The two pillars in the thinking on innovating the Party’s leadership methods of General Secretary Tô Lâm

Vietnam is entering such a phase, where the interweaving of opportunities and challenges, of stability and volatility, and of the demand for rapid development alongside the requirement for sustainability has exposed the limitations of leadership methods that are overly reliant on experience and sequential approaches. In this context, the issue is no longer whether to innovate, but rather to what extent innovation is required to maintain leadership capacity in a world that is moving faster than the governance system itself. In his remarks this morning at the second plenum of the Central Committee, General Secretary Tô Lâm addressed the core of this requirement: “It is necessary to thoroughly grasp the spirit of innovating the Party’s leadership methods. Our Party is the leading force of the State and society; its leadership is absolute, direct and comprehensive. Therefore, it is essential to continuously innovate leadership methods so that leadership becomes increasingly more accurate, more targeted, more scientific and more effective. Innovation is to enable the Party to lead with stronger strategic vision, with more synchronized institutions, with stricter inspection and supervision, with more exemplary role modeling, with more precise cadre selection, with clearer decentralization and delegation of authority, with closer implementation oversight, with more timely summarization of practice, and with faster policy responses to major global fluctuations and domestic development requirements. Innovating leadership methods is to enhance the Party’s governing capacity, its capacity for organization and implementation, its combativeness, and its prestige and standing under new conditions”. Notably, innovation here is not framed within the logic of technical improvement, but within the logic of upgrading governing capacity. Within this structure of thinking, two elements emerge as the pivotal axes of the entire process: strategic vision and policy responsiveness.

Strategic vision as the capacity to design the future

In the traditional understanding, strategic vision is often associated with the establishment of long-term objectives. However, in a world where the future is no longer a continuation of the present, this understanding has become insufficient. Vision, if it remains merely at the level of orientation, will quickly be overtaken by reality. What is emerging in contemporary leadership thinking is a different level: vision as the capacity to architect development, that is, not only to forecast trends, but also to proactively create institutional conditions for those trends to unfold in the most advantageous direction for the nation. Here, an important shift becomes evident: from “following trends” to “shaping trends.” This requires the leadership system to be capable of reading early signals of change, identifying structural bottlenecks, and intervening at the right moment with appropriate institutional instruments. A distinctive feature in General Secretary Tô Lâm’s approach lies in linking vision with the capacity for implementation. A vision that is not accompanied by institutional design will not generate substantive change; conversely, an institutional system lacking vision will operate on short-term inertia. Placing these two elements in an organic relationship represents the transition from a mindset of orientation to a mindset of creation.

Policy responsiveness as a measure of modern governance

If strategic vision represents the depth of leadership, then policy responsiveness represents its speed. In many periods, policy has often been reactive in a delayed manner—lagging behind reality and subject to significant time lags. This may be acceptable in a stable environment, but it becomes a weakness when changes occur rapidly and spread widely. The new approach sets forth a different requirement: policy responsiveness must become an organized capacity, rather than a situational reaction. This entails three elements: information that is sufficiently timely and reliable, coordination mechanisms that are sufficiently flexible, and implementation accountability that is sufficiently clear. At this level, policy responsiveness is not merely a matter of speed, but of the quality of response. A rapid decision lacking a sound basis may lead to serious consequences; conversely, a correct decision made too late may result in the loss of strategic opportunities. The challenge, therefore, does not lie in choosing between speed and certainty, but in designing a system capable of being both fast and self-correcting. The orientation articulated by General Secretary Tô Lâm reflects an emphasis on reducing policy lag while strengthening implementation discipline. These are two factors that are often in tension, but if properly integrated, they will create a responsive system that is both flexible and reliable.

Two pillars – one unified whole: Leadership in a state of “dynamic stability”

The value of strategic vision and policy responsiveness does not lie in each element individually, but in the way they are integrated into a unified whole. Vision creates a long-term axis of stability; policy responsiveness provides short-term adaptive capacity. When these two elements operate in sync, the leadership system can achieve a state of “dynamic stability”—a state that maintains direction while not being constrained by rigid frameworks. This is precisely the difference between a linear leadership model and a multidimensional leadership model. In the former, plans are constructed according to a sequential logic and undergo little change; in the latter, plans become an open structure, capable of continuous adjustment in response to evolving realities. This transformation not only requires changes at the central level, but also entails the restructuring of the entire organizational system and its decentralization. As policy responsiveness is accelerated, authority and responsibility at different levels must also be redefined to avoid “bottlenecks at intermediary points".

The leader as a “point of convergence”

In all processes of transformation, the role of the leader is always decisive. It is not only about establishing vision, but also about the capacity to generate pressure for change and sustain the pace of reform across the entire system. It can be observed that General Secretary Tô Lâm demonstrates a leadership style that emphasizes substance, discipline and effectiveness. This not only changes decision-making at the highest level, but also creates a ripple effect throughout lower levels, compelling the system to operate under higher standards. However, a fundamental issue must be raised: innovation cannot stop at the individual level; if new ways of thinking are not institutionalized into shared processes and standards, they will be unlikely to become sustainable capacities. Therefore, the challenge lies not only in initiating change, but in transforming that change into a “system reflex".

Change what needs to be changed

One of the common misconceptions is to regard innovation as a comprehensive negation of the past. In reality, effective innovation in leadership methods is always selective: it preserves elements that ensure stability while replacing those that are no longer appropriate. In the current context, what needs to change is not only the tools, but the way of thinking: from process-based management to situation-based governance; from behavior control to institutional design; from passive reaction to proactive adaptation. This process requires the system to possess an honest capacity for self-assessment—accurately identifying “invisible bottlenecks” that are not easily detected, yet decisively affect operational effectiveness. Without overcoming this inertia, innovation will remain superficial. The positioning of strategic vision and policy responsiveness as the two pillars of innovation in leadership methods reflects a clear advancement in the understanding of governing capacity. This is not merely a technical adjustment, but a redefinition of the nature of leadership under new conditions. In this approach, leadership is no longer only about maintaining direction, but about the capacity to create development pathways and adapt to unforeseen changes. The intellectual imprint of General Secretary Tô Lâm lies in advancing this transformation in a manner that is clearer, more substantive, and more closely tied to effectiveness.

However, the long-term value of innovation does not lie in declarations, but in operational capacity. When vision truly becomes the foundation of institutions, and policy responsiveness becomes an organized reflex of the system, only then can the Party’s leadership methods enter a new stage of development—a stage in which governing capacity is not only ensured, but also sustainably enhanced.