在全面从严治党态势下，为解决干部不担当、不作为等问题，中央出台激励干部新时代新担当新作为专项政策，执行两年来效果如何，当前仍有部分干部不敢为、不愿为、不会为等问题原因是什么，清廉和担当、作为有何关系，如何进一步有效激励干部担当作为，是本研究的问题导向。 基于清廉、担当、谨慎、作为、勤劳等关键词分析，本研究将“古今第一官箴”“清慎勤”作为中国传统政治思想用于窥探为官之道和行为逻辑，探究干部在官箴“清慎勤”方面的表现情况。 本研究试图通过问卷调查、案例梳理、个案访谈，以526份干部群体样本为依据，探究G市激励干部“新时代新担当新作为”政策过程案例及其个案访谈，本研究验证了“清慎勤”作用机理，梳理“清—慎—勤”三维互动关系，形成指标体系，划分干部类型，构建“清慎勤三圈分析框架”。本研究对负面容错和正面激励、激励政策落实等35个条件因子进行比较分析；梳理G市“新时代新担当新作为”政策执行前中后的得失；对12个访谈样本的“清慎勤”指标及其对“清慎勤”的感知进行验证，论证了“清慎勤”假设，探究干部在现实中存在的“清慎勤悖论”，即对干部清廉度要求高了，谨慎度随之提高，勤劳度反而随之降低，干部反而越发不敢担当和不愿作为。因此，在清廉要求不放松的条件下，要消除干部不敢担当的相关因素，提升激励干部干事创业的力度和效果，是研究结论。本研究厘清了三个方面的困境，呼应出“清慎勤”三个度上的调控政策。 主要政策建议：对干部在“清”度上进行优化和调整，在“慎”度上进行调松，对应大胆担当，在“勤”度上进行助推，呼应勤于作为，关键是实行负面激励和正面激励的二元政策，进一步明晰干部在量化绩效评估、容错纠错机制、懒政怠政问题、激励引领机制等方面的举措，借由“清慎勤”协调统一运转路径和激励机制，促进干部实现“新时代新担当新作为”。

Under the situation of all-out effort to enforce strict Party discipline, Central Committee of the Communist of China has issued a special policy to encourage cadres to take new responsibilities and actions in the new era in order to solve the problems of cadres' failure to take responsibilities and actions. The problem orientation of this study is to investigate the reasons why some cadres do not dare to do, are unwilling to do, and are not able to do in the past two years, what the relationship between incorruptness and responsibility and actions is, how to further effectively encourage cadres to take responsibilities and actions. Based on the analysis of key words such as incorruptness, responsibility, prudence, action and diligence, we study “the first official proverb in ancient and modern times”–“Incorruptness, Prudence, Diligence”as Chinese traditional political thoughts to explore logic of way and behavior of being an official, explore the performance of cadres in the official proverb “Incorruptness, Prudence, Diligence”,Based on 526 samples of cadre groups, and through questionnaire survey and case interview of the policy process of G city to encourage cadres carry out “new era, new responsibility and new act”, This study verifies the mechanism of “Incorruptness, Prudence, Diligence”, sort out the three-dimensional interactive relationship of “Incorruptness, Prudence, Diligence”, form an indicator system, divide the types of cadres, and build a three circle framework of “incorruptness, prudence, diligence”. This study compares and analyzes 35 factors such as negative fault tolerance, positive incentive and implementation of incentive policies； sorts out the gains and losses before, during and after the implementation of “new era, new responsibility and new act” policy in G city; verifies the“Incorruptness, Prudence, Diligence”index of 12 interview samples and their perception of “Incorruptness, Prudence, Diligence”, and demonstrates the “Incorruptness, Prudence, Diligence”hypothesis. This study explore the paradox of “Incorruptness, Prudence, Diligence” existing in the reality of cadres through, that is, the higher the requirement of cadres incorruptness, the higher the degree of prudence, the lower the degree of diligence. On the contrary, the cadres is more afraid to take responsibility and unwilling to act. Therefore, in the condition of incorruptible demand, it is the research conclusion that we should eliminate the relevant factors that cadres dare not take responsibility for and enhance the strength and effectiveness of motivating cadres. This paper clarifies the three dilemmas and responds to the regulatory policy of “Incorruptness, Prudence, Diligence”. Main policy suggestions: we should optimize and adjust cadres in the degree of “Incorruptness”, loosen cadres in the degree of “prudence”, respond to bold responsibilities, boost cadres in the degree of “diligence”, and respond to diligent actions. The key is to implement the dual policy of negative incentive and positive incentive, and further clarifies cadres in quantitative performance evaluation, fault tolerance and correction mechanism, lazy administration, incentive and leading mechanism, etc. In terms of measures and means of “Incorruptness, Prudence, Diligence”, and coordinating and unifying the operation path and incentive mechanism, we can promote cadres to achieve “new responsibilities and new actions in the new era”.