second thoughts

How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. -Anne Frank

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Can we innovate where it counts?

Another successfully run, LC retreat has come to an end- and some interesting things went down and many of the mixed feelings I had after the first GMM of the semester have faded when I saw what our LC has morphed into. There was high energy, engaged members (especially new members), and a lot of people were taking ownership in sessions that were lasting...mm i think one hit 5 hours? I was especially impressed with the, what i thought to be, high level of critical thinking by members in matters that i know i wasn't able to speak knowledgeably about after only one semester in aiesec. I think this is a testament to how our LC has considerably increased the integration of newer members in the past 3 years with regards to both decision making of the LC and with simply the thought of our structure and strategies.

With this, I was also extremely surprised to be faced with what i felt to be a divided LC on our future vision on what we are actually working for our LC to look like. I left the group in May thinking we all were ready to tackle a major goal of committing to growth, sustainable healthy growth, of the size of our membership while maintaining and ensuring the quality of the experience and our members. To me, a proposal of recruiting a number that would lead to an actually shrinking of the LC- a shared proposal by more than one at the retreat- seems to be two steps in the wrong direction, and gives very mixed messages to newer members on how we actually plan on carrying out our mission.

Member integration seemed to be the deciding factor for many people on why we can't increase the number of people we are bringing in. With only 4 our of 55 new members dropping out last semester, and the fact that the remainder of our new recruits were in this room having strategy conversations one semester later, shows an integration and vested interest of members in the LC. Also, with almost the entire room willing and wanting to be a buddy next semester- to me it seems that our LC is sitting at an awesome and exciting place right now ready and able to move forward- not backward, and not stand still to wait for something to happen in the future.

So what is holding people back? The discussion then moved to the lack of 'work' for members to do and the functionality (or lack there of) of the LC :The higher the number, the less work for people to do and the ability of the LC to function decreases. To me, this should not be seen as a problem, but rather the exciting part~ an LC of 85 strong and motivated members to figure out how we can arrange our organization to function with 125, 150, 175, 200+ people. To a group that prides itself on innovation, I would think this (awesome) problem would be taken on as the next challenge we should come together and overcome and power through together.

We preach to our peers to break down barriers and comfort zones and to experience things you never thought you could handle before. We go to countries and live in places that most of our friends and family think we are crazy for doing, but when it comes to the home front, I'm very disappointed to see this powerful message has become only words. If we do not push ourselves to imagine ourselves as an organization making strides forward at all times- what are we doing? I don't think we can pride ourselves as being innovative and actually wanting to work towards our mission if we close ourselves into a box of thought to imagine AIESEC in only the way you have come to love it. We can keep what we love and also move forward towards the overall Dream- If only we come together and be willing to figure out how to tangibly Do It.

posted by Katy @ 8:11 PM  

24 Comments:

  • At 1/28/08 11:18 AM , Blogger Jenna V said...

    I have never been a supporter of growing for the sheer act of growth. Sustainable should be the key word you use, but also active and engaged should be in there. It sounds like the LC is doing great, that people care, that integration is doing well. So it is a bit odd that people want the LC to shrink.
    In my opinion, the only two reasons to grow in numbers are 1. the current workload is overwhelming the current numbers, 2. the workload will be increasing. Obviously AIESEC has to replenish its numbers due to turnover, however, questions that should be asked are, what is the maximum number of people we can handle taking on? How is the WORK going to grow, and how many people do we need to do that growth? Adding more bodies into a room doesn't automatically mean a greater amount of impact. It always freaked me out when people would shoot out numbers like 200+, and what that would actually mean for the LC.

     

  • At 1/28/08 12:35 PM , Blogger Sara said...

    I don't think anyone in the LC was ever been a proponent of growing for the sheer purpose of growth. Growth in work and number of @ers must come together. In order to achieve BIG results-in the number of exchanges that Madison creates, in the scale and quality of the events that the LC puts on, in the number of people joining Business development-, The LC need to grow in numbers. But, Madison can't simply grow its numbers until members start pushing themselves to picture an AIESEC of the future, one that has yet to be seen and may look completely differently than the @ of today and yesterday. An AIESEC that penetrates all aspects of this campus and fulfills the mission in a big and beautiful way. The LC needs to think big in its goals, in its vision and in the work that it can do on this campus in order to realize that there is more than enough work for a growing number of @ers to accomplish.

     

  • At 1/28/08 2:19 PM , Blogger Katy said...

    In order to become 'big and beautiful' as sara said, growing to just grow of course will have no impact- execpt, most likely, negative ones. But we are not growing just simply to grow, and we have a purpose: To be able to move forward with our mission and be a major presence on the Madison campus. Jenna, your two reasons for growth are right up my ally. While 'work overwhelming the current members' isn't the current reality, i do believe that the work load is and always will have the potential to increase. As long as we are continuously creating leaders in the organization who are inspired and willing to take on projects, there will be people willing to join them. The cool thing, I think, is then what is limiting our growth at this moment? What can we take on? With a strong LC filled with people ready and able to start taking, and ARE taking, on more leadership on teams and in the LC in general, I do think we are ready to take another big step forward.

    Also, thinking about a 200+ LC i think should freak everyone out, because we have never seen this and our current structure, we all know, can not support this. Does that mean everyone should be satisfied with keeping AIESEC Madison at 85 members forever? If so, I don't think we can actually say we are attempting to challenge ourselves to progress with our mission.

     

  • At 1/28/08 5:02 PM , Blogger Molly said...

    hey chiquita
    I figured I might as well post this on your blog, since I posted it on MW's, and his blog was a quote from your blog, I said:

    no one actually proposed a decrease in size, the lowest number proposed was 15

    with only 12 graduating, and more returning from abroad by the time we start again in fall, even before our new recruitment drive, we wouldn't be shrinking.
    _______________________
    In addition to that, people kept referring to the argument: "would you want to be sitting in the next retreat with less people then are here right now?"

    I disagree with this argument because that was the case with this retreat, and tha was also the case with the fall retreat....people graduate and people go abroad...and when you hold them before you've held your recruitment drive....you're almost always starting off with less than you had at the end of the last semester...but that doesn't mean you're going to end it that way.

    I don't think that's a valid argument, because it doesn't take into account integration, community, fundtioning, etc.-- but it was the argument that everyone kept coming back to.

    anyways, I have a lot of different issues that I would want to discuss with you, and I"m sure we will...at our study date tonight!

     

  • At 1/28/08 5:16 PM , Blogger Dan said...

    Jenna - what about a third reason - you want more people in the world to be touched by AIESEC?

    As an impartial observer (but someone with experience of LCs that are reluctant to grow) I have to say I am on Sara and Katy's side here.

    Losing momentum and settling where you're too comfortable isn't really what we're about is it?

    We're about excitement, discovering potential, breaking boundaries, doing things that we never thought possible!

    I understand why people "freak out" about growth, but if new members join and get the tools and platform that your LC clearly offers, they will make something of it for themselves. That's the beauty of it.

    I feel that you should always grow at a pace that at least scares you slightly. That's where potential is reached and innovation happens, on the edge of our limits.

     

  • At 1/28/08 6:44 PM , Blogger Katy said...

    Hey Miss Molly, figured I'd give my 2 cents here as well as MW's blog, just for other readers who may be following the conversation.

    I remembered the numbers as 13 graduating and 6 that are thinking about doing a traineeship right now. That is 19 people, with out even considering more people deciding to go abroad (which they should after we talk about our experiences like CRAZY this semester!) and people who are studying abroad are not taken into consideration either.

    Even with the few people who are abroad (6, 7?)and will return, I'm convinced a recruitment of 15 members will cuase our Madison membership to shrink.

     

  • At 1/28/08 6:46 PM , Blogger Katy said...

    Also, Thanks for your perspective Dan- I'm glad to see you're on nomadlife :) it's nice to see a familiar face pop up from axlds mexico!

     

  • At 1/29/08 12:58 AM , Blogger Hero of the Light said...

    This post has been removed by the author.

     

  • At 1/29/08 1:54 AM , Blogger Hero of the Light said...

    If you're growing in size because "you want more people in the world to be touched by AIESEC", then you're assuming that increasing your impact requires increasing your membership. But expanding the organization's mission does not necessitate taking on more and more new members every semester.

    I find Sara's rhetoric troubling. To say that we can't grow "until members start pushing themselves to picture an AIESEC of the future" is again framing the opposing position in a condescending manner; that we pragmatists are "failing to push ourselves". To make the squabble between Molly and Katy moot, there are several individuals who would actually support shrinking the LC, and do not believe that it would cause us to "lose momentum". But building points upon assumptions and framing criticism in certain lights causes those who would support a potential decrease to keep our mouths shut (which includes at least myself and three other members, including a newer one who prefers to hide his views) because of the way that such opinions are perceived.

    But while Sara's sentiment claims that we need to push ourselves in vision, it says nothing about action. This, as we all know, is the organization's greatest criticism--that we think, talk and preach a lot, but we don't "do" very much.

    Why don't we push our members not to "think bigger" but "act bigger"? Let's say that the average LC member (outside of VP roles, etc) spends an average of 4-5 hours per week doing AIESEC work. Why don't "members start pushing themselves" to invest 8-10? We have 40 members interested in traineeships for the next year, why not focus on pushing all of them to take the leap? We have 5-8 members interested in Business Development, why not push ourselves to ensure that the pipeline works them in?

    Why not push ourselves to follow through on tasks and not allow an influx of new members to overwhelm our teams (such as the events team last semester, when "at least" 11 events were promised at the beginning, and only 6 actually happened)?

    Why not push ourselves to implement a binding accountability structure that would not allow a member to miss 5 meetings in a semester without being booted?

    I could go on and on. There is so much that we can challenge ourselves to do in the current structure and size of the LC. There is so much room for innovation, creation, and expansion of the mission and of our impact. Taking on more new members is easy. Holding current ones accountable and pushing them to take on a greater role is more difficult.

    Give me something concrete regarding unlimited growth. What does a 200 person LC look like? What does a 500 person LC look like? What structures are in place to maintain the efficiency and community of an 85 member LC (and can a group of such a massive size hope to maintain a close sense of community at all)? How large of an LC is required to "fulfill our mission in a big and beautiful way"? Is there no possible way to do it with 85? With 115? With 175?

    Sure, the ideal is that we want to do both: grow in numbers as we enhance the structures of our LC and the quality of our membership experience. But, when push comes to shove, which one comes first? And if the expectation is that we grow every semester (and that decreasing in size would be "a step backward") then how is growth not the priority? How is it not growth for growth's sake? What if, in the future, we have a terrible semester and not taking on new members is perceived as the most appropriate option?

    At this rate of growth, a 200 person LC is only two years away. Which does not "freak me out" because I'm scared and don't know what it looks like. It gains my opposition because there is no practical reason to believe that a group of 200 people with a high rate of transition will be an intimate community. It gains my opposition because I believe that the LC has gotten more impersonal this past semester, but that, because our exchange numbers increased (I wonder if focusing internally helped?) and most new members stuck around, we are more than content to plow ahead instead of addressing the structural gaps and the composition of the LC that has contributed towards or allowed the sense of community to diminish.

     

  • At 1/29/08 2:09 AM , Blogger Hero of the Light said...

    I feel obliged to add that this is a good discussion and maybe now Mix will stop bitching about the lack of debates inspired by nomadlife posts.

     

  • At 1/29/08 5:30 AM , Blogger Jenna V said...

    we can only hope

    I'm also wondering if those who keep harping on thinking outside the box about what AIESEC could be place shrinking numbers inside or outside the box? because I feel like I have also been reading about what a bad idea it is to even think about this possibility...seems an odd combo.
    -I have no idea personally since I don't know exactly where the LC is at...but I'm hoping you get my point.

     

  • At 1/29/08 7:40 AM , Blogger Ariane said...

    I have to echo Adam's last comment. I wish that my members in Qatar were having the same types of discussions, or were at least committed to these topics enough to engage in a debate. :)

    Granted, I am not at Madison anymore and am dealing with a very different reality where @ is working to just survive, not grow or better the org... anyway...

    There needs to be some sort of ebb and flow that doesn't just exist, but is purposefully created. You can't just have growth or just work on strengthening the infrastructure. There needs to be more of a focus on one and less of a focus on the other alternately as semesters go on. As far as the "shrinking the LC" debate, I don't think enough time has been given to the "growing the LC" strategy. There was a HUGE addition last semester, and I think that now is the time for strengthening, in conjunction with a smaller step up in (or at least a maintenance of) the #s. If it doesn't work after a semester spent working consciously to create those accountability systems - which are vital with a capital V - then try something else, maybe shrinking, maybe something completely different.

    To me, just like "growing for the sake of growing" is not a good strategy (as others have said), I also think shrinking for the sake of shrinking (or thinking that shrinking will automatically make @Madison more intimate, etc) is not smart. Size can be part of a strategy, but it should never BE the strategy. This is where many of Adam's comments about actually putting ACTION behind the things we say we will do come in.

    In addition to making the structures more solid, I think to be stronger - whatever the size, however many new members are accepted - the LC needs to focus on strategically selecting those that will be the most committed and that will work to fulfill the mission and create a sense of intimacy.

    [Diversity also needs to consciously be taken into account. For an organization that encourages traversing national boundaries, I don't believe we've worked hard enough to recruit across racial or ideological boundaries - especially in a country that embraces diveristy to a large extent.]

    These things are glaringly obvious to me after spending six months rebuilding LCs that were almost paralyzed by the effects of poor recruitment and selection and that are perpetually hindered by gender separation and racial inequality.

    The question I would ask is whether there really are 500 (or 200 or whatever) people at the UW with the talents, skills and potential for which @ is looking that are actually willing to commit to 4 (or 8 or 15) hours a week to establish that intimacy and sense of community and dedicaiton in the organization, whatever the size, and that truly believe in what we do.

    If the answer is yes, then how do you find them? If the answer is no, then how big does @Madison really need to get?

     

  • At 1/29/08 8:50 AM , Blogger Hero of the Light said...

    Just to address two of Ariane's points:

    First, Regarding looking at both growing and shrinking and "If it doesn't work after a semester spent working consciously to create those accountability systems...then try something else, maybe shrinking, maybe something completely different."

    My point was that, as the discussion is going now, there is a semesterly expectation of growth. Not necessarily doubling, but growth of SOME KIND. If you make that an expectation and frame the debate as Katy, Sara, Williams and others have, then you are making people feel that to shrink or just not grow is "taking a step backward", or that you're "fucked". Therefore any other option but constant growth is not even a viable option.

    What about empowering future leaders to make rational decisions based on the LC reality? Especially if the future is going to be so "different from past and present LCs"? My problem is not just that anything outside of growing membership is not even considered for next semester. My problem is that it is being viewed as NEVER an option. This is the difference between "limited" and "unlimited" growth.

    Second, Ariane makes an excellent point about whether there are 500 (or 200 or whatever) people at UW with the potential and the desire to commit to AIESEC. Realistically, and based on our last recruitment, there are probably more than that, especially considering how new students come to this university every year.

    But the fundamental aspect of that point is, again, the way we think of why and how we grow. Up to this point in time, our growth has always been capacity-based, and not work-based. We don't take on as many people as we need, only as many as we can tolerate without having complete breakdowns (this is why we do continue to have significant breakdowns, and why we continue to have members--both old and new--who are sitting around and doing nothing while we invest our time and energy into them).

    I think we can all agree that we want every person on this campus to be impacted by the org. But I think that we can also agree that every person on this campus is not a fit for the org. That within itself is a limitation on growth--but on membership growth, not expansion of our impact and influence.

     

  • At 1/29/08 10:03 AM , Blogger Hero of the Light said...

    I just want to make clear that when i quote anyone I am doing it to make an argument against them and not to belittle or undermine them.

    I made the point about framing the debate because I think it is important to ensure that it remains civil and no one feels jaded or that they are being personally attacked.

    There is a fundamental division here, and I find nothing wrong with debating it and hashing it out in a substantive and professional manner, sans personal attacks. I made the point about framing opposing arguments fairly because I want to ensure that it does remain focused on the substance of the argument and not on reading into what people are saying or making it personal. I want to ensure that if we include all possibilities that we actually include all possibilities with due regard.

     

  • At 1/29/08 11:06 AM , Blogger syd said...

    well im going to bandwagon onto this madison madness going on here like dan (HI DAN! are you still in venezuela or back home?).
    i want to comment on something adam said: "Why don't we push our members not to "think bigger" but "act bigger"?" this has been my motto ever since getting back from my ceed experience in quito. we aiesecers love to talk and philosophize out our asses, but in the end talk aint worth shit unless you act on it. i think understanding how to put talk into action in aiesec is something that is fundamentally missing (or laying dormant under all the acronyms and bureaucracy) both nationally and locally (im referring to here at cornell), but i believe with a little restructuring and adapting as trent explains in williams' post we can start training newbies to put their thought into action from the onset!
    it took me about 2 years, an EB position, an international ceed and an axlds conference to finally understand how we can convert aiesec vision into action starting on a local level. not everyone is going to be willing to invest that time, energy and money into understanding this concept, and honestly with the right training now everyone has to. now the challenge for us locally is to utilize those people's perspectives who DID put the time, energy and money into figuring out this concept for themselves and compact it so that we can feed it to the newbies who can then start converting talk into action from the beginning.
    so to all you ex-EBs who think your time in aiesec is over, get over yourselves and help the newbies and current EB convert talk into action.
    and no more damn complaining. its old already.

     

  • At 1/29/08 11:24 AM , Blogger Molly said...

    "What about empowering future leaders to make rational decisions based on the LC reality?"

    I'm going to have to agree with Adam on that one, I feel that "LC reality" is the most integral part of this debate.

    I love everyone who has been not as involved last semester, or right now, due to graduation, being abroad, etc. etc.-- but when people are making arguments about the decisions of our local reality-
    did you ever sit in on a functional team meeting last semester? GMM? Coach Group?

    as there is obviously multiple people who have shared sentiments on maintaining numbers (or diminishing them), this idea isn't coming way out of left field...but rather from people who were very much involved last semester and privy to the workings of the LC.

    Everyone wants to grow our impact, no one wants to screw anyone's previous work, or sabotage the LC. We all see where we want to go, it's just that there are quite a few disagreements as to what modes of transportation we will be using to arrive there.

    so i'll just throw it out there: i call dibs on the Segway (human transporter) as my mode of transportation

     

  • At 1/29/08 2:27 PM , Blogger cmckim said...

    To take the conversation back a few steps, I'd like to comment on the number "15". I was the pessimistic fellow who raised his hand and put that number out there based on the fact that I've hand numerous disheartening conversations with newer members who are frustrated with the amount of work there is available to them. We took on 55 new thoroughbred race horses this semester but when the gun went off and the gates opened, many of them found themselves tethered and restricted from taking off and doing something great. They were frustrated and irritated and had hard feelings for the organization.

    Quite a few people expressed these frustrations to me and it wasn't easy to listen to. My point of view (at the time!) was that we shouldn't take on a lot of new members when our current members were already frustrated with the lack of work to do.

    Thankfully, Kaitlin Jentzen was thinking more optimistically than I was at the time and made the point that we can't restrict ourselves from moving forward just because we are facing a problem. We need to continue to grow and develop while addressing the challenges that come with that task. Not throw our hands up and halt all progress. There will always be obstacles that we are facing in our efforts to progress as an LC but we CAN'T abandon those efforts because of those obstacles. We need to take these challenges in stride and overcome them as we keep on truckin.

    We decided on 30 new members in the end (thankfully going against what I had said) and I couldn't be more comfortable with that number. There are efficiency and structural changes that need to take place this semester BUT WE KNOW THAT and I have complete faith in the our LC to make those changes responsibly. And like Katy said, almost everyone in that room wanted to be a Buddy. That says something... That says a LOT.

    The LC has gone through some incredible changes in the last few years. Each change taking us further and making us better. There are loads of things that need to happen this semester but like I said before, I have complete faith in the LC to do it and to do it responsibly.

    You all should too.

     

  • At 1/29/08 4:23 PM , Blogger Burbs said...

    This post has been removed by the author.

     

  • At 1/29/08 4:26 PM , Blogger Burbs said...

    Unless I am missing something, the major issue no one has addressed, and I am failing to understand, is why recruitment must become so minimal in order to focus on developing existing members and managing our LC effectively.

    Right now a major complaint is lack of work. If we minimize recruitment it seems to me that an entire part of LC work, integrating/growing newbies, would be essentially removed. Additionally, can't we expand the scope and quality of our work while bringing in new people?

    Why are these things mutually exclusive?

     

  • At 1/29/08 5:36 PM , Blogger Katy said...

    I do think we can increase our focus on members while and improving our work and efficiency while bringing in new members.

    Also, there IS work to be done, and people are creating new work all the time!I'm very excited to here about new proposals and project teams working groups that have been going on at the next gmm!! :) Just think of all that potential there for new members coming in to jump on board with whats goin down.

    Also, in response to molly (wherever you wrote it) said about people not being in those meetings last semester, but why can't we address those issues? Why aren't the frustrated people get together on create an action plan on how to organize themselves better? This has to happen regardless right? I don't think we can actually say there is no work to be done (cause we all know there is), so why must we stop bringing in new members in order to fix those problems. If we fix those problems (which i believe is always a work in progress)- what is wrong with giving new redirected work or projects to a brand new memeber and an old member?

    I'm glad to see chris in on this conversation, and I honestly didn't know you were the one who first proposed 15, but only knew that it was said more than once. I love your comment, and i challenge other who shared or do share chris's initiall view, to take a look at what he said. I think its pretty f'n awesome.

     

  • At 1/29/08 6:22 PM , Blogger Dan said...

    Hey Syd!! - I'm back in my own land now, all ready to start a job with Capgemini in London. I need a bit of British (well, or French) culture for a while :-) You got any plans for a Europe visit soon?

    Hey Katy!! - have been a nomadlifer since my traineeship in the US, nice to see you here!

    ---

    Great points there from Ariane about the importance of finding and selecting those fantastic community-building people, and from - I think it was Adam - about getting rid of the uninterested ones. That second part is hard, but necessary.

    Chris - don't apologise for putting the number out there! Look at the great discussion its fuelled!

    I think the third really important point is your one about giving all members enough freedom so that they can take that action, and not constraining it to what you think they should be doing. As long as they do it with passion.

    ---

    Now hang on - isn't there some kind of official platform for having these discussions? Or is that nomadlife now? :-)

     

  • At 1/29/08 10:36 PM , Blogger Bruhaha said...

    @mckim/kaitlin: Growth does not always equal progress. Right now, an empowering LC would be progress. And as empowerment is an LC principle, not growth, empowerment should be worked towards, not growth.

    @burbs: Looking at past semesters, it is possible to grow while creating work. But right now, that growth rate for members has far exceeded the growth rate for work and it needs to be balanced very quickly. Also, recruiting and integrating 30 new members doesn't give those 30 new members any work, which is the problem.

    @katy: Do all of these new positions equal work for some 25 members from last semester AND the 30 from this one? As I've talked with a lot of the people making the proposals, I'm going to have to say absolutely not. There has been sentiment from the events team, both internally and externally, that it could expand. As I heard these same sentiments last semester and saw little work expansion, I feel this time around concrete plans need to be laid, not just sentiment.

    New thought: With the average member spending between 3-5 hours/week, including GMM/Coach group and team meeting, on AIESEC work, what work should the LC realistically expect to be accomplished? Over 50% of the average member's work time is spent on talking. Although this is necessary for the exchange of ideas (the greatest concept coming from this retreat), it seems to not be enough. The sales team realized there was a threshold of time spent to accomplish a sale. Although it may not be the same magnitude, there is also a threshold for every other piece of AIESEC work. I do not believe 1-2 hours/week is above that threshold.

     

  • At 1/30/08 1:14 AM , Blogger cmckim said...

    The LC isn't running as efficiently or effectively as it has the potential to do. There are things that didn't happen this semester, objectives and tasks that fell through the cracks.

    How many events were there last semester? What sort of marketing was accomplished besides that for the recruitment drive and the promotions for those few events? How many members were adequately prepared to apply and have success in Business Development roles? What did the Salaam Team accomplish?

    Bruhaha: you say we spend a lot of time talking and I couldn't agree more. That said, this semester isn't going that way. I think this is going to be a semester of action and elevation.

    Jenna V says that the second reason an LC should grow is because the workload will be increasing. I'll be damned if the workload doesn't increase this semester.

     

  • At 1/31/08 1:20 PM , Blogger Jason said...

    nobody proposed under 15 because it was told to the majority the LC that we can't go "backwards." however I think we are. Madison has never sustained over 60 before. I think we're growing to fast and we will inevitably shrink or become a social organization. My ideal for this semester was to not have a recruitment and focus on who we had.

    People also keep mentioning not to grow just to grow, which we aren't doing. We're growing purely for exchange. I see so many people thinking only in these terms. I believe this is similar to an idea we thought of on the trip to Burb's over break. Which involves recruiting outside of AIESEC again.

    We would want a team to hold weekly meetings purely to help them understand the AIESEC culture and how to be culturally aware. Right now I feel we're doing something similar to this by having huge numbers of new members. However, we're limiting ourselves because it conflicts with the LC functioning smoothly. This is where visions diverge in my mind

     

Post a Comment

<< Home