Current state AIESEC in Poland

Current state

Current state Current state discussiondiscussion

Understanding of big picture;

Maintaining strategic role;

To know what is happening to become better manager and leader

EB term – Results in TMP

2012 2013 Growth

RA 494 515 4,07%

RE 312 440 29,09%

EB term – Results in TLP

2012 2013 Growth

RA 342 303 -12,87%

RE 244 252 3,17%

July – Results in TMPResults in TMP

2012 2013 Growth

RA 67 153 56%

RE 74 118 37%

July – Results in TLP

2012 2013 Growth

RA 90 75 -20%

RE 74 51 -31%

Engage and develop Engage and develop every young person in every young person in

the world?the world?

Professional every step Professional every step of the way: of the way:

I am Talent Manager I am Talent Manager and I do not care?and I do not care?

Exchange growth planned? Exchange growth planned? Who is going to achieve it?Who is going to achieve it?

LCC teams?LCC teams?

ReceptioReception teams?n teams?

LCVPs LCVPs structure?structure?

Leaders Leaders who are who are

preparing preparing projects?projects?

AIESEC in Poland globally in AIESEC in Poland globally in TLP RETLP RE

28th place28th place

After : After : Ghana, Senegal, Morocco, Singapore, Nigeria, Belgium, Pakistan…

AIESEC in Poland globally in AIESEC in Poland globally in TMP RETMP RE

16th place16th place

After : After : Ghana, Korea, Singapore, Nigeria, Belgium, Pakistan…

RE in TMP  TMP 2012 TMP 2013AIESEC GDANSK UG 26 3

AIESEC POZNAN 14 1AIESEC OLSZTYN 3  AIESEC WROCLAW UE 3 8

AIESEC BIALYSTOK 2  

AIESEC TORUN UMK 1 0

AIESEC WARSZAWA SGH

17 3

AIESEC KATOWICE AE 0 7

AIESEC WROCLAW UT 0 0

AIESEC KIELCE 0 0AIESEC KOSZALIN 0 0

AIESEC NOWY SACZ 0 0

AIESEC WARSAW UNIVERSITIES

0 28

AIESEC SZCZECIN 0  

AIESEC LUBLIN UMCS 0 0

AIESEC LODZ 0 3AIESEC KRAKOW 0 20AIESEC RZESZOW 0 13

RE in TLP

  TLP 2012 TLP 2013AIESEC GDANSK UG 10

18AIESEC POZNAN 6 0AIESEC OLSZTYN 1  AIESEC WROCLAW UE 4

3AIESEC BIALYSTOK 0

 AIESEC TORUN UMK 1

0AIESEC WARSZAWA SGH 6

4AIESEC KATOWICE AE 4

2AIESEC WROCLAW UT 4

0AIESEC KIELCE 1 0AIESEC KOSZALIN 0

0AIESEC NOWY SACZ 0

0AIESEC WARSAW UNIVERSITIES

26

AIESEC SZCZECIN 0 

AIESEC LUBLIN UMCS 00

AIESEC LODZ 0 5AIESEC KRAKOW 0 1AIESEC RZESZOW 0

5

Main conclusionsMain conclusions

Evidence of the experiences we are providing!

Make sure you are opening more and more leadership

opportunities for young people!

Talent Plan – October 2013

1126*

HR * Without 2 LC’s

1903 *

Exchange * Without 2 LC’s

Plans in programmes

No datas from LC Olsztyn & IG Bydgoszcz

Myaiesec.net in numbers

TP 2013 vs TP 2012

Human resources plans

2012 2013

People in programmes

Comparison time

• Divide into 2 groups

• Try to analyse reports from last national recruitment – March 2013 and October 2012.

• What should we repeat from those actions? What should we avoid? About those experience how we could prepare better to the recruitment in this year?

Recruitment Ocotober 2012 – GCDP’s

• Promotion, promotion, promotion!

• Be focused on 1st year

• Promote OGX on stands as a pure HR area

• Balanced promotion plan

• More guys! ;)

• Promotion on lectures

• Leaflets yes- but it’s not a main source of promotion

Recruitment – October 2012 – GCDP’s

• Wiesely planned nudget

• Remember that we need a lot of applications to could find the best people

• Clear statement about recruitment process

• If it’s possible don’t recruit people who can’t go to the LCC

Recruitment October 2012 - conclusions

• Good cooperation with VP Comm and planning together

• Report analyse- from which source we have applications and how many

• Good statement to the LC- that promotion is really important

• Clear statement What make us different

• During screening remember that people will skip duing process

Recruitment – March 2013

GCP’s• Recruitment team

• Engagement committee to promotion

• Content-related

• We need in our LC people from March Recruitment (people from Cotober have lack of motivaqtion)

• We need realocate people!

• Promotion in new universities

BCP’s• Too much girls in roganisation

striving to 50/50

• No datas on my@ we’ll use it!

• Entry data „for eye”

• Bad communicate – too less targeted promotion

• No data analysis, evaluation after recruitment

Thank you