Updating the Foreign Service assignments system would increase performance and morale, helping ensure State Department readiness to meet tomorrow’s problems.

BY CHARITY L. BOYETTE

In an era when the structure, size, and function of federal agencies are under increasing scrutiny, the U.S. Foreign Service is not immune. Debates over how government should adapt to a more complex global environment place new pressure on institutions like the Foreign Service to reassess how they operate, support their people, and deliver on their mission. These conversations create space for thoughtful, meaningful reform, particularly in areas long overdue for attention. One of the most consequential of these is the State Department’s approach to assigning its Foreign Service personnel.

The assignments process for FSOs at State is decentralized by design. Each regional bureau or functional office controls its portfolio and decides who best fits its needs. In practice, this means an officer may receive a “handshake” (job offer) for a role without ever participating in a formal interview. Another may lose out to a less qualified peer with better connections. Selection interviews are often generic, with little attention to the specific skills, past performance, or developmental goals the position might require. And when a well-placed sponsor or a glowing word from a deputy assistant secretary can secure the next coveted posting, the process often leads to inequity.

The current system favors those who know how to navigate the informal structures of influence. There is no standardized way to evaluate who is best suited—technically, temperamentally, or developmentally—for a given assignment. The promotion precepts are the department’s closest approximation to a shared reference, but they were never designed to guide real-time role-matching. And nowhere in the process is there any documented expectation of what constitutes “success” in executing the assignment itself. Benchmarks are absent, outcomes undefined, and feedback mechanisms weak or structured to benefit the skilled writer more than the skilled diplomat.

As a result, the State Department frequently misaligns talent and task, and these mismatches reduce performance, undermine credibility, and drain morale. This isn’t a new concern. It is simply one that’s been tolerated for too long.

What Other Organizations Already Know

There’s an expansive body of research in organizational behavior and talent management that tells a different story: When people are well matched to roles, performance improves.

Person-job fit theory holds that employees thrive when their abilities and values align with the demands of their roles. When misaligned, performance and engagement suffer. Competency modeling—defining job requirements in terms of observable skills and behaviors—has become standard across the public and private sectors. Importantly, competencies build on the more commonly cited “knowledge, skills, abilities” (KSAs) in role descriptions by adding a predefined performance standard. And strengths-based approaches, such as those popularized by Gallup and scholars like Adam Grant, further show that employees able to apply their natural strengths at work are more engaged and resilient.

These frameworks are not abstract theory. They’ve been adopted by multinational firms, international organizations, and national governments. The European External Action Service uses competency matrices tailored to diplomatic roles. The United Nations Secretariat evaluates officers using core and functional competencies. The U.S. Department of Labor’s O*NET database publicly classifies required skills and work styles for thousands of occupations, including foreign affairs. Across these systems, the message is consistent: Competence, not connection, drives effective assignments.

Defining a Competency-Based Assignment System

Imagine if every Foreign Service–designated position included two clearly defined sets of competencies:

• Required competencies—capabilities necessary to be considered for the role (e.g., prior supervisory experience, policy writing, language proficiency).
• Success competencies—those an officer should gain or demonstrate during the tour (e.g., crisis leadership, interagency coordination).

These competencies would be drawn from a structured skills taxonomy: a leveled, behaviorally anchored framework that defines the KSAs necessary for successful performance. The taxonomy would span cones, functions, and career stages, incorporating both technical and interpersonal domains. To build it effectively, the State Department must engage FSOs from across roles, regions, and ranks to identify which competencies are critical—those without which an officer cannot perform the duties of a position effectively—and what proficiency looks like in practice.

In this context, “critical” refers to two distinct categories: competencies that must be demonstrated before starting an assignment, because of operational urgency or the complexity of the role, and competencies that the officer is expected to strengthen or acquire during the tour, with appropriate guidance or training. Capturing this distinction allows for better assignment planning, more realistic performance expectations, and a clearer pathway for professional growth. The goal is not to create a rigid checklist but to develop a shared understanding of what “effective” performance entails in today’s State Department—and how officers can chart a deliberate course to get there.

Once created, the taxonomy would be applied to all State Department Foreign Service positions, along with a defined review requirement to ensure accuracy and capture emerging competency needs. When bidding, officers would submit profiles detailing competencies gained through prior experience and training; bureaus and posts would then assess candidates based on their demonstrated fit with the needs of the role. The acquisition or strengthening of competencies during assignments would be measured in employee evaluation reports (EERs) and collected in a centralized talent database, helping officers build transparent career profiles while the department measures strengths and gaps across the Foreign Service.

This system would give decision-makers better tools to apply judgment with fairness and foresight. Assignments would become developmental stepping stones, not political favors or status trophies.

Where the Current Model Falls Short

To be fair, the Foreign Service does not lack a competency framework altogether. The promotion precepts reference leadership, communication, and judgment (and as of July 2025, “fidelity”), but these are not detailed, leveled, or linked to specific job roles. And some bureaus, such as Consular Affairs (CA), have instituted selection processes that focus on matching ability to need in roles and have more centralized control over assignment decisions. That bureau is, however, unusual in that there is less variation in assignments across roles.

Unlike the models used by the European Union (EU) or the United Nations (UN), the department lacks behavioral anchors that show what “leadership” looks like at different levels. There’s no structured way to distinguish between competencies needed by a first-time section head and those expected of a deputy chief of mission. Nor is there a defined list of functional skills—such as cyber policy, media outreach, or crisis planning—even though these are central to modern diplomacy.

Competency modeling—defining job requirements in terms of observable skills and behaviors—has become standard across the public and private sectors.

The current framework is also poorly integrated. The recently rebranded Professional Development Program is a step in the right direction, but its framing within the promotion precepts limits its usefulness in assessing person-job fit across the wide range of Foreign Service officers and assignments. As a career management tool, there is no link to training paths and no standardized method for evaluating the level of competency achieved. Those making assignment decisions generally do not receive training in constructing their selection processes to identify, quantify, and evaluate individual competencies. Selection for assignments, therefore, can still depend heavily on referrals, informal vetting, and gut instinct.

Most critically, the framework is static in a world that demands adaptability. As global threats evolve (e.g., AI governance, digital propaganda, shifting trade policies), the Foreign Service has no organizationwide system to identify which officers have the relevant skills or to develop them in a systematic way. There’s also no regular process for updating the competency framework, soliciting user feedback, or adapting to emerging needs. In a 21st-century organization, that’s a serious flaw.

A New Model’s Benefits

Adopting a competency-based system for Foreign Service assignments offers multiple benefits to the department, including:

• Workforce Planning. Leaders can see what skills are available and where development is needed.
• Mission Alignment. Officers with the right mix of technical and interpersonal skills can be matched more effectively to mission needs.
• Leadership Development. Career paths become intentional and progressive.
• Equity and Transparency. All officers compete based on ability, not access.

The model would also benefit individual officers in numerous ways, including:

• Clarity. Officers understand what’s required for roles they want and know how to build toward them.
• Career Growth. Development becomes structured, not serendipitous.
• Self-Direction. Officers can pursue roles that help them build competencies for future success.
• Fairness. Officers lacking insider support can still compete on merit.
• Engagement. Officers feel recognized and supported, improving retention and morale.

Making the Shift

Implementing a competency-based assignment system will require deliberate action.

First, the State Department must develop a full competency taxonomy. This means defining a clear set of skills and behaviors, validating them through feedback, and mapping them to cones, specialties, functional roles, and career stages. Then the taxonomy must be integrated into core systems such as assignment tools, training pathways, and performance evaluation. Without this integration, the taxonomy will remain theoretical rather than practical.

Supervisors and decision-makers must be trained to implement this approach effectively. They need to know how to assess and apply competencies in real selection decisions and performance evaluations. The process must limit exceptions—no bypassing requirements based on “service need” or expedience. Therefore, cultural change is essential. The Foreign Service has long relied on informal mentoring to navigate its systems. Replacing lobbying with structured selection will provoke resistance, especially from those who benefit from the status quo. Change management, transparency, and leadership modeling will be critical to maintaining the momentum necessary to make lasting change.

Finally, rather than a onetime overhaul, the department should pilot a model that puts critical information in the hands of both bureaus and individuals. Start with a single bureau or functional area, learn from the results, and adapt as needed. Then scale.

The pieces already exist. The State Department’s Foreign Service has promotion precepts, bidding systems, evaluation tools, and talent review processes that are nominally structured around merit and demonstrated ability. Officers already provide narratives of their accomplishments, and selection officials already make judgments—albeit inconsistently—about who is best suited for a role. In addition, many FSOs bring with them substantial pre–Foreign Service experience and specialized education that contribute to a rich, if underleveraged, base of professional competencies.

Across the department, there is also a shared, if largely intuitive, sense of what it takes to succeed in different roles. And frameworks for defining and assessing competencies—like those used by other federal agencies and international organizations—are already available and adaptable.

What’s missing is the connective tissue: a formal, transparent, and consistently applied structure that brings these elements together into a coherent system for assignment, development, and advancement.

A Foreign Service That Reflects Our Values

As diplomats representing a nation built on fairness, opportunity, and merit, the Foreign Service must hold itself to those same values. That means selecting officers based on skill and substance, not networks or norms.

A competency-based assignment system won’t solve every problem. But it will help the Foreign Service become more deliberate, more effective, and more equitable. It will ensure that the best-suited officers—not just the best connected—are empowered to lead, grow, and serve.

The time for this shift is now. The challenges ahead are complex, the talent is available, and the stakes are too high to keep playing by outdated rules.

Charity L. Boyette, PhD, is an assistant professor of practice in the Department of Management at Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business. She served as a Foreign Service officer from 2009 to 2018, with tours in Lagos, Krakow, Brussels, and Washington, D.C. She received her doctorate in public administration and public affairs from Virginia Tech and her master’s in business administration from the College of William and Mary. Her previous article for the FSJ is in the October 2020 edition.

Read More...

• “Reforming Entry-Level Assignments” by Andrew Kelly, The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2016
• “Needed: A Management Mindset” by Charity Boyette, The Foreign Service Journal, October 2020
• “A Decade-Long Campaign to Reform Assignment Restriction Programs” by Matthew Asada, The Foreign Service Journal, September 2024