The market for AIESEC's mission
Recently I've seen a lot of debate in AIESEC US about mission statements, and how the statement we operate under now is "divergent" or "unaligned" with the global mission. I was actually a big proponent of this thought until I really thought seriously about the implications of mission statements, specifically of basing our day to day work off of semantics.
So currently the mission statement used in the US is "by developing individuals..." and the global descriptor of our role is "the international platform..." It is clear to anyone that they are not the same mission statement, and that in itself angers a lot of people, making them feel like they're in two separate organizations. However, after experiencing AIESEC where the rubber htis the road, I realize that the most important understanding we can have is of exactly that. Specifically, I'm talking about forgetting what semantics we operate under, and understanding what actually happens within the friction of AIESEC: different cultures coming together, people involving themselves in working groups and project teams, a unexperienced person beginning to build relationships with organizations, and the minute an exchange participant steps into new situations and challenges him/herself in a new culture.
What I'm saying is that what goes on globally when the rubber hits the road is not as divergent as we think. Whether you're an AIESECer in Istanbul, Prague, Sao Paulo, Santo Domingo, or Jaipur, depending on your LC leadership, you are more or less experiencing the same development. Again, what is most important is for us to analyze, understand, and come to terms with that is happening at the core of AIESEC, and not trying to make some all inclusive statement to make it happen. In a very general sense, a mission based from the bottom up, not the top down.
Also, the market for AIESEC's mission, I've found, is different across cultures. I found it very interesting this weekend at the conference that when AIESECers talked about @'s role, mission, and vision, they applied it almost 100 percent to their own country. What can we do to help our country? How can we be leaders in our country and make positive impact in our communities? How can we save Turkey? This is of course opposed to our conversations in the US where it is much more based on global change, on what we can do to be leaders in the world, to affect situations in other countries with a positive impact. Very little is based on how we can benefit our country. Isn't that interesting?
So currently the mission statement used in the US is "by developing individuals..." and the global descriptor of our role is "the international platform..." It is clear to anyone that they are not the same mission statement, and that in itself angers a lot of people, making them feel like they're in two separate organizations. However, after experiencing AIESEC where the rubber htis the road, I realize that the most important understanding we can have is of exactly that. Specifically, I'm talking about forgetting what semantics we operate under, and understanding what actually happens within the friction of AIESEC: different cultures coming together, people involving themselves in working groups and project teams, a unexperienced person beginning to build relationships with organizations, and the minute an exchange participant steps into new situations and challenges him/herself in a new culture.
What I'm saying is that what goes on globally when the rubber hits the road is not as divergent as we think. Whether you're an AIESECer in Istanbul, Prague, Sao Paulo, Santo Domingo, or Jaipur, depending on your LC leadership, you are more or less experiencing the same development. Again, what is most important is for us to analyze, understand, and come to terms with that is happening at the core of AIESEC, and not trying to make some all inclusive statement to make it happen. In a very general sense, a mission based from the bottom up, not the top down.
Also, the market for AIESEC's mission, I've found, is different across cultures. I found it very interesting this weekend at the conference that when AIESECers talked about @'s role, mission, and vision, they applied it almost 100 percent to their own country. What can we do to help our country? How can we be leaders in our country and make positive impact in our communities? How can we save Turkey? This is of course opposed to our conversations in the US where it is much more based on global change, on what we can do to be leaders in the world, to affect situations in other countries with a positive impact. Very little is based on how we can benefit our country. Isn't that interesting?
posted by amartin4 at 6:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home