Section 1: Individual Basic information Name Nationality Email Skype ID Contact number Current Academic level/university Languages spoken and level of proficiency (Native, excellent, intermediate, beginner)
Simon Knoblauch Thomsen Danish Simon.firstname.lastname@example.org Knoblaucht 0210740676 Undergraduate (currently on leave), Aalborg University, Denmark Danish – Native English – Excellent German - Intermediate
AIESEC Experience Position and duration Team Member of Communication AIESEC AAU(MarchJune ’12) Manager of internal affairs AIESEC AAU (April-June ’12) Member of ATF (Analysis Task force) AIESEC Denmark (May-July ’12) IT4ALL in Mauritius (GCDP) (July/August ’12)
LCVP Communication AIESEC AAU (June ’12-May ’12) MCVP Talent Management AIESEC New Zealand (July ’13June ’14)
Promotion (external) of exchange programmes and university relations
Established partnership with specific studies
Understanding of AIESEC
Launched a new newsletter created by the members for the members
The importance of a transparent organisation
Understanding of member + EP demographic for the first time in AIESEC DK
The possibility of using data to make decision within AIESEC
Children could use computers for school. Women could use computers for job searching.
The impact of empowering others
150% growth in exchange applications, internal communication established (platform + newsletter)
Team management is the most important thing being a VP. Secondly reasoned based decision are crucial to success
Systems in place for behaviour based recruitment, performance management and HR planning.
What the organisation needs it more important than what the individual needs.
Internal Communication within the LC (e.g. creating newsletters) Conducting analysis of data (members and EPs demographics) provided by LCs and presenting to the national plenary Planning and executing of IT learning programme for underprivileged children and women Internal and external communication. Managing firstly a team of 8 and in the end a team of 18 to promote our exchange programmes Organisational growth though member development
Top 5 conferences attended Conference Local Training seminar, AIESEC AAU JulyCo , AIESEC NZ
Month, year March 2013
Fortius, AIESEC DK
Faci, Agenda manager Delegate
Key learning Catering to the different delegates’ profiles brings success The importance of clearly defined roles and preparation within the DT (& MC) The first exposure to “AIESEC as a social enterprise”
As you may have observed by now, only 3 conferences are present in the “Top 5”. I have inserted the conference above on the criteria of learning and outcome, as these are the two most important things for me regarding conferences. I do not want to push other conferences in a “Top 5” if I do not feel I learned and got a proper outcome from it. Secondly, there is no international conference in the “Top 5” either. I have yet to attend my first international conference, and therefore my exposure to for example AIESEC International is restricted to virtual means (and individual AI VP physical meet ups).
Tell us your story in 1 page
1. What is your personal motivation for applying for MCP of AIESEC New Zealand? How does this tie into your long term vision? When I landed in New Zealand in June 2013, I already knew I wanted to be the MCP of this entity. Back then my thought was “That is just the next natural step” after going on to be LCVP and then MCVP during one year in the organisation. It is as simple as that, I thought. I need to get as much out of this organisation as possible, was my reasoning. For me personally, it makes sense to pursue a challenging management position, as I am becoming increasingly interested in managing in the social sector (after engaging with AIESEC), and this is a career I would like to pursue in the future as well. The motivation and goal has changed. It is not me, Simon, saying “I want to be MCP of AIESEC NZ 14|15” anymore. It is about the direction for an entire organisation for a year and beyond. That is why this application is not an application for Simon to become MCP, it is a direction on how AIESEC NZ should operate, work and strategize in 2014 and 2015, and the direction is built upon learning and experiences of previous MCPs, current MC, current LCPs, future LCPs and future MC members. The application is based on co-creation and reasoning more than anything else. What is needed is that AIESEC New Zealand becomes responsible for the experiences and impact the organisation promises to deliver. This means that the organisation needs to pay more attention to how things are done, what the quality is, the reasons behind and what the direction is. AIESEC New Zealand needs to become a Social Enterprise, which means that the organisation adapts methodology from the business sector to create a larger social impact (Alter, K; 2004).
2. What kind of leadership do you think AIESEC NZ, specifically generation 1415, requires moving forward? How have you demonstrated these qualities in your AIESEC or other experiences? Three things are needed in the general leadership of AIESEC NZ to move forward. Firstly, it is leadership driven by purpose and direction. What this covers is that the leadership of AIESEC NZ takes actively part in creating the direction and a culture of purpose in our organisation. Every time anyone does anything in AIESEC NZ they need to know: why and holistically speaking where does this fit in? This disciplined culture needs to come from the leadership of the organisation – the leadership needs to show that it makes reasoned based decisions that are relevant to the direction of the organisation. For me personally, this is by far the most important thing. I am obsessed with knowing the “why” of everything – whether it is work related or personal. When I arrived to New Zealand and started my MC term, there were a lot of assumptions and “this is how it is” and I started questioning what I was being told from all sides. “Why does it have to be like that?” “Is that really the best solution?” “Why do you think that?” are questions that we need to answer every time we are making a decision. It seems like there is a difference in how often assumptions are the base of decisions from June to January in this AIESEC New Zealand term, and I like to believe I have played a part of that. Secondly, it is leadership that is willing to change if needed. We are in need of leadership that is not afraid of being dynamic. The direction of the organisation is set, but the path to getting there can be changed. There is so much talk about “strategies” in AIESEC NZ – the leadership needs to choose a way of strategizing. The leadership in AIESEC need to focus on emergent strategies, where we shift focus from creating one plan in June to teaching ourselves how to strategize and plan according to the emerging circumstances (Mintzberg, H; 1994). It is about killing our darlings, if they are not working out or grabbing an opportunity if it makes sense right now and in the future. For me personally I try to have a purpose with everything I do, and if I need to make changes with what I am doing to get towards that purpose, I make that change. I demonstrated this in my personal life, when I applied for the MC in New Zealand in March 2013, while I was already enrolled at a University in London from August 2013. My purpose was that I wanted to live, work and study abroad (after catching the “breaking-down-cultural-barriers”-bug during my GCDP), and when I saw that being part of the MC in New Zealand was a possibility, I looked at what that could do towards my purpose and made a decision.
Most importantly what AIESEC NZ needs from its leadership is integrity. AIESEC NZ needs leadership that makes decision based on reasoning and emergent circumstances, while always keeping track on how a decision complies with the direction. If these criteria are met, AIESEC NZ will be an organisation that reaches its goals, grows towards a purpose and becomes more relevant in the New Zealand society. AIESEC New Zealand, simply put, needs to stop talking and start doing. And doing it properly.
Purpose and direction
How are we going to do it properly? We challenge ourselves, we become dynamic and we demonstrate direction, purpose and integrity. If we do this, we will not only limit the chance of failure, but also increase the chance of success.
3. Describe your greatest leadership challenge and how you overcame it. I do not believe I have overcome my biggest leadership challenge, as it is a challenge I will properly face for the rest of my professional life. My challenge is that I have failed to understand the importance of people’s feelings when working, which effectively means that I come across as lacking empathy. I am process and results oriented, which for a long time meant I did not recognise the importance of how people are feeling through that process towards a goal. As I used to say in the beginning of my LCVP term “Work is work, and we can be friends afterwards”. Looking back now I can see how I have been exhausting to work with (at University, work and AIESEC), this was however my strong belief at the time. I am still process and result oriented, but I have now started to understand the effect my actions can have upon other people’s feelings, and it is something I continue to work with on a daily basis. The way I am working on overcoming this challenge is by talking with people who are facing similar challenges (former MC/MCPs) and by studying academics on the occurrence of emotions and feelings in working environments, decision making and management. While the lack of understanding of the importance of empathy is the negative side, it is also one of my biggest strengths. I pride myself being so process oriented that I question everything. Can we do that differently? Why are we doing this? Could we do this better? I am very strong believer of the idea that we should never do anything “because that is what we usually do”.
4. Do you consider yourself a better leader or a better manager? Explain with examples. Before going into the question itself, here are the definitions that it will answered using: Leader: “…a leader sets the direction and goals for their team and leads the team towards those goals.” (Peeling, N; 2008) Manager: “ …[a manager] coordinate[s] the efforts of people to accomplish goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively.”(Oxford English Dictionary) While I do not think that two exclude each other it is still two definitions that are quite difficult to compare. I find it difficult to compare and choose, because I believe the two should be interconnected. You cannot be a good leader, if you are not a good manager and you cannot be a good manager if you are not a good leader. Especially not when the subject is the role of the MCP of AIESEC New Zealand, because I see the role of an MCP as a three-part role, where everything needs to be connected. If we look at our organisation’s history the MCP plays a big role in how well the organisation is doing and that normally means AIESEC New Zealand elects the more charismatic person for the MCP role. By default being a charismatic leader equals certain downfalls (Peeling, 2008).
This means that we are dependent on how good the MCP is every term, which is not very healthy for the organisation, because of our dynamic leadership structure. That one single person plays such a big role in the performance (or non-performance) of the organisation could mean that the deep foundation of culture and operations have not yet been laid. To do that we need an MCP who understand the importance of the three parameters mentioned to the right and with a focus on laying these internal foundations.
Representative in AIESEC network
Specifically for this candidature, I see myself as a mix of a leader and manager, as I believe you set direction and goals for a team with the same efficiency and efficacy as you would manage a team and it resources. That means that there needs to be an extreme focus on the process of leading and managing, where it is shown that goals and objective can be achieved, while the path of getting there is clear, efficient and effective. If this is achieved there is not a need to actually “lead” or “manage”, because the team will be completely clear about where they are going and how. Now they just need a helping hand and a big WHY once in a while. An example of this combination was during my last research project at my University, where I was assigned “Project leader”, and I had to make sure we were at all-time going in the right direction. This was difficult as everyone wanted different things (research and hypothesis wise), but we managed to accommodate to everyone’s needs, as we saw this as the most important thing in our work that everyone had a say in the creation of the direction and the path. After that my, extra duties as project leader were quite enjoyable, as I just had to make sure we were all working towards the same goal all the time.
5. Describe your best team experience. Explain how you would transfer this into your MCP role. My best team experience was my last project at University. At my study we primarily work in projects, and in this case it was a research project where we worked on examining the effect (and connection) of a specific video campaign on people’s feelings and emotions and how this could effectively could be used in other campaigns. The reason why this was such a good team experience (we were 3 people) is found before and during the team experience. We were 2 out of 3 in that team who also worked together on a project in the semester before with 3 other people. That project itself turned out really well (excellent grade and end result), but it felt a lot like it was 2 people carrying the rest of team. We wanted to change that, so the 2 of us told the rest that we wanted to do something else for the next project. We found a third person, whom we knew we could trust and someone who could bring some knowledge to the table that we did not possess. This meant that we had a team of proven performers and varied skill sets, and we used this to our advantage. We created very specific role descriptions for the members of team (e.g. me as project leader) and we decided how we wanted the culture to be like for the 2 months we worked together, which was an honest and open to change culture. Because of where we came from, what we wanted and what we had decided together, the experience became about how the team could create the best project, and not how the individual would benefit the most. The end result was very pleasing and the grade excellent, but we all agreed that the most important thing was the process we created. We enforced a culture in our team, and because of that we simply could not anything but succeed. Learning from that experience will be transferred into the MCP role in two ways: 1. Management of the MC team It is crucial that the each MC member has their say in the culture the MC wants to drive. There also needs to be clear responsibilities that are based on the idea of working together as a TEAM. 2. Collaboration with the LCPs A crucial thing that needs to happen with AIESEC New Zealand leadership is the collaboration. Whether we are talking about a P-team, NLT or EB-platform (or whatever we are going to call it), it is important that the leadership teams start working together on solving issues and coming up with new initiatives. The leaders of AIESEC New Zealand will together figure out what needs to happen, what the culture should look like and how we make things happen. Therefore AIESEC New Zealand should be working on co-creating rather than MC telling LC what to do or the other way around. This collaboration will be shown in Section 4.
Section 2: Market 1. Explain your understanding of New Zealand’s current international positioning. Please include specific reference to its role in the Asia Pacific region. Besides being the country of sheep and the Lord of the Rings, New Zealand has positioned itself as a country that adapts to emerging trends in the world – and especially within the Asia Pacific region. Coming from abroad there are 3 things that I always saw New Zealand positioned as; a green country, a good country with high living standards and a diverse country. We will now look at 2 categories (not specifically of the 3 mentioned above) of “New Zealand and the world and then the Asia Pacific region” to demonstrate what role New Zealand plays in the global and regional environment.
People New Zealand is becoming more populated. What does that mean? Are all countries not becoming more populated? To some degree, yes, but what it interesting about New Zealand is not only that the population has almost doubled in the last 50 years (World Data Inc), but rather the diversification of the population. From ’96 to ’06 the group of people in New Zealand who sees themselves as Asian grew from 5% of total population to 10% of total population and is estimated to reach 26% in 2026 (Makhlouf, Gabriel; 2012). This means that with more Asian people in New Zealand, we will also see increased interaction with the Asian Pacific region. 40% of overall export trade is with Asian countries (compared to 22% with Australia, 11% with EU and 8% with US) and 6 of New Zealand’s top 10 trading partners are Asian (NZ.Stats, 2012). Interesting for an organisation with youth as a target market is that New Zealand has approximately 80.000 enrolments of international students from Asia every year (09, 10 and 11 and not only tertiary) (Ministry of Education;2012).
Visitors Everyone knows about the nature of New Zealand. It was the first thing anyone who heard I was going to New Zealand would comment on (second comment would “Can you explain again what you are going to do?”). People know this because quite a few people travel to New Zealand every year. To be more specific a total of 2.7 million international visitors (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; 2013) came to New Zealand in 2013. Approximately 1.3 million of these visits were of holiday purposes, which generates 5.7% of the entire workforce in New Zealand and a direct contribution of 7.3$ billion (3.7% of GDP). With the Ministry of Business, Innovation and employment expecting annual growth of 2% in this sector it is clear that New Zealand is seeking to exploit the positioning of itself as a tourism destination. Especially within the Asia Pacific region, where tourism from New Zealand to Asia Pacific and from Asia Pacific to New Zealand has increased with more than 75% since 1996 (Makhlouf; 2012).
2. For the following sectors, identify 3 key trends and explain how AIESEC can best capitalise on them. In the following a description of 4 key trends, that involves all the following sectors, will be carried out with a focus on what the connections between the sectors are and how AIESEC is relevant when dealing with these trends. This will be an introduction to how we need to look at context and stakeholders before we make any decisions. The 3 sectors (Business and Economy, Students and Youth & Universities) will follow with a few short statements/trends with references, and after that an explanation of how AIESEC is relevant when discussing those trends.
Businesses and Economy New Zealand has a disengaged workforce (Reilly, Robyn; 2013). Businesses are finding it difficult to find skilled labour – the Education Strategy 2014-19 is focused on filling that gap by making students and families making “informed choices” (Ministry of Education; 2013).
Lack of skilled labour
Students and Youth Bachelor degree is now the most popular education for domestic and international students (Ministry of Education; 2012).
Universities Government wants more people to have study at tertiary institutions – part of the 2014-2019 Education Strategy (Ministry of Education; 2013).
Increase in tertiary students in the future
Increase in bachelor students
As shown in the triangle all the trends mentioned above are connected and especially in section of the New Zealand Government trying to A; get more people enrolled at tertiary institutions and B; fill the “skilled labour” gap in the New Zealand society (especially in terms of engineering and ICT). One big part of the government’s education strategy 0914 was to get more young people enrolled at tertiary students, and they have succeeded, with bachelor degree now being the most popular education. While New Zealand can expect more students and more students studying “skill shortage” degrees, there is a problem with the engagement of the people in the workforce. With 23% being engaged, 62% not engaged and 15% actively disengaged (Reilly; 2013) there is an issue with how the workforce is being engaged. This could be one of the reasons to why New Zealand is experiencing record high Provide leadership opportunities for the growing number migration to Australia (Tan, Lincoln; 2012). of tertiary students There is simply a lack of focus on engagement of the workforce, which makes the expectation Provide and develop experienced international and of sending more and more youth into the domestic top talent for companies and organisations workforce seem risky (when not dealing with the problem). Will New Zealand see higher migration as a result of increase in tertiary students in the future? Develop engaged leaders through leadership experiences It is in the middle of this mix that AIESEC New Zealand is more relevant than ever. This organisation can bridge the gap between the Create an engaged workforce in New Zealand tertiary students (that are increasing), the lack of skilled labour in the market (that is increasing) and the disengaged workforce (which could be migrating).
3. In your opinion, what is the best product that AIESEC can provide for the New Zealand market? Why? A product that fulfils the need of the above mentioned issues. So to summarize, the best product AIESEC New Zealand can offer to New Zealand society must: - Be a leadership experience - Create an engaged workforce in New Zealand - Offer international and domestic top talent to companies and organisations in New Zealand It would be optimistic to say that one product (that AIESEC New Zealand currently offers) would be able to fulfil those criteria, which is why we should look at how we can create such a product (or choose a product to go with). The criteria above are obviously long-term related, but to show how AIESEC New Zealand as an organisation would be able to solve those issues, here are a few examples and viability of those (it is viable, if AIESEC New Zealand could do it) of them: -
Develop the existing management of the current workforce Not viable, because of many reasons. Number one being AIESEC believes in the development of young people. Provide a lot of leadership experiences to the future managers Viable. If AIESEC New Zealand makes sure these experiences will lead to A; development of skills needed and B; the experience is engaging. Fill the gap of skilled labour with international talent Viable. AIESEC New Zealand can fill the gap, but must remember to do it in a way that creates engaging workplaces as well. Create a platform where young people can try to develop engaging “workforces” Viable. AIESEC New Zealand can provide the training and experience of the future managers and leaders, so they will create engaging workplaces.
It is currently outside of the scope of this application to handle the marketing around the actual product, but whatever features and specifications the products consists of does not matter as long as we fulfil the criteria above.
4. How can AIESEC become more relevant in New Zealand? List three strategies. As mentioned in the previous questions AIESEC New Zealand needs to focus on: Leadership experiences to the future managers in New Zealand Filling the gap of the skilled labour with international talent Create a platform where young people can practice engaging workforces Further explanation is found in question 2 & 3 in this section.
Section 3: Organisation A. International 1. Identify 3 international trends in the AIESEC network, at least one of them must be from the Asia Pacific Region. How can New Zealand make the most of these? The following 3 trends that will be discussed here are; Focus on the customer, GIP trends in Asia Pacific and GCDP trends in Asia Pacific (now AP).
Focus on the customer Total exchange results have increased with 10003 from 2011 to 2013 in the global network (GCDP + GIP EPs), which is an increase of 54% in total. GCDP, which is normally in collaboration with an NGO, has increased from 11-13 with 74% while GIP has decreased with 2% in the same period of time. This kind of growth will naturally upscale the quality issues that already existed, but might also create new ones, as each AIESEC entity deals with more organisations and more EPs. A natural reaction to this, in order to ensure AIESEC meeting its midterm ambition and being a first choice partner (for all sectors), is to focus more on the quality of the experiences. While AIESEC New Zealand has not enjoyed the same growth, it is still useful that AIESEC New Zealand can enhance the quality of its exchange experiences by utilizing tools and initiatives from the global network.
Exchange trends in AP We will look into the current exchange trends in AP and discuss how AIESEC New Zealand can potentially make the most of these trends. AP is a region that has increased its exchange numbers with 41% (5126 absolute) from 2011 to 2013 and the trends for GIP and GCDP looks quite different. Full analysis can be found in the Excel Workbook â€œExchange trendsâ€? in the attachments. We will therefore look into GCDP and GIP specifically with further discussion of the issues the realised TNs and EPs of AP represent. As we are investigating trends we will look at difference (absolute and relative). Furthermore as we will look into issues selected, it is important to note that the following applies for AP: GCDP TNs on average have 2.5 issues pr. TN form GCDP EPs on average have 9 issues pr. EP form GIP TNs on average have 2 issues pr. TN form GIP EPs on average have 4 issues pr. TN form
GCDP AP has increased GCDP results with 53% spread over TNs (50%) and EPs (56%). We will now split into TNs and EPs to look at the selected issues of these realisations.
TNs: As we can see, the issue Cultural Understanding have had the biggest absolute increase from 11-12 and from 12-13.
Issue Business and development Career Development Cultural Understanding Environment Governance Health & Lifestyle Human Rights Literacy Population dynamics Poverty reduction Security and resolution Total TNs
Difference 2013 (absolut)
1055 1551 3761 2159 737 1268 2521 3626 2283 1314 159 7347
150 395 1217 281 130 -228 425 701 593 175 85 832
117% 134% 148% 115% 121% 85% 120% 124% 135% 115% 215% 113%
Difference Difference 2012 (absolut) (%) 905 1156 2544 1878 607 1496 2096 2925 1690 1139 74 6515
427 1125 2466 1570 603 598 2035 498 1627 1073 73 1608
189% 3729% 3262% 610% 15175% 167% 3436% 121% 2683% 1726% 7400% 133%
478 31 78 308 4 898 61 2427 63 66 1 4907
Difference 2012 (absolut) Difference (%)
EPs: We can see that the issues Human Rights and Cultural Understanding have had the biggest absolute and relative increase from 11-12 and 12-13.
Issue Business and development Career Development Cultural Understanding Environment Governance Health & Lifestyle Human Rights Literacy Population dynamics Poverty reduction Security and resolution Total Eps
Difference 2013 (absolut) 7014 6395 8402 7425 4243 6534 11488 8530 5181 2242 2314 7671
791 1064 1657 810 453 397 2257 1270 435 210 248 1324
Difference (%) 113% 120% 125% 112% 112% 106% 124% 117% 109% 110% 112% 121%
6223 5331 6745 6615 3790 6137 9231 7260 4746 2032 2066 6347
4049 5079 6462 4973 3623 3914 8807 3778 4515 1933 1977 1438
286% 2115% 2383% 403% 2269% 276% 2177% 209% 2055% 2053% 2321% 129%
2174 252 283 1642 167 2223 424 3482 231 99 89 4909
GIP AP has seen a decrease of 3% in GIP results (from â€™11-13) spread over GIP TNs (6% increase) and GIP EPs (decrease of 23%). We will now split into TNs and EPs to look at the selected issues of these realisations.
TNs: Teaching & Language education and Communication and Journalism stand out as the two issues with the highest absolute increase from 11-12 and 12-13.
Issue Accounting Economics Finance Marketing Human Resources Social sciences Communication and journalism Nature and life science Business administration Teaching & Language education Information technology Other technical subjects Cultural Education Engineering Law Arts & Architecture Total TNs
No issues pops out immediately as they were all decreasing from 12-13.
86 134 137 873 206 61 144 29 649 543 305 116 472 50 14 57 2061
Difference (%) -36 0 -28 29 -29 -37 49 20 19 61 -26 -35 -2 18 5 23 84
70% 100% 83% 103% 88% 62% 152% 322% 103% 113% 92% 77% 100% 156% 156% 168% 104%
Difference 2012 (absolut) 122 134 165 844 235 98 95 9 630 482 331 151 474 32 9 34 1977
15 -9 42 1 -38 -74 94 9 -35 138 8 -170 -193 30 9 34 36
114% 94% 134% 100% 86% 57% 9500% #DIV/0! 95% 140% 102% 47% 71% 1600% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 102%
107 143 123 843 273 172 1 0 665 344 323 321 667 2 0 0 1941
GIP Eps Issue
Difference 2013 (absolut)
Accounting Economics Finance Marketing Human Resources Social sciences Communication and journalism Nature and life science Business administration Teaching & Language education Information technology Other technical subjects Cultural Education Engineering Law Arts & Architecture Total Eps
Difference 2013 (absolut) 120 190 159 375 245 100 180 52 350 232 109 63 209 61 17 61 640
Difference (%) -69 -95 -120 -451 -118 -104 -31 -14 -132 -18 -23 -33 -60 -8 -27 -9 -157
63% 67% 57% 45% 67% 49% 85% 79% 73% 93% 83% 66% 78% 88% 39% 87% 80%
Difference 2012 (absolut) Difference (%) 189 285 279 826 363 204 211 66 482 250 132 96 269 69 44 70 797
-23 -34 -35 273 -47 -167 205 64 -45 18 -62 -160 -119 67 43 65 -39
89% 89% 89% 149% 89% 55% 3517% 3300% 91% 108% 68% 38% 69% 3450% 4400% 1400% 95%
Conclusion With increase in TNs (GCDP and GIP) there is good news for an entity like New Zealand who is primarily focused on outgoing exchange. Looking solely at the trends of TNs in AP it would make sense to go for Teaching & Language education and Communication and Journalism GIP TNs and look for GCDP TNs within the issue of Cultural Understanding. But what kind of issues do the New Zealand EPs choose, and does the current EP supply from New Zealand match with the GCDP demand for EPs (GCDP TNs)? As AIESEC New Zealand does not currently have sufficient ICX results, this will not be included in the following.
GCDP EPs: As there is extreme difference in GCDP EP how many issues EPs chose in Difference 2011, 2012 and 2013 we will look Issue 2013 (absolut) Difference (%) at the which issues tops absolutely Business and development 33 -40 45.21% Career Development 37 -43 46.25% speaking. Cultural Understanding 55 -29 65.48% While one of the more popular Environment 67 -33 67.00% 30 -30 50.00% issues, Cultural Understanding is Governance Health & Lifestyle 68 -37 64.76% not the top supply of New Zealand Human Rights 64 -87 42.38% Literacy 87 -51 63.04% EPs. Population dynamics 32 -48 40.00% 22 -20 52.38% AIESEC New Zealand could Poverty reduction and resolution 12 -22 35.29% benefit from the GCDP TN trend in Security Total Eps 131 -1 99.24% AP by packaging products to the issue Cultural Understanding and promote it to its target group.
Difference 2012 (absolut) 73 80 84 100 60 105 151 138 80 42 34 132
29 79 83 69 57 51 150 62 75 40 33 26
165.91% 8000.00% 8400.00% 322.58% 2000.00% 194.44% 15100.00% 181.58% 1600.00% 2100.00% 3400.00% 124.53%
44 1 1 31 3 54 1 76 5 2 1 106
212 319 314 553 410 371 6 2 527 232 194 256 388 2 1 5 836
GIP EPs: EPs choose approx. the same amount of issues every year, so we will look at differences between the Issue Accounting years to establish a trend. Economics While one of the top issues Finance Teaching and Language education Marketing Human Resources is not the biggest supply (except for Social sciences Communication and journalism 2013), and Communication and Nature and life science administration Journalism is not playing a big part Business Teaching & Language education Information technology of total realised EPs either. Other technical subjects To benefit from the GIP TN trends Cultural Education in AP, AIESEC New Zealand could Engineering Law package products to especially the Arts & Architecture Total Eps issue Teaching and Language education and promote it to its target group.
GIP EP Difference 2013 (absolut) 0 0 1 2 2 3 2 0 2 7 0 0 4 1 1 1 11
-2 -2 -4 -7 -5 -3 -3 -1 -8 0 -2 -2 0 0 1 1 -13
0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 22.22% 28.57% 50.00% 40.00% 0.00% 20.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 45.83%
Difference 2012 (absolut) 2 2 5 9 7 6 5 1 10 7 2 2 4 1 0 0 24
Difference (%) 0 -1 3 4 3 -5 5 1 5 -5 0 -4 -13 1 0 0 2
100.00% 66.67% 250.00% 180.00% 175.00% 54.55% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 200.00% 58.33% 100.00% 33.33% 23.53% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 109.09%
2011 2 3 2 5 4 11 0 0 5 12 2 6 17 0 0 0 22
2. Describe the current relationship between New Zealand and the Asia Pacific growth network. How can we leverage the network to increase our results? Less dependent or not as close connected as previous years. Realised EPs from the past 3 years (2011-2013) will be used to describe the relationship between New % of total Eps realised in regions per year Zealand and the AP growth network. This is based on 2013 2012 2011 the idea that most of AIESEC New Zealand’s Africa 6.34% 1.92% 0.78% exchange results come from outgoing exchange. AP 47.89% 59.62% 68.75% The last 3 years AP has been the biggest contributor 33.80% 26.92% 26.56% of TNs for New Zealand EPs. However if we look at CEE 9.15% 5.13% 1.56% the trends of New Zealand realised EPs we will see Ibero that while AP is still the biggest contributor of TNs, MENA 0.70% 2.56% 0.78% New Zealand has widened the scope of growth WENA 2.11% 3.85% 1.56% networks for TNs. The data and analysis can be found in the “Attachments” folder in the Excel workbook “Realised EPs from 2011-2013”. As shown the percentage of all EPs realising in AP has been decreasing the last 3 years, which largely comes down to the fact the number of EPs realising in MoC + India has gone from 47 (2011), to 30 (2012) to 17 (2013). The “diversification” mainly comes due to a higher number of EPs being realised in CEE (Especially Poland) and Ibero (Especially Brazil). With that said AP is still the biggest contributor of TNs for New Zealand EPs currently (and over the last 3 years) and AIESEC New Zealand could be able to capitalise from this.
% of total Eps realised in regions between 2011 and 2013
Africa AP CEE Ibero MENA WENA Total
Realised from 2011-2013 in % of total EP realised region in 2011-2013 22 3.90% 317 56.21% 172 30.50% 32 5.67% 7 1.24% 14 2.48% 564
Although we can see that number of EPs realising to Brazil and Poland has increased with approx. 50% from 2012 to 2013, it seems that strong partnerships with AP countries creates growth. For example from 2011 when 7 EPs were realised by Malaysian TNs to 2012, where 22 EPs were realised in Malaysia with Malaysia being a country partner. Regardless of the quality issues Malaysia might currently have, this shows that if we keep an eye on which countries New Zealand EPs are realised to and the NPS of these countries, we will be able to increase our exchange results through country partnerships. Possible country partners in AP, when looking at the “buyer behaviour” of our EPs: Vietnam (increased with 280% from 11 to 13) and Taiwan (increased with 180% from 11-13). This is of course a start to figuring out how to use country partners in AP to increase exchange results. The next step is to look at the supply of TNs in the countries (which is increasing) and figure out if our demand of EPs fits and start to look at the NPS for the countries. When that has been analysed AIESEC New Zealand would have an idea of whether packaging exchange products to these countries is a viable idea.
3. How can New Zealand better engage with the global plenary? List 3 key strategies. Frontrunners of initiatives: Being one of the first countries with a GCDP EP peak, AIESEC New Zealand should be used as a place to test global initiatives before moving into the Northern Hemisphere peak.
CEEDs: Attracting MC CEEDs of possible MC candidates to New Zealand is a way of getting GCPs from around the network, while position the organisation in terms of leadership pipeline and country partnerships.
Global Teams: A strong presence of New Zealand MC members in the global support teams will ensure that New Zealand is never “left out” again.
B. National 1. Present a SWOT Analysis for each function of AIESEC New Zealand (TM, OGX, MaC, ICX, FA, BD). The following will seek to analyse the strengths (internal in/with AIESEC New Zealand), weaknesses (internal in/with AIESEC New Zealand), opportunities (external from AIESEC New Zealand) and threats (external from AIESEC New Zealand) of each of AIESEC’s 4 programmes (TMP, TLP, GCDP and GIP). It is one of the aims of this application to get AIESEC New Zealand to think and work in products and projects rather than restrictive functional areas. This will be discussed further in Section 4. The reasoning behind this is that we need to have more focus on AIESEC New Zealand as a social enterprise, which means that we need to look at how we run the organisation. How we run the organisation is by running social programmes, and we should be proud that we are completely embedded. Embedded means that our revenue is generated through our purpose driven social programmes (Alter, 2004). The matrixes are designed this way: One matrix divided into Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Each of these categories is divided into another matrix, which represents GCDP (Blue), GIP (Orange), TMP (Green) and TLP (Purple). If anything is marked with an “O” that means Outgoing (Global Citizen, OE+ and Global Talent) and “I” means Incoming (iGCDP or iGIP)
Strengths Proven impact numbers
Target market exists
Processes in place (O)
Supply and demand
FInancial sustainable Good quality (I)
Financial unsustainable (I)
Knowledge and processes not in place
Low conversion from interest to purchase (O)
Conversion from interest to purchase
No or unclear products
Low engagement by participants
Bad positioning Low engagement by participants
High engagement of participants High productivity of participants
High retention Actual leadership experience
Bad positioning externally Unclear education cycle
Opportunities Projects with university/organisations Strong country partnerships (O) Issue based projects
Issue based projects Projects with specific studies (O) Projects with NGOs or Universitiees (I)
Projects with schools (I)
GCDP/GIP + TMP participants
Direct TLP recruitment
Vague benefits of the programme Bad positioning internally Pipeline from TMP
Threats Bad quality internships (O) Competition in the "exchange" area
Competition in the "extra curricular" area University calendar
Heavy competition in the HR solution area (I) Competition in the "exchange" area (O)
University calendar Image of TLP externally
By looking at the SWOT of our social programmes we will be able to say a bit more about what the organisation looks like. By the looks of it we have a general issue with positioning and product packaging (or development), and especially within our exchange area. We have a few opportunities regarding issue based projects as well, and that is something we should look into. With great gain AIESEC New Zealand would be able to adapt a project based structure. If we are to look at the entire organisation in New Zealand, it would look like this (solely internal):
High member engagement
4 years of little to no growth
Purpose driven revenue (exchange)
Cash flow issues
LCs biggest stakeholders
Financial mismanagement over years
Good member productivity Opportunities
Reinvestment into the organisation Operations based on projects Strong international relations for quality
No defined culture Threats
Reserves are almost non existent Too dependant on leadership
All the weaknesses can be removed and all the threats can be limited if AIESEC New Zealand becomes an actual social enterprise. This means that the organisation would run like a business that creates a social surplus instead of a financial one. To be part of an organisation that creates a social impact as AIESEC New Zealand funded solely by the social impact itself – that is truly remarkable. Imagine the organisation was focusing on steadily becoming more and more relevant every year? And that the organisation actually achieved what it set itself to do? If that is to happen we need to start thinking about how we can change the New Zealand society by delivering leadership development experiences. There is no easy fix to this, and the organisation needs to be prepared to find solutions that are not only valid in the next couple of months, but in the next couple of years. The organisation needs to focus on culture, quality and financial reinvestment.
2. Evaluate each LC’s exchange results from the last 3 years. What strategy would you recommend to each LC for growth? This evaluation on LC exchange results will be in 2 parts; 1 part isolated evaluation on results and 1 part based on trends in the LC (as described by LCP, EB members and me). Combined those two parts will provide a foundation for the recommendation for each LC. The first part is based on exchange numbers and number of TMP/TLP realised. To save space, the data is kept in the Excel workbook in the folder “Attachments” named “LC exchange results past 3 years”.
LC Auckland Auckland had a TMP/TLP to Exchange ratio of 1.3 in 2011/12 and 1.4 in 2012/13, where exchange results increased with 8% as a result of realising only outgoing exchanges (100% of total exchange). Currently Auckland is missing 20% exchange increase to meet 12/13 and currently has a TMP/TLP to Exchange ratio of 1.4. Unless Auckland realises more exchanges than it realises TMP/TLP it has become less effective in 13/14 compared to 12/13. Auckland has been running a series of initiatives to raise external awareness this term, and it has not effected results positively yet. Recommendation for Auckland to grow would be to focus on the efficacy of members and find a focus programme/product as the 12/13 results suggests worked.
LC Waikato Waikato had a TMP/TLP to Exchange ratio of 1.3 in 11/12 and 4.7 in 12/13, where exchange results decreased with almost 50% while TMP/TLP realisations increased with almost 100%. So far in 13/14 Waikatoâ€™s TMP/TLP to Exchange ratio is 3.1 with 75% of 12/13 exchange results achieved and 50% decrease in TMP/TLP realised. Waikato had a 55/45 split of Outgoing/Incoming exchange in 11/12 and has become more outgoing exchange centric with a 90/10 split so far in 13/14. oGCDP results have stayed the same (roughly), while oGIP and iGCDP has decreased. Waikato has in 13/14 had a big focus on creating a working culture in the LC and the numbers would suggest that progress is being made. Recommendation solely based on these observations would be that Waikato should focus on GCDP (Incoming and outgoing).
LC Manawatu Manawatu has done 7 exchanges in total the last years and all exchange came in 12/13, which was the most productive year for Manawatu with a TMP/TLP ratio to Exchange of 1.3 compared to 11/12 with 25:1 and 13/14 1:0. Manawatu has battled with member engagement and finding the market on campus. Isolated speaking from the results Manawatu should be facing disbandment as an AIESEC entity and AIESEC activities at that campus should not start again until it has been proven that AIESEC can operate there.
LC Victoria In the last 3 years Victoriaâ€™s best year was 11/12, where the LC had a TMP/TLP to Exchange ratio of 1.9, and the 12/13 year had a ratio of 2.9 as TMP/TLP realisation were increased by 20% and exchange results decreased by 20%. So far in 13/14 Victoria has a ratio of 1.4 with decrease of exchange results (so far) of 35% and decrease of TMP/TLP realisations of 65% compared to 12/13. Victoria is more effective, but with less exchanges so far in 13/14 Victoria started the term with a thin pipeline of members and has had to operate with many new members, but has also gotten a few raises in iGIP in the year so far. Recommendations for Victoria are to look into oGIP as a programme for growth and also up scaling the current TMP/TLP to Exchange ratio = having more people doing more exchanges.
LC Canterbury Has realisations in all 4 programmes in the past 3 years with about 90% of exchange results coming from outgoing exchange every year. Canterbury went from a TMP/TLP to Exchange ratio of 1.7 in 11/12 to 2.6 in 12/13 and so far in 13/14 the ratio is 2.2, with a decrease of TMP/TLP realisations of 50% and a decrease in exchange results of 40%, which tells us that (currently with majority of results coming in first 6 months of the term and an increase of TMP/TLP realisation) Canterbury will end on around the same ratio in 13/14 as in 12/13. Canterbury has had problems with member engagement through the year (and before that as well), which shows in a TMP/TLP to Exchange ratio that is not improving while exchange results are decreasing. Recommendation for Canterbury is to find a focus programme/product and emphasise on the productivity and engagement of the members.
LC Otago Otago did 2 incoming exchanges in 11/12, but besides that, 12/13 and 13/14 results are 100% outgoing exchanges. Otago went from a TMP/TLP to Exchange ratio of 1.2 in 11/12 to 2.1 in 12/13 and so far in 13/14 stand at 1.7 with a decrease of 65% in TMP/TLP realisations and a decrease in exchange results of 40%. Realistically speaking Otago 13/14 will end around the same exchange results and ratio as in 12/13. Otago has been working on creating a culture of engagement throughout the year, and trying to make sure there will be a pipeline for next term. Furthermore the LC was told by the previous MC not to do ICX. Recommendation of Otago would be to focus on member productivity and try to achieve a TMP/TLP to exchange ratio under 2.0. That would mean growth for the LC.
Section 4: MCP A. Your vision. Display your vision on one A4 page.
AIESEC New Zealand is the #1 organisation for youth leadership
200 exchange promoter experiences
Total quality Financial reinvestment
Defined culture & direction
1. In the context of 14|15, rank in order of importance what you believe to be the key responsibilities of the MCP. Follow with an explanation of your choice. Before getting into the listing of the responsibilities it should be added, that these responsibilities are not necessarily the responsibilities (or all of 8 them) for the MCP 14|15. “Strategy” has been renamed to “Direction” based on this definition of strategy “[strategy is]… a pattern in a stream of decisions” (Mintzberg, H; 1978), which is what in this application is defined as direction – that there is a pattern in the decisions made towards a goal. Direction •The most important job of the MCP 14|15 is to make sure everyone knows where the organisation is heading at all time. This is what was earlier described as "Entity leader". Team management •Management of the MC team and of the NLT (LCPs) is what was previously described as "MC Manager". If the management of these stakeholders is good, almost anything is possible. Communication with national plenary •In order to make sure the direction is in place, there needs to be a constant and planned communicaiton with the national plenary. MCP is responsible for creating the internal message calendar. Planning, tracking and reporting •In this case this refers to the responsibility of making sure planning, tracking and reporting happens in a good way from the MC team and NLT. Financial sustainability •It is a responsibility of the MC 14|15 that the organisation is sustainable. The process of keeping track of this is not necessarily the MCP's, and making sure the organisation is financial sustainable is part of the "direction". Governance and accountability •As with everything else it is the final responsibility of the MCP 14|15, but in terms of time spent it has minimal importance. For example; we are (as it looks right now) not going to obtain full membership criteria until 15|16, but 14|15 needs to make sure everything is done properly during that term. Representation in the global AIESEC network •No big importance towards this from the MCP's side. This is what was described as 'Representative in AIESEC network" , which is the least important of the 3 different aspects of an MCP in 14|15. Of that simple reason that there are a list of things that needs to be improved internally before focusing on the positioning of AIESEC New Zealand in the global network (from the MCP's side). For example international relations (towards exchange) would be handled by the MCVP OGX. Representation in the external environment •Absolutely no importance for this in 14|15. AIESEC New Zealand is not going to be the go to organisation for youth in New Zealand through MCP representation in the external environment. We are going to do it through relevant leadership experiences (as mentioned in Section 2 Questions 2+3)
2. Based on your analysis in the previous sections (Individual, market and organisation), explain, in order of priority, your top 3 focus areas for AIESEC in New Zealand. There is not going to be more than one focus area for 14|15. The only focus of 14|15 is: AIESEC New Zealand as a Social Enterprise. By streamlining and being focused in our operations, being obsessed with quality and adapting business methodology to the organisation, AIESEC New Zealand will be more relevant than ever. The organisation needs to figure out exactly what its relevance in New Zealand society is (as proposed in 2).
3. Identify opportunities for growth in the following programs: iGIP, iGCDP, oGIP, oGCDP. The answer to this question is going to be very preliminary, as a lot of stakeholders need to be involved in the process. Some simple descriptions of opportunities will follow. As it looks right now iGCDP will not be rolled out in 14|15 and will therefore not be described here (not feasible). For iGIP: Defined products (based on the criteria mentioned in Section 2 (Market)) with the possibility of creating products to NGOs and Universities as well as companies. For oGCDP: Create products for specific issues and target markets. As an example, AIESEC New Zealand only had 22 applicants from Bachelor of Health degrees, while one of the global sub-issues for GCDP is Health. Additional opportunity is to have Universities as customers instead of students – this way the university would fund a programme for students to go on exchange. For oGIP: Development of a clear oGIP product with strong emphasis on University endorsement of the product. We can see that most successful promotion comes through University channels such as email and CareerHub. The product needs to be developed and needs credibility.
4. Identify current bottlenecks in the above programmes and suggest possible solutions. As shown in Section 3 (Organisation) there are a few repeated bottlenecks for GCDP and GIP and most of them are connected to marketing activities. For both GCDP and GIP AIESEC New Zealand needs to invest time, resources and money into the marketing activities around developing and promoting products. As seen in “Budget 1.1” in the folder “Attachments” $2000 dollars will be put into activities and campaigns and the MC 14|15 will have a MCVP Marketing, who is focused on product development and the activities around managing these products. There need to be clear benefits of AIESEC New Zealand’s products, and these benefits should be built upon the quality of the product.
5. Describe one strategy or initiative that you believe has high return on investment and explain how you would financially invest into it. This initiative’s objective is to start delivering iGIP from the LCs’ members, and this is being done by creating a National Sales Entity. This entity consists of the best sales representatives from each major city and will be managed directly by the MCVP Sales. This entity would function as an enterprise under AIESEC New Zealand and would be exclusive, have its own development programme and education cycle and have 4 summits throughout the year in different cities. As shown in “Budget 1.1” this initiative is backed with $2000 in 14|15 and is expected to generate 13 iGIP exchanges in the 14|15 term. This entity will be built over the next couple of months with current MCVPICX, LCVPICXs and elected MCVP Sales. Ideally speaking this entity would be handling all the iGIP sales and delivery in New Zealand, but it will not start like this. The initiative will start relatively small in 14|15 with maybe 10 members of the entity in total because of two reasons; Cashflow issues in the beginning of year means that AIESEC New Zealand cannot change the entire iGIP structure and secondly it is going to be a big change to create an entity doing iGIP and will not happen over a fortnight.
6. How can we increase New Zealand’s financial sustainability? Focusing. As an organisation we need to figure out what we are going to fully fund and what is not going to be funded. No more half solutions, where everything gets a bit of funding. We have reached a point where we are doing the same number of exchanges year after year with the same expenses and we need to improve that. As shown in “Budget 1.1” all finances will be invested in operations run by the LCs, which means that everything the MC is doing in 14|15 is based on implementation in LCs. With this explicit focus of generating exchange by LCs, we can look at how we fully fund that and cut expenses on initiatives that are not going towards that goal. As for example cutting HR expenses on MC level with 20% (as shown in “Budget 1.1”) and investing more money directly into initiatives for LCs.
7. Describe your HR structure for 1415 term (MC Directors, NST, NLT etc.) This section will describe what the MC team will look like and how the MC and LCs will collaborate. More information and a proposed structure of an LC can be found in the leaflet “Information sent to LCPs” in “Attachments”. MC will consist of: MCVP MCP/LCD MCVP OGX Maketing MCP and LC development MCVP Sales (Managing National Sales Entity) MCVP Marketing (All marketing activities) MCVP MCVP Operations (Conversion and pipeline management) MCVP Sales Operations MCVP OGX (International Relations and exchange development programmes) MC and LC will collaborate in Product/Project working groups, and there will be a total of 4 physical meetings throughout the year (which and how many times will be determined later). An example of a project working group: Global Citizen Working group Members: MCVP Marketing (or MCVP OGX, depending on the objective of the group) 2 LCVP OGX 2 LCVP Marketing 1 LCVP TM 1 LCVP Finance This way every corner of a project/product will be covered. How is it implemented in the LCs? Who will do what? What is the value proposition?
8. Present a draft timeline of operations and support including a proposed conference timeline (exchange Cycles, education touch points, marketing timeframes, etc.) Here a draft timeline of the next 1.5 years will follow. February to June (the first section) is in 13|14 term, and everything mentioned in there will be preparation for 14|15. Only oGCDP and oGIP is mentioned in here, because iGIP delivery will not be in peaks but continuously throughout the year. iGCDP will as it looks right now be delivered in 14|15. This is very much a draft, as it is out the scope of this application to present a timeline. That is impossible to do without current and elected LCPs and LCVPs and current and elected MC. For an idea of what exchange results, revenue and expenses look like throughout the year, have a look at “Budget 1.1”, especially in the tab “Targets 1415”. February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June
IPM LC Elections LC Elections, first national working groups initiated, AutCo Establish core National Sales Entity (NSE), working groups’ product development. Marketing activities for oGCDP starts Preparation for JulyCo (How do we run projects?). NSF starts activities (goes on year out - iGIP) JulyCo and NSF Summit. Active promotional and marketing activities for oGCDP until October. Member recruitment and LTS around the entity. Actively RA and MA oGCDP Actively RA and MA oGCDP, active marketing activities for oGIP, LCP + Prorduct summits Actively RA and MA oGCDP active marketing activities for oGIP RE oGCDP, active marketing activities for oGIP, actively RA oGIP, LCP + Working group summits RE oGCDP, active marketing activities for oGIP, actively RA oGIP, MCP election MCVP election, RE oGCDP, RA + MA oGIP LCP Election, RAMARE oGIP LCP Summit, LCEB election, MARE oGIP AutCo (Transition conference for EBc+e), MARE oGIP LCPc+e summit, Product summit, MARE oGIP Prep for JulyCo, transition, RE oGIP
9. If you could make one major change to the way AIESEC New Zealand currently operates what would it be and why? That the organisation becomes project based. To ensure the best quality for everyone involved with AIESEC, we need to accommodate our processes to the customers (members, EPs and TNs) instead of for the organisation. On an LC level this means that a project could be: Global Citizen Leader: VP OGX (or a project leader, depending on the size of the LC) Members:
Marketing functional members OGX functional members TM functional members Finance functional members
Each member has a function where he gets knowledge, ideas and direction and will be pulled into projects based on the organisational direction, where his functional expertise will be utilized.
Section 5: Free Zone
Every good personality trait has a shadow side.