Interesting read - I'm just a register guy (hopefully not anymore in January, fingers crossed), but the personnel system section seems somewhat contradictory. They want to further "generalize" the cones, yet "specialize" the regional/linguistic capability.
On one hand, I agree with the regional effort. It seems like a waste of resources to put someone through 6+ months of boutique language training to learn Lithuanian..... then never return to Lithuania in their career after their 2-year stint.
On the other hand, this looks disastrous from a morale perspective. A recent post on this reddit (GAO report) just highlighted how the Africa and Middle East posts can't keep their missions staffed. So the ELO that gets to spend their first 5-10 years in EUR, EAP, or WHA may be thrilled. But what about the ELO that wants those but instead gets Francophone Africa or the MENA region? I know there is a category of FSOs that loves these areas, but that category isn't large enough to fully man the requirements, right? Those individuals might be quitting the Foreign Service much sooner than most. Isn't that why the CDOs try to use "equity system". If you get a bad hardship post, tough it out, because your next post will likely (not guaranteed) be a better post?
Anyways, I just see the next expensive Harvard study on "why are FS retention numbers so low"...... and they come to the above conclusion; FSO quits after two years in Niger, knowing that his second tour will be in Burkina Faso, and 3rd will be in Mali.
Thoughts?