1. Political Troubles in Aix-en-Provence
There has been increased political trouble recently here in Aix-en-Provence. The government is introducing a bill call the CPE; because workers are so highly protected in France, French businesses are reluctant to take on new employees, especially when they are young, because it is hard to get rid of them later. This bill means that first-time workers can be fired without reason within 2 years of getting the job. All the students in Aix went on strike today, and the doors of every school was blockaded by protestors, meaning nobody could get in. All the schools except mine, that is.
It is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it is an example of globalisation in action. Quasi-socialist France is trying to soften itself up so the captains of industry don't flee to other countries...and naturally, people are very resistant. As said, I am studying globalisation and government deregulation now, so it gives it a nice 'real-world' feeling which is often rare in academic work.
Second, it's interesting because the students here are a lot more passionate about political causes than Australia. Most people in Aus. really don't seem to care about anything, by comparison. I have heard that John Howard is looking into making voting voluntary - doing so would secure liberal victories forever, because I really doubt whether anyone except the right-wing extremists would bother to vote. In fact, I think John Howard is the result of what we might call 'a dictatorship by apathy'. People don't really care what he does, so he pretty much gets away with anything.
2. A manifesto?
I have been thinking a lot recently about what I would want to achieve as MCP of AIESEC Australia...below are my thoughts. Feedback would be appreciated; this is only preliminary after all. The running theme of my ideas is LC independance - right now they are far too dependant on the MC, but I believe alot of the changes below will make them much stronger units on their own. It is a very, very HR focused manifesto, because I see our people management systems as the biggest stumbling block faced by the country right now. All the strong AIESEC countries have one thing in common - exceptional people management systems, and it is time that we got it going.
- Perfection of recruitment, induction and selection systems. I say perfection because the ones that have recently been released are pretty awesome and hit most of the basics; it is now just a case of fine-tuning each year with any feedback, and also a matter of ensuring its nation-wide implementation. People who know me know that I will continue to emphasise increased on-campus awareness, and will not stop until there is some mechanism which ensures that EVERY PERSON WHO ENTERS AN AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY WHICH HAS AN LC knows a large amount about AIESEC, because that is the only way we can 1) become first choice for activating leadership and 2) attract and retain top talent.
- Pushing Culture of Excellence further by creation of HR tracking framework, and training on how to utilise it. This has been absent for a LONG time. The LCs really need to know how they can keep track of their members effectively - this will bring an end to random floaters, by ensuring they 1) have a role description and 2) are fulfilling it.
- Training PD Directors/LCPs on conducting skills gap analyses and organising useful training for members, as a supplement to the above point.
- Beefing up other PD systems:
* 'LCM use' guide released, including sessions to be run during the year (not EVERY LCM, but a lot of them) to supplement conferences
* Release of an official R&R system to be used by LCs nationwide
- AIESEC XP implemention: want to focus on 'enforcement' of the XP passport which I know Mel will release this year. Members may not go to the next stage unless they have satisfactorily passed the previous one - this is especially important for exchange. Essentially, proof will be needed that SNs have 'taken responsibility' before they can go on the system.
- LC Structural Change: Want to see the creation of a new 'ideal' MDP to guide LCs, which would contain changes such as the following:
* Creation of new positions like PR and IS
* Abolition of OGX and integration of its functions into an HR portfolio, or another better solution to structurally enforce XP implementation
* Separation of PD and HR - the former does 'people development' in terms of education and learning, the latter manage inflows and outflows of the LC (including OGX)
* LC independence through a purely strategic EB
* Utilisation of LC Skopje structure for PBoX Management ( a matrix structure)
- Learning
* Stronger focus on 'tough' events, i.e. events which shock people and hit them emotionally by showing them the ugly side of the world, not simply having speakers come and talk at them
* Ressurection of the Learning Disc as part of PLP development
* Use of Global People guide in PLP development
- Continual PBoX implementation
* Training on PBoX development management for 1) OCs and 2) EBs (depending on their respective role)
* putting official criteria in the compendium for what is needed to start a PBoX
* international LN partnership development
- Continued VP empowerment
* VPs increasingly responsible for national strategies
* VPs to be running sessions at national conferences
* Possibility of making VPs full-time, and cutting number of LCDs in Sydney: an option to be seriously looked into, because the more people 'on the ground', the better
- SnA overhall
* More time spent with VPs/LCPs than with EB/members - empowerment of the former to assist the latter, rather than random time spread everywhere
* Look into necessity of having SnAs at all, scrap them if they are not useful
* Look into other methods of using SnA - miniature conferences, paying for VPs to come to Sydney for collective training, etc.
- Quality push: lots of conference sessions to be dedicated to educating on basic processes of exchange servicing for interns AND organisations. Also, much stronger focus on quality and measurement tracking from the MCP, and introduction of an exchange servicing award at conference.
- International Benchmarking. A nice way of saying 'competition' - we should choose a couple of countries that are performing a little better than us and are not overly different in socio-economic reality, and strive to beat their results.
- Regional Structure Review:
* Steering team to look into alternatives to current regional structures, and make recommendations on better structures
* Support for the creation of Regional Support Teams, including role description creation and coaching for VPs
- National Conference Sponsorship: Get the BDMs to find an organisation to sponsor a year's worth of conferences (what is called a 'conference sponsorship partner')
- BDMs: I would prefer to see them doing more sponsorship than they are currently doing - obviously do exchange, but focus a bit more on sponsorship.
- MC/NST Structure. I will keep Ralph's MC structure, with the only difference being changing the name 'VP PD' to 'VP People Systems'. This is to send a clear signal to the LCs that the MC structure suits the MC, and is not to be imitated on an LC level because it doesn't work.
VP X: Exchange-related admin work (insight, forms, etc.), measurement tracking
VP People Systems: All strategic development relating to HR systems and PD systems
VP LN: All strategic development relating to PBoXes and LNs
VP Fin: MC Finances, Legal Responsible
2 BDMs: Raising sponsorship and exchange to support MC Finances
The reason why I am not changing the structure is because I see next year as the year of 'empowerment' of non-MC bodies, and to shift the structure now would be premature. I have mentioned massive VP empowerment, however MC members will still need to be responsible for regions to facilitate the process of VP empowerment. I would hope the year after, the MCP could REALLY become the team leader for the VPs, and we could eliminate the confusing regional responsible link.
The other body I want to see MASSIVELY 'empowered' is the NST. They should be the complete source of all processes training in the country on a national level. This indicates a sharp divide between the strategic/administrative role of the MC on the one hand, and a coaching role on the other. While my goal would be to 'outsource' all LnM type coaching initially to the VPs and eventually to the EBs, the other type of coaching, basic portfolio skills training, should be 'outsourced' entirely to the NST. The ideal MC team would only have strategic and administrative roles, but no coaching role whatsoever (with the exception of the MCP).
Basically the 'help-line' for EB or members to call if they have a problem, also running entire skills tracks at national conferences (including NLT conferences), or writing the sessions to be delivered at state conferences. Initially the MC will need to help out the NST with skills track delivery, but eventually they would drop this role as the knowledge for session delivery becomes centred within the NST. The MC's contribution to conferences will be data analysis stuff, global developments, new strategies. They would only intervene in running skills sessions if there is something particularly new to teach, and the NST is not ready to deliver a session on that skill.
I realise that has been the goal of the NST up until now...it hasn't really worked I feel. The solution for me is making the position an exclusive one, i.e. NST members may not hold any other position at the same time. Given that it is about portfolio processes, the positions would be portfolio-based: ICX, HR, PD, Finance. The NST would expand its size and role over time, as new portfolios come into existence through our new MDP.
That's all for now, but of course, there will be more to come...