directive is to cultivate a proactive mindset - one that does not wait to be assigned tasks and avoids operating on bureaucratic autopilot.

Institutional research has long explored the concept of path dependence - the tendency of organizations to repeat established routines, not necessarily because they are effective, but because they are familiar and safe.

In fast-changing environments, this inertia becomes a major barrier to innovation.

Management guru Peter Drucker argued that in a knowledge economy, effectiveness stems not from following detailed instructions but from knowing what must be done to achieve common goals.

In this spirit, the call to “not wait for assignments” is not a license for disorder, but a call for initiative within clear frameworks, bound by individual responsibility and oversight.

For digital transformation and innovation in particular, a reactive bureaucracy risks being left behind in an era of rapid technological and organizational change.

Data-driven governance as a tool for transformation

The General Secretary also stressed the importance of building a data foundation and adopting data-driven decision-making.

According to the OECD’s “Data-Driven Public Sector” framework, data must be treated as a strategic public asset, actively used in decision-making, performance monitoring, and policy adjustment.

Global experience shows that data-driven governance helps identify issues early, reduce policy lag, and improve decision quality. However, data only becomes powerful when well-governed - accurate, interconnected, secure, and timely.

Unfortunately, in many Vietnamese localities, data remains fragmented, outdated, and used primarily for periodic reports - not as a daily operational tool for leadership. The challenge lies not only in technology but in management thinking and organizational data practices.

From principles to practice: “Right, enough, clean, live, unified, shared”

The six-point formula - right, enough, clean, live, unified, shared - captures the essence of modern data governance.

“Right” means reflecting reality accurately.
“Enough” means data must support effective decisions.
“Clean” means reliable and trustworthy.
“Live” means continuously updated.
“Unified” refers to standardized architecture.
“Shared” allows reuse across agencies.

Leading digital governments show that the central authority should act as a system architect - setting standards and ensuring security - while “live” data must originate from line ministries and localities. Without high-quality foundational data, national datasets cannot effectively inform macro-level decision-making.

At the local level, effective governance cannot rely on delayed summary reports. It must tap into real-time data flows from key socio-economic systems such as population, labor, land, planning, enterprises, budgets, and public services.

When data is correctly connected and shared, leaders can monitor in near real-time, detect early bottlenecks, and adjust policies swiftly. This aligns with Mark Moore’s public value theory, which asserts that policies only matter when they deliver concrete benefits to society - not just complete administrative procedures.

From plans to performance: A new governance paradigm

Across the General Secretary’s directives is a demand to shift decisively from plan-based management to outcome-based governance - focused on real value creation in the economy and society.

The success of a policy should not be measured by the number of issued documents or approved programs, but by real-world changes felt by citizens and businesses.

Using public satisfaction as a performance metric reflects a broader shift toward a service-oriented government.

Applied locally, the message of “breakthrough action and widespread results” means clearly assigning final accountability, treating data as a command tool, and empowering evidence-based decision-making.

When leaders truly take charge, when data becomes an operational asset, and when results are the primary metric - then the General Secretary’s strategic vision will no longer remain abstract.

It will become a lived, operational capability - one that enables every locality to accelerate sustainably in Vietnam’s next phase of national development.

An Hai