Interdependence

Yay I'm updating my blog! The trigger is that I found out that there really ARE somebody out there reading my blog! So as not to disappoint them, here's an update! See, I'm such a "please other" type of people.


This is something that I should have posted earlier, say around Day 5 in the conference. The reason that I did not do so was that I did not really have the space to reflect and write down thoughts I had every night before I sleep. Why? Well, I'm not sure whether it's lucky or not, the condition of my room exactly met what I was hoping for before the conference - a strict sleeping room. Imagine entering your room at 1.00 am or sth and it's completely dark, with my two dear roomates sleeping - as if they have fallen asleep for more than 2 hours already. I'm usually the last person to enter my room. (Actually, It's really good for me, cos my number one goal in the conference is to STAY HEALTHY - given my bad track record - I was sick in both ICs that I've been to, and given the fact that this time I'm leading a delegation, and that I would be much more vulnerable to virus if I sleep little)


Anyway, enough for context setting. My subject here is interdependence of this organization. But, it's not about interdependence vs independence. Cos THE "indepedence" we're talking in AIESEC's context (as you can see in AIESEC dialogues) is about whether our agenda would be affected by non-members due to various benefitial relationship. Say if a student organization has a political agenda of pro-right wing, and is sponsored by a right wing political party, it is obviously not indepedent. (example debating topic like: Is AIESEC independent if our major sponsor is the Chairman of our advisor group?) If AIESEC is independent, our agenda should be strictly decided by our membership.


Back to interdependence. The reason that trigger my thought is the recent heated discussion among MCPs about issues like AIESEC as a freedom-centred organization, standardization - the "core of AIESEC".


I would not comment on the freedom-centred organization concept, as I must confess that despite a full one day sessions devoted on it by Worldblu, I still could not really grasp the concept.


Where does this concept - "the core of AIESEC" - come from?


But concerning the core of AIESEC, I guess we could think about the history and go back to where it stems from, which is not so long ago - in IC in India. The Core of AIESEC (and so-called standardization from some MCPs) actually is transformed (or re-named) from the Execution minimums of the strategic triangle. So, we should look at why we have Execution minimums. They are illustrated in the following statements (found in the strategic triangle on the groud ppt) - something that hit me really strongly last year in IC:

[About why we have the execution minimums of strategic triangle - @XP, Branding, CoE]

AI & my MC continue to tell me to implement but I do not know what does implementation of these concepts means?

How do I know that the implementation efforts of my LC are good enough?

All AIESECers from my LC who have gone abroad for an internship have different experiences & complain about the hosting LC not delivering what we promised the internship would be.

Why can’t every LC in the world offer some basic things as a common experience for everyone & save us this unnecessary trouble?

I'm sure that anyone who has been in the MC in the year around 2004, when we start to implement AIESEC XP, must have asked themselves or been asked the above questions. Yes, we have lots of confusions about AIESEC XP implementation, we have lots of doubts, and most importantly, we have confusions and doubts about "Does it make any sense if we implement but other countries do not implement" or "To what extent can I claim I have already implemented" It's not easy to be an MC by then when there is no clariy in the organization whatsoever about what we want and how much we want. Even my teammate in 04-05 MC term (Michelle) echoed that she envied the AIESECers in this era "I feel jealous of all of the delegates that they are in the era with such a high level of clarity in the organization."

So now we kind of understand why the core of AIESEC started. It's because we have changed our core work from exchange to AIESEC XP. In order to give clarity to every single LC member in the world, we need definite minimus. we could not just tell LC that "@XP = 5 stages, and now you can start to work on it". we need to draw a clear line where we distinguish "@XP implemented" and "@XP NOT implemented". And, we need the cooperation and commitment of every single LC around the world that we are on the same level of implementation. Why? because we are interdependent. No single LC can claim @XP has been fully implemented unless every other LC has implemented. Just as the example statement above: "All members from my LC who go abroad have different experiences and complaining about the hosting LC not delivering what we promised". If I send a member on exchange to an LC with no @XP implemented, then I fail to deliver @XP to my member, no matter how much I have done in my LC. Vice versa, if I receive an intern with no @XP/ leadership experience, I fail to deliver my promise to the company.

That is exactly why we are interdepedent and we need every LC in the world offer "some basic common things" - the minimums - the core of AIESEC.

Standardization - It does happen.

It is common that people start to become uncomfortable or panic when things are in the process of change. In the concept of the core of AIESEC, people start to feel that this organization is changing. "There is less freedom.", "We have less say", "These things are imposed on us", "OMG, AI is trying to standardize everything!" (as if "We have less power, as if we have less authority") Seems so, doesn't it?

However, when we look into the exchange in AIESEC, in a broader, liberal way, not as the very familiar exchange process that we have long before we entered AIESEC, we could have many questions: "Why do I need to raise before I match? Why cannot I first find a student and raise a form?", "Why is an internship only 2 - 18 months? Why cannot we have 30 months internship?", "Why do we have MT, TT, DT, and ET only? Why cannot we have AT, BT, or CT? (Architectural Traineeship? Agricultural Traineeship? Biological Traineeship? Communications Traineeship?)" "Why cannot the student contact the company directly? Just like the common online job searching database!", and the questions can go on and on.

We do not have these questions, because when we entered AIESEC, the whole exchange process has already been standardized, very strictly. And we would not question why it should be standardized, because as mentioned, it has already been implemented before we entered in AIESEC. Secondly, can we manage 5000 exchanges if the process is not standardized? Sometimes we are still frustrated at other LCs saying that "they are not providing a quality exchange and it disappointed my member!" (meaning that the hosting LC did not deliver what the sending LC has promised - which is usually sth said in the IXPQS). IXPQS, is the minimum, the core of AIESEC, in terms of exchange - which was at a time the core work of AIESEC.

So, we are freaking out and yelling "OMG, here comes the dark age of AIESEC, there is a trend of AI trying to standardize AIESEC! Where is our freedom?", and we're too ignorant to see that actually there is no trend whatsoever. This is the norm for the organization to standardize, as we always standardize our core work. When exchange is our core work, we standardize the exchange process, we have the IXPQS. When @XP is our core work, we also need to stardardize @XP. Why? Because we are interdepedent. To deliver the promise of AIESEC to our member cannot be solely done by one single LC, but every LC around the world.

Global decision making

Lastly, a small note about global decision making. I could not believe that in the year of 2006 there is still MCP trying to advocate "Let's not implement @XP and let's just do exchange". Hard to imagine right? You'd probably say that must be an alumnus who say this thing. I could only comment that maybe it's a wrong timing for him or her to be in AIESEC. Cos I believe that the generation we have here in AIESEC are the passionate ones who truly want to make AIESEC XP happens, and that's why they are here at this moment of history working relentlessly towards AIESEC 2010. Moreover, People, AIESEC XP went global in 2004. Our new identity with new core work statement was legislated in IC 2005. Things move fast. The world changes. Let's face it, ok?

Maybe I sound cynical here, but after the passing of the motion concerning brand, I just lost confidence in global decision making. In half a year's time, a complete "turn around". I could not believe a binding decision made in IPM can just be revoked so easily. Are we implying that the MCPs who passed this motion in IPM did not know what they are doing? They made a huge mistake in passing it? They thought they could transfer the brand ownership, and suddenly the smart MCPs this year found out that they could not? If it is true that the MCPs last year did not know that they could not transfer the brand ownership, and passed the motion wrongly, the only comment I could think of is that "I'm so sorry, but nobody should be responsible for the careless mistake that you made." We are not kids. We could not just go around and change our minds. Aren't we meant to be responsible for our decisions?