AIESEC the Netherlands Ambassadors Program: Preliminary Report by AIESEC in The Netherlands

Ambassadors Program preliminary report 2015-2016 AIESEC in the Netherlands

Contents 3 6 8 10 11 15 16 17

Introduc5on Marke5ng & Selec5on En5ty Selec5on & Rela5ons Prepara5on & Coaching Program Output Network Communica5on VP Evalua5on Conclusion

1 introduction

About this report

Background Although the Ambassadors Program has been an esteemed program for AIESEC in the Netherlands since 1994, it has gone through a radical transforma5on in the 2015-‐2016 term. Whereas it used to target twenty 1st and 2nd year students to embark on a 4-‐week cultural experience, the program has evolved to be strategically aligned and suppor1ve towards AIESEC in the Netherlands’ exchange focus, speciﬁcally in the outgoing Global Ci5zen program. The refreshed purpose of the program is to strengthen our posi5on in the global network, and contribute to improving the value delivery phase of the customer experience. As we are increasing our impact by growing in the number of experiences we facilitate abroad, it is equally important to ensure that the quality of these experiences remains consistent so that leadership can be developed in every one of our exchange par5cipants.

Program Goal The Ambassadors Program’s aim is to evaluate the 16 Standards & Sa1sfac1on for exchange projects in our main partner en55es, and to share this exper5se with the member network and customers pipeline. This year, we made steps by sending 11 alumni to 8 partner en55es. Their goal was to experience and evaluate project standards ﬁrst-‐hand, and to transfer their knowledge and recommenda5ons to Local Commi]ees and Exchange Par5cipants. This allowed us to op5mise and customise our program expecta5on se^ng in order for our EPs to make the most out of their leadership experiences abroad.

Since this is the first year that the Ambassadors Program has run in its new form, it is essen5al that we evaluate the program on mul5ple parameters. In order to get the program running, MC 15-‐16 invested 10.000 euro to support the Ambassadors Program and compensate travel costs and travel logis5cs. Of this investment, 8165 euro was spent on 11 flight 5ckets, visa costs. and travel s5pends of 200 euro per CEEDer. This report serves as a preliminary evalua5on of the program and make first steps in assessing the return on investment of this project. Although we have not yet completed the summer peak cycle, and therefore cannot evaluate en5ty net promoter scores, this report touches on qualita1ve and quan1ta1ve assessments of the program outcomes thus far.

program in numbers Entity Matching Matches per en3ty since April 1st 30 25

8 CEEDers

11 en55es

15 10

22 applicants

ni a Co lo m bi a M al ay sia Sr i L an ka Tu ni sia

Ta n

O m an

es ia on

In d

Br az

47% of total matches Out of 281 matches since April 1st, 132 were to partner en33es above.

CEED net promoter score How likely are you to recommend the Ambassadors program?

“

This gave me a very good feeling. We could develop the exchange project exactly as we wanted, which was great felt. I felt that I could handle the responsibility and that I could contribute good ideas. In a way, it gave me more belief in myself.

Anique kamphuis oman

”

2 Marketing & Selection program marketing The general marke5ng eﬀorts of the program were mediocre. While the Ambassadors Program had its own logo and Facebook Page, it was not aligned to the brand assets of AIESEC. It is highly recommended to change this with the con5nua5on of the program, and for the MCVP Marke5ng to advise and supervise the program marke5ng ac5vi5es. Furthermore, a program booklet was created with generic job descrip5ons, program 5melines, logis5c details, and applica5on instruc5ons in order to a]ract applicants in the marke5ng period. Social media content was posted occasionally during the prepara5on and CEEDership stages in order to engage online outreach with the refreshed program.

Recruitment While we ini5ally did not know how many applica5ons to expect, we received a total of 22 which was more than we had originally an5cipated. This was due to the par1cipa1ve eﬀorts of Local CommiFees who reached out to their alumni networks, and to an email campaign that was sent to 1200 member and EP alumni from the past 3 years. A “Na5onal Programs Award” was given to the LC with the most subscrip5ons for the Ambassadors Program and Nour Project combined, so as to incen5vize local contribu5on and recruitment eﬀorts.

How did you hear about the Ambassadors Program CEEDership opportunity?

Program marke2ng Oct-‐Dec

Selec2on Jan

Prepara2on Feb-‐Mar

CEEDership Mar-‐May

60%

Reintegra2on May-‐Jun

40% LC Contact

Do you feel that you lacked AIESEC experience during your CEEDership?

CEED Profiles Member   alumni

27%

EP alumni

45%

EB alumni Yes

Current   member 0

27%

Some2mes

Selection The Na5onal Selec5on Day took place at the Ministry of Foreign Aﬀairs and evaluated the candidates based on their ﬂexibility, professionalism, independence, mo5va5on, teamwork, problem-‐ solving skills, and presenta5on skills. The agenda also included speeches by members of the ministry, Rein Dekkers and Jennes de Mol, who talked about cultural sensi5vity and ambassadorship. This was a successful event and was an important way to posi1on the program professionally and aFrac1vely to candidates. Selec5on was thorough and involved the main stakeholders of the program, namely the Ambassadors team, LCVPs oGC, and the MC in order to reach collec5ve conclusions. As such, it was a democra5c process and the network was encouraged to par5cipate in decision-‐making.

recommendations • •

•

8.0 CEED evaluation

•

How would you rate the interview and selec5on process? 7

Con5nue rela5ons with Ministry of Foreign Aﬀairs and network involvement in selec5on. Con5nue with email marke5ng cycle for alumni recruitment, and align this with na5onal brand/marke5ng assets (recommended for MCVP Marke5ng). Support, supervise, and approve Ambassadors Program logo, brand assets, and social media usage (recommended for MCVP Marke5ng). Evaluate if program name/brand is confusing for network, and change name accordingly. Explore poten5al of current members becoming CEEDers and bringing knowledge back into the network directly.

3 Entity Selection & Relations Entity selection The choice of en55es selected for the Ambassadors Program was a collec1ve process driven by the MCVP oGC and LCVP Ambassadors Program, and included input from the LCVP oGC convent. Ini1al research was based on four areas: historical match trends in the past 2 years, market analysis on popular des5na5ons, input on top/ﬂop evalua5ons of EPs (internal NPS) from projects in 2014-‐2015, and input from oGC convent.

international relations En5ty rela5ons and partnerships were ini5ated at Interna5onal Congress by the MC, and interna1onal rela1ons were con1nued thereon by the Foreign Aﬀairs Manager (Ambassadors team member, succeeded by the NST Interna5onal Rela5ons role in 16-‐17). Regular Skype mee5ngs were held to strengthen rela5ons and establish common agreements regarding CEED goals and logis5cs. However, the Foreign Aﬀairs Manager did not have previous AIESEC experience or knowledge which required extra guidance and educa5on from the MCVP oGC in the beginning. Since the manager was not accountable to the MC directly, it was challenging for the MC to track and be involved in en5ty rela5ons throughout the year.

6.7

CEED Evaluation

recommendations •

•

How would you rate the communica5on with your host en5ty prior to departure?

•

“

It was a great opportunity to visit an African country and learn about their culture and way of living. I am par3cularly inspired by some of the projects we have visited. They showed me that people with the right mentality can get done everything they want even under seemingly adverse condi3ons.

tammo bakker Tanzania

”

4 preparation & Coaching 7.0 CEED Evaluation

Preparation CEEDers were provided with a prepara1on booklet and seminar prior to their departure. Topics covered included: cultural sensi5vity and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, job descrip5ons and deliverables, global AIESEC structures, the Sustainable Development Goals, and communica5on lines with CEED coaches and local commi]ees.

How would you rate the prepara5on logis5cs of the program?

survey: do you have feedback or tips regarding the coaching process?

Coaching CEEDers were assigned a coach from the Ambassadors team. Every coach tracked and followed-‐up with CEEDers on a weekly basis to check their deliverables (e.g.. blog and content submissions) and provide personal and func5onal support. The Ambassadors team also hosted 2 virtual hangout spaces while CEEDers were abroad in order for them to connect with one another and share their experiences and exchange inputs/sugges5ons.

8.5

“I liked the way that you did not stalk us very much. I live by the mo8o: no news is good news. So when I do contact you, I do so because I have a ques>on or need advice. You followed that up very well.” “We had rela>vely li8le personal contact before leaving. It would have been nice to sit down and get to know each other in advance.” “Be more strict to the deadlines I some>mes was missing.”

CEED Evaluation

“Also be more interested in the extra, but most relevant research that I have done here, next to the blogs and marke>ng material which is to me less relevant.”

How would you rate your coach? 10

CEED output

Decent Good

11% 52% 19%

Partnership Reports CEEDers were instructed to deliver a comprehensive partnership report upon their return. This required them to report on: • Culture shock/cultural learning • Do’s and don’ts in the en5ty and culture • MC/NST structure: How do they work? What is the atmosphere? What is going well/not well? What is their current rela5on with AIESEC Netherlands and what are some opportuni5es for collabora5on? Who are the LC contacts? • LC repor5ng: What is the atmosphere in the LC? What ac5vi5es do they provide to EPs? How can they train/coach EPs? What is going well/not well in iGCDP? What does their matching process look like? • Projects and Standards & Sa5sfac5on • Pick-‐up/arrival and transporta5on • Accommoda5on and living standards • Project descrip5ons and societal relevance • Project adherence to S&S • Main responsible of projects

How would you rate the projects you visited, taking into account the Standards & Sa3sfac3on?

Unsure

A total of 124 projects abroad were visited during the CEEDerships. These were consolidated and assessed individually in a top/ﬂop list available to the VPs oGC, with an assessment of each project, an opportunity link, and general comments.

How would you rate the entity as a partner? 10

7.0 CEED evaluation Brazil

17%

Top/Flop List

A sample partnership report can be found in the Appendix documents.

Were the expecta5ons for the partnership report clear?

Bad

Colombia Tanzania Malaysia

Tunisia

Oman

Indonesia Sri Lanka

Reintegration Seminar A Reintegra5on Seminar was held on May 13th at Rabobank in order for CEEDers to present their ﬁndings to the VP oGC network (current and some elect). Presenta5ons included experiences of the culture, AIESEC communica5on in the host en5ty, accommoda5on and living standards, recommended projects, and overall assessment of the en5ty as a des5na5on for EPs. This was followed by a Global Village and “borrel” with all par5cipants.

Outgoing Preparation Seminar A Na5onal Outgoing Prepara5on Seminar was held on May 20th at the VU Amsterdam. Sessions were delivered to approximately 90 Exchange Par5cipants by LCVPs and members. Content and outlines were developed by MC and NST (with input from LCVPs) and logis5cs were organised by the Ambassadors team. CEEDers were present to deliver separate, 60-‐minute “Meet the Experts” session about their experiences and provide consul5ng and recommenda5ons regarding speciﬁc en55es/regions.

EP Survey: What did you think of the “Meet the experts” session? “It was really inspiring. Because you get to hear the personal stories of people that have just been in the country you are going to, you get really mo>vated.” “Most useful for me since I'm s>ll looking for a project. Very interes>ng and nice to hear all the informa>on and see picture of a speciﬁc project in which you are interested. I thought it was a pity I could a8end more than one session.” “Best session of the day, helped a lot to be able to ask ques>ons.”

8.5 EP evaluation

How useful was OPS for you?

“I liked talking to people who went to the same region as I am going to and it was nice to ask some country speciﬁc ques>ons. All in all it just made me more excited to leave.” “It was good to receive ﬁrst-‐hand >ps and hear from their experiences. It made me really excited about my own exchange.”

marketing Content CEEDers were expected to deliver a blog entry per week on select topics, which were then ﬁltered by the Ambassadors team and MC. They also submi]ed a gallery of photos and videos to be used for either promo5onal content or for consul5ng purposes (e.g.. showing accommoda5on and/or projects) for EPs and the oGC network. There was no clear framework for how to use CEED output (wri]en and visual content) for general Global Ci5zen marke5ng, and submissions were varied in their quality and formats. Many blogs have yet to be ﬁltered and posted to the na5onal website, which can be used in the 2016-‐2017 term.

7.3

“

CEED evaluation

It would have been nice to learn some >ps and tricks about making videos and how to edit/combining them as a whole. Because I don't have these skills, I think I lost some opportuni>es in the making of marke>ng material.

recommendations • • •

• • • •

Were the marke5ng materials you had to deliver clear to you?

”

Standardize the partnership report framework and format for future CEEDers, and ensure that rankings are consistent and well-‐deﬁned for all CEEDers. Ensure that partnership reports are used by LCs to increase their product knowledge and inform them about projects for the 2016-‐2017 term. Con5nue with the Reintegra5on Seminar, however make sure to include as much as the oGC network as possible and not exclude this for team members. The informa5on and experiences shared by CEEDers are invaluable for EP Managers to get a deeper understanding of projects and which is essen5al in order for them to provide the best support to their EPs. Con5nue with the Na5onal Outgoing Prepara5on Seminar, and look into invi5ng past CEEDers for a similar “Meet the Experts” session for the winter peak cycle. Provide more content guidelines, trainings, and set formats for CEED marke5ng input (desired photo formats, blog formats, and deep ques5ons to be answered) Filter content of 2015-‐2016 CEEDers and use this for winter peak marke5ng. Create online “galleries” and knowledge hubs with CEED output for accessible and easy network usage.

“

It showed me what I would like to do in a job in the future. I really enjoyed seeing the founda3ons and brainstorm with the iGCDP team about the projects and how to improve them. I will try to ﬁnd these aspects in a job.

jette swinkels colombia

”

6 network communication Decent

27%

CEED Survey: are you planning to do any of the following?

How did you Good perceive the contact with VPs oGC in the Netherlands?

Be available to   EPs during the   summer

27%

18%

Poor

9% 18%

Excellent

Visit a local OPS

Very poor

recommendations

Visit an LCM 0

•

10 11

•

8.0 CEED evaluation

• •

How clear was it regarding what to communicate to whom?

Create buy-‐in for the Ambassadors Program with the VP network early in the year, and have them meet the CEEDers right amer selec5on. Create a clear communica5on 5meline, plan, and guidelines for both the CEEDers as well as VPs. Provide ﬂexible and accessible virtual and physical spaces for the CEEDers and VPs to interact. Invite CEEDers to NatCo II if possible, as this will give them visibility and a]en5on in the network as well as a deeper understanding of the current state of the organiza5on.

7 VP evaluation

Strengths • •

Improvement points

• •

• • • • • •

Involve EP Manager and Marke5ng Managers more in the process (before CEEDers depart); Release top/ﬂop list earlier in the year to help early matchers; Maintain very clear and regular communica5on with network, especially since the role will be NST-‐driven; Create be]er marke5ng material with the CEED content; Earlier communica5on about what is expected from VPs and how they can beneﬁt from the program; More CEED storytelling.

“

Bij ons zijn EP's vrij vroeg begonnen met zoeken en matchen, vandaar dat ik denk dat de CEEDers dit jaar nog niet zo veel impact hebben gehad voor ons, omdat we in dat opzicht 'te vroeg' waren met matchen. Dit zou volgend jaar verbeterd kunnen worden van beide kanten. Bijvoorbeeld dat de TopFlop list er nu al is, dan kunnen ze makkelijker vanaf het begin deze bijwerken.

”

Everything was very well organized; Very good resource for EPs to support them in the prepara5on phase; Really liked the communica5on from the CEEDers; Top/ﬂop list was very useful and an important resource to guide EPs in their matching process.

Conclusion

The newly evolved program was met with great enthusiasm and has allowed for Exchange Par5cipants to receive country-‐speciﬁc prepara5on and consul5ng thanks to the exper5se of our CEEDers. It also enabled the Global Ci5zen network to gain more insight and understanding of our product features and beneﬁts, which is key in order for us to become a more customer centric organiza5on. It is highly recommended to con1nue this program in alignment with the exchange strategies, but it will require some further evalua5ons and research in order to determine future goals and implementa5on.

further recommendations •

• •

•

MCVP oGC to meet with 2015-‐2016 partner en55es at Interna5onal Congress to gauge sa5sfac5on, strengths, and weaknesses of their involvement in the CEEDership program in the past year. MCVP oGC should be more involved in en5ty rela5ons throughout the year, and to support and track NST IR more regularly in order to align this with convent needs. Evaluate if certain en55es require fresh insights from future CEEDers in the 2016-‐2017 term, or if 2015-‐2016 outputs are relevant to re-‐use (e.g. Brazil, Colombia). Explore poten5al of partnering with Vietnam and the Philippines (based on match trends) for CEEDerships, and other high-‐match en55es. Explore a half now/half later reimbursement system where CEEDers are partly reimbursed based on their performance and deliverables upon comple5on of the program. Con5nue to support the Nour Project and Medicine Project with their IR (interna5onal rela5ons).

“

It was an amazing experience for me and my team to build a program from scratch and to work on a more overviewing quality program. Thanks to the close collabora3on with the VPs oGC, oGC teams and the MC this program was, is and will be relevant for the future and for the future leaders.

melanie van bussel VP Ambassadors, maastricht

”

“

It made me realize all the priviledges we have here in Europe, and it really broadened my worldview and understanding of the African con3nent. I also feel so much more connected and related to African people in the streets of Amsterdam, even if I don’t know them personally. I understand a new way of living and ac3ng in the world from the African culture. This was a very new experience that really touched me in ways I wouldn’t have imagined.

jasmijn van den berg Tanzania 18

”

questions? Leila Pilliard MCVP oGC 15-‐16 leila.pilliard@gmail.com

Melanie van Bussel LCVP Amb 15-‐16 melanievbussel@gmail.com