THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2025 37 motion 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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=