I found myself unexpectedly quoted recently in a rather fascinating discussion our oft-admired Madison kids were having. The specific problem facing Madison at present is one I suspect we are a ways from encountering ourselves at GT, but many of the underlying issues are ones that apply universally. So I'm going to muse for a bit.
Many of the Madison kids who expressed concern over the growth strategy noted, with justified alarm, that many of the new members said they didn't feel integrated and that a sense of community was being lost. The natural assumption, based upon the principle of biggest change, is seemingly to say "Well, we grew much more last semester than we're used to, and the growth is what caused the lack of integration."
I'm not sure I buy that, though. At GT we've sadly had continuing trouble with integrating our members and with retaining quality people over long periods of time. This is tremendously worrying for me personally and for us as an LC. Now, compared to Madison, it can certainly be said that our model for recruitment was different and the bar for membership much lower; as such a higher rate of attrition was to be expected. But nonetheless, looking at our core active membership we can pretty much point to 4-5 members per recruitment class who hang around for over a year of involvement.
At our Leadership Team Retreat, we at one point went around and asked the new members what the moment that made AIESEC click for them, and that drew them into the organization was. Virtually all of them said it hadn't happened yet, and that they started taking on leadership roles because they felt like if only they did a little more that life-changing experience that we all know so well would strike them like a bolt of lightning. These members, who joined just a semester ago and who (one would think) we were paying particular attention to, didn't feel integrated. And that's with a recruitment that brought in (after a very casual screening) roughly 25 people. Already we've only kept about 10 of those.
What I'm getting at is that member engagement isn't necessarily a problem of growth. Rather, it is one of whether the systems that you put in place, whether that be coaching or anything else, are functioning correctly. And while rapid growth could be one way those systems might break down, it isn't the only one. God knows our oft-overhauled coaching system has broken down about eight different ways now.
From conversations with other members I respect and admire, it appears to me that the key to a member's integration is two-fold:
- Creating binding personal ties to one or more individuals. While the sense of community in an LC as a whole is a tremendously valuable factor that must be preserved to the maximum extent that it is possible, in the end what keeps people coming back and doing work is their bonds within smaller groups. It is small groups of people who do the greatest things. The purpose of the overall LC being the creation of an atmosphere rather than a community, as someone mentioned, is certainly different, but not necessarily wrong.
- Giving people a sense of purpose. Members must see that the time they put in and work they do are worthwhile both in the sense that they grow from it personally and in that they are helping to achieve AIESEC's mission (or 'what we do,' if you will...).
The central question for an LC's growth, then, is whether the LC can grow while still providing those two core aspects of integration. This is where the questions raised by the esteemed Mr. Lichtenheld come in, and the question becomes, what sort of systems must you create to ensure that both of these happen? Certain aspects of an LC's functionality become significantly more difficult; key principles like flatness and consensus-based decision making must be re-evaluated.
But ultimately it comes down to whether you can provide every member with those two facets to catalyze their AIESEC Experience. If you do not, you cannot, and perhaps should not, retain them.
This is the cycle that Madison appears to have overcome successfully in the past; this is the cycle that we at GT are still working to break out of. We've decided to take in 27 members this semester. Let's get it done.
P.S. Dear Madison: the fact that you are even able to have a conversation of this type, with a diversity of inputs and experiences this extensive, is pretty mindblowing. Props, and I can't wait till we're there ourselves.
Labels: aiesec, analysis, madison, member engagement, props
¶ 14:48 0 Comments Links to this post
