See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319513244

Organizational Analysis of AIESEC

Research · December 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15443.68645

CITATIONS READS

0 4,746

1 author:

Eliana Marilín Sánchez Vélez

New York University
9 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eliana Marilín Sánchez Vélez on 06 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Organizational Analysis of AIESEC

Eliana Sanchez Velez

New York University

AMLT-GE 2053 Organizational Theory I

December 24, 2015

Abstract

The present essay intends to analyze AIESEC, non-profit organization; through its

operations and systems from the standpoint of two Gareth Morgan’s metaphors:

organizations as cultures and organizations as political systems; for that reason, several

citations and quotations of Images of Organization book will be in it.

AIESEC for its international nature gather thousands of young people from around the

world; that is why, big efforts for consolidate a solid organizational culture are made in

order to join people under a same mission and vision. However, parallel motives may

arise, when members find in the organization a catapult for their personal endeavors.

Such factors make strongly coexist the two metaphors aforementioned, for that reason

this study is based on them.

1. Context and Background1

AIESEC was originally an acronym for Association Internationale des Étudiants en

Sciences Économiques et Commerciales. Nowadays, AIESEC is no longer used as an

acronym but simply as the name of the organization.

It was founded in 1948, when a group of young students wanted to do something mindful

to join the ties among countries after the World War II. They were: Jean Choplin (France),

Bengt Sjøstrand (Sweden), and Dr. Albert Kaltenthaler (Germany). They thought that by

doing cultural exchanges among their nations they could foster tolerance, and they firmly

believed that tolerance was the key to peace.

And it is “peace” the motto surrounding AIESEC operations, as its vision expresses it:

“peace and the fulfilment of humankind’s potential”

The achievement of such a vision is under the management of students and recent

university graduates from 18 to 30 average, through a series of programs that involve

1
The information in this section is a combination of my personal learning and experiences inside the
organization and complemented with gathered data from www.aiesec.org
 working with more youth and the society including: universities, non for profit

organizations, private companies, government, other educational institutions, and

individual professionals; all of them compose the group of stakeholders that make

possible AIESEC endeavors.

Currently, AIESEC is recognized as a global platform for young people to explore and

develop their leadership potential. They consider themselves as a non-political,

independent, not-for-profit organization run. Its members are interested in world issues,

leadership and management. AIESEC does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity,

gender, sexual orientation, religion or national / social origin.

The impact of AIESEC is summarized as follow:

70,000 active members 5,000+ partner

worldwide 126 countries and organizations
territories
2,400 universities 1,000,000+ AIESEC
represented alumni

AIESEC is in consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council

(ECOSOC), affiliated with the UN DPI, member of ICMYO, and is recognized by UNESCO.

AIESEC alumni include one Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Martti Ahtisaari, former president of

Finland.

The impact of AIESEC is reached through the following programs:

Campus Programme – Team Global Talent Programme – Global Citizen Programme –

Experiences Intern Abroad Volunteer Abroad
• Students join AIESEC chapters • AIESEC partners companies • AIESEC associates with NGOs
in their universities, they involve from startups to multinationals, to provide them young
in team member or team leader in a win-win agreement: the foreigners volunteers. AIESEC
experiences in any of the company is benefited by members become the workforce
organizational areas. Students temporarily workers from around these organizations need to boost
grow their leadership potential the world, and AIESEC gives the their operations or run programs
while learning some soft and chance to students from to gain that directly affect communities.
hard management skills. practical experience abroad. The main issues of this program
• Non-paid program, with non fix Internship areas include: are: providing education,
duration, mostly depends on marketing and sales, business improving literacy, eradicating
students' decision. administration, information poverty, sustainable living,
systems, language education, health & sanitation, human
engineering. rights.
• Paid internships, duration from 5 • Generally unpaid volunteerism,
months to 1.5 years. durations from 6 to 12 weeks,
sometimes longer.
Members run those programs under the ground of a set of core values: Striving for Excellence,

Demonstrating Integrity, Activating Leadership, Acting Sustainably, Enjoying Participation,

Living Diversity. This values-based environment pretends to build a strong foundation in

members, while they develop into responsible and entrepreneurial young leaders in making

more responsible decisions that will positively impact the world, “the core ideas helped create

corporate culture that diffused fundamental values and operating principles throughout the

organization to create basis for success” (Morgan, 2006, p. 137).

2. Human Resources

In AIESEC as in Japan’s concept of work, “the organization is viewed as a collectivity to which

employees belong rather than just a workplace comprising separate individuals” (Morgan,

2006, p. 118).

AIESEC recruits members from universities, these students become volunteers and form part

of AIESEC global membership; once this happen, they enter to “AIESEC family” as members

usually call it.

Some of the members stay in the organization even after university graduation. That said, it is

easy to infer that most people enter the organization with little or none work experience.

AIESEC attracts students with an appealing rhetoric of youth success, rich entrepreneurial

experience and international opportunities; so, those students who join are mainly interested in

some or all these: gain work experience, diversified the academic knowledge, get involved with

AIESEC global network, participate in our global programs.

Members begin in an already solid organizational culture; however, they integrate easily,

because the selection criteria attempts to determine if they are or may be committed with

AIESEC vision, values and mottoes.

It is not a coincidence that the main commonalities among the members are: open-mindedness,

respect, team work attitude, integrity, “nothing is impossible” mindset, “all ideas” matter,

striving for excellence.

Democracy guides the selection process of the new membership, which is based in solid and

strict processes, which are accountable and the final decision is done by the boards.

Membership in AIESEC does not mean a straitjacket, members are free to leave whenever they

want it; yet, it is expected to keep a high retention rate in order to assure sustainability to the

organizational processes.

When members start in the organization, besides to receive education on the programs and

AIESEC nature, they are involved in induction projects, which are activities that intend to

measure their proactivity, leadership potential, resilience, responsibility, learning capacity,

open-mindedness; and especially is a kind of proof to make members realize if AIESEC is what

they really need. It is not odd that at the end of the projects, some members do not continue

inside the organization. These projects are usually about events organizations on social issues.

After this induction, members are allocated in one of the areas of the organization, and they

begin to “formally work” in AIESEC.

Team work is the main ethos surrounding AIESEC culture, every person matters and “play an

important part in the construction of their realities” (Morgan, 2006, p. 147); such a treatment

often causes a “strong team commitment coupled with a philosophy of innovation through

people” (p. 128), as the organization is open enough to listen to everyone’s idea, under the

premise that “everybody has something important to say”.

Conversely, there is a competition-collaboration style in the organization’s members, at the end,

each one was motivated for different reasons to join AIESEC; even though, team work mindset

prevails and “people must collaborate in pursuit of a common task” (p. 163).

At the very beginning, culture patterns may seem “weird” or “hard to follow”, but “the

characteristics of the culture being observed will gradually become evident as one becomes

aware of the patterns of interaction between individuals, the language that is used, the images

and themes explored in conversation, and the various rituals of daily routine” (p. 125); such a
 transition is eased by the support of older members who help the newbies to “go native” (p.

135) in AIESEC.

Due to the youth-led style, informality prevails internally; on the other hand, there is a type of

“code switching” depending on the situation. From an informal set of the daily activities,

members pass to a more formal attitude when dealing with externals or when having assemblies

(details about assemblies in section 4).

Another very important aspect that construct the AIESEC culture in people is the showcasing

of current or ancient successful practices, both in people and in processes of the organization.

It is similar to Morgan’s Hewlett-Packard example: “stories, legends, and myths about

corporate heroes circulated through the organization and did much to communicate and sustain

the cultural values” (p. 129)

2. Organizational Structure

AIESEC follows a hierarchical structure; however, it can internally look as an intertwined

structure similar to Facebook’s organization chart from Microsoft Overhauls, the Apple Way.

The main board is the global one, which headquarters are in Rotterdam, The Netherlands; next,

it is the national boards, which are the main “authorities” in each country where AIESEC is.

Inside each country besides the National board, there are local offices in universities in several

cities. These local offices also have a board, which sustains the operations in its city or

university (sometimes there is more than one local office in a city, depending of the city size,

particularly).

The three boards, even with different sizes of operations are based on the same basic structure,

that can be modified, adapted or increased according the needs of the society where they are

located:

President

VP* Talent VP* VP* Finance and VP* Abroad VP* Business
Management Communications Legal Programs Development

*Each Vice president has team members to run the area’s operations.
The head of the organization at local level is the president, who is accountable to the president

at national level. Vice presidents are accountable to the local president and the national Vice

presidents, national Vice presidents are accountable to the national President and global Vice

presidents, thus national Presidents are accountable to the global president. Thus, the

organization has been able to manage operations in more than 100 countries.

Lines of accountability and communication need to be respected and followed in order to keep

the things properly executed. There are risks of harming the organization if the lines are skipped.

Accountability is needed to decide the continuity of members, local and national offices, which

means that the performance is measured by the fulfillment of goals, when goals are not

achieved, actions to remedy them are taken, when failing for consecutive periods, there is a

high chance of closing local/national offices.

To be part of the boards, there is an application timeline, where people apply by fulfilling all

the election requirements. Elections of boards are won through the votes of the full members

(full membership will be detailed in the next section). These leadership roles last one year and

can be re-elected when re-applying. There is not a limit for re-election, but members if re-

applying, usually do it just for one more time.

Power in AIESEC is bestowed through a “Representative democracy”, because it is exercised

through the election of officers mandated to act on behalf of the electorate and who hold office

for a specific time period” (p. 153), and they hold such positions thanks to the voting power

applied by the organization “populace”.

Thus, power inside AIESEC follows a kind of “Charismatic Formal Authority”, since through

voting rights it is consolidated as “a form of legitimized power that is respected and

acknowledged” (p. 166) by the membership; but such a respect has to be gained not imposed.

The nature of the organization makes impossible to people to feel and work comfortably with

an imposed power, that is when “the special qualities” (p. 167) of the leaders play a crucial role

in elections.
At local, national and global level, there is the need to have a Board of Advisors, which is

intended to be formed by professional experienced people in several fields who can be able to

help AIESEC to do a better job in the society, but also to be sure that all the activities are run

in an ethic way and without bias against others. These advisors are chosen by the organization

in consensus and are invited to join, the minimum duration is one year, but most of the times

they belong through an unlimited period.

Although there is a clear hierarchy, the organizational management makes it like invisible,

where everyone is treated the same, and board’s members are approachable as regular members.

Actually, humbleness and service willingness are key factors expected in the organization

leaders.

The leaders are role models, and their behavior is usually emulated by the next leaders; “the

fundamental task facing leaders and manager rests in creating appropriate systems of shared

meaning that can mobilize the efforts of people in pursuit of desired aims and objectives” (p.

142). So, practically, leaders are laying the foundation for the coming generations; as in

Morgan’s rice metaphor, leaders in AIESEC have the imperative mission of creating

“hierarchical yet harmonious form of social organization” (p. 120). Integrity is expected to

guide the power positions.

Boards are the final responsible for implementing AIESEC mottoes, initiatives, be accountable

and make the decisions in their jurisdiction. Even though, in many occasions, the voice of the

whole membership is heard in order to make the most democratic and responsible decision.

3. Process and Operations Management

The organization is sustained through three main sources: 1. Companies and organizations

affiliation fee when partnering with any of the Abroad Programs; 2. Fundraising activities; 3.

Sponsorship or donations from companies or philanthropists who believe in AIESEC’s

activities potential.
Local and national offices are independent in the usage of such resources; however, they are

accountable to national and global boards, respectively. Such accountability is necessary in

order to review if the funds are managed according to AIESEC mottoes. And when needed

money, it has to follow a process, for example: when resources like money, supplies, external

trainings are needed they are subject to approval. Approval mainly comes from the Finance &

Legal area and the presidency’s green light.

The operations’ directions are set by the global board to be applied at all the organization levels.

The main projects, initiatives and programs changes are made by them, and adapted by the

national boards according the countries’ realities and then taken to the local offices.

National boards are in charge to train local offices and support them to align the global strategies

to the local scenario.

AIESEC follows a kind of blended Unitary and Pluralist management, as it “places emphasis

on the achievement of common objectives […] in the manner of a well-integrated team”; but at

the same time, it pays attention on “the diversity of individual and group interests” (p. 195).

The Pluralist management can be noted in the fact that national and local offices are allowed to

implement other initiatives if and when they respect the organizational values, mission, vision.

Morgan clearly explains this argument: “many organizations are more likely to have the

characteristics of loosely coupled systems, where semiautonomous parts strive to maintain a

degree of independence while working under the name and framework provided by the

organization, than the characteristics of a completely integrated organism” (p. 204)

The ideas to new initiatives can come from any member; nonetheless, there are processes to

decide whether or not to implement them.

According to the importance of the decisions, they may be made by boards voting, but they are

usually extended to the Full Members, who are those members whose performance have given

them the right to vote for the motions.

There are clear criteria to decide who are Full Members or not. Generally, every quarter in

board meetings, these criteria are revised and each member is evaluated. The outcomes of such

evaluations are three membership status with different rights: Full Members (1 vote and voice),

Members (occasional half vote and voice), Probationary (voice). Probationary membership

means that members are “on probation”, and they are in risk to be expelled of the organization

if they do not improve their performance by the next quarter revision.

Board members’ election, new organizational policies or laws are subject to voting processes.

That process takes place in formal assemblies. When voting, common welfare usually is what

guides what to vote about.

Together to the evaluation system, AIESEC foments the “feedback”, which is a way to reinforce

the good progress of the work and also to point out those aspects that may need improvement.

AIESEC posts a “double-loop” strategy through assessment and feedback for: 1. Keep well

running the organization’s activities and at the same time, 2. Provide a life changing experience

for members, where learning and practice are available for them.

As in Morgan’s, in AIESEC “everyone is expected to perform to the best of his or her ability

to ensure that the collective outcome is as good as it can be”, if one member fails, the whole

organization suffers that fail. “There are not individual winners or losers. Respect for and

dependence on one another are central to the way of life” (p. 120)

As well as evaluation systems, there is a rewards and recognition system, which has two

purposes: 1. Recognize the outstanding performance of members, 2. Leverage the members’

motivation, thus they will keep purposely working in AIESEC. Similar to the corporations’

example in Images of Organization, AIESEC believes that the “positive reinforcement”

influences on “employee motivation and performance” (p. 124).

 4. The Flip Side

As in all organizations conflicts are unavoidable. Even with the friendly environment of

AIESEC, there are a few of parallel situations that may sometimes frustrate members and/or

the activities. Tensions inside AIESEC can be divided in two categories:

1. Members’ personal life

When recruited, there are two main personality types of members: 1. Very outgoing people who

see in AIESEC a platform to kick their future off, 2. A shier person with curiosity and attracted

initially by the friendly environment that the organization reflects.

Even with different purposes or motives, both kind of members get a satisfactory tradeoff as

AIESEC world becomes the commonality between them.

People feel so comfortable in the organization that usually spend too many hours in doing the

related work; causing “workaholism”, stress, less time dedicated to university, family and other

friends’ circles. Yet, with the rhetoric of skills that are supposed to be developed inside the

organization, aspects such as time management seems to be a problem when “constant pressures

to achieve demanding work targets and fulfill the requirements of company values and norms”

(p. 121) are present.

The curious thing is that, these pressures are usually self-imposed, and gladly adopted; because

the more the members get involved in the organization, the more they do not care to devote

many more hours working in its activities, and sometimes the organization becomes the center

of their life; and as in the Japanese culture, these members “arrive at work early and state late

to find ways of improving efficiency” (p. 121). In addition to the friendship and social

subculture nurtured in the organization “as a way of adding meaning to their lives” (p. 133).

There is also the possibility that these members have so well aligned their lives with AIESEC,

that the separation between in and out the organization may appears as non-existent or minimal.

And “we can begin to understand how people relate to their work through their own personal

concerns and detect the motivating factors that underpin the varied styles of careerism,
gamesmanship, task commitment, rigidity, “turf protection”, zealousness, detachment, and free-

wheeling that lend the politics of organizational like its detailed character” (p. 159). In such an

extreme, this practice is not positive anymore, since members can be hemmed in a vicious cycle

understanding the realities under their own perceptions, and that could take them to pursue only

personal interests that might not be linked with AIESEC’s.

2. Hidden agendas

Sometimes people use negatively the power they have inside the organization, power goes to

their heads and behaviors such as: lack of accountability, suspicious resources management,

decisions with lack of democracy, manipulation, usage of organization network or accessibility

for personal gains, may arise.

These members’ mindset sometimes is guided by the proverb “the ends justify the means”; and

a kind of persuasion and manipulation tends to guide their conduct in the organization, aiming

to make people do/accept what they want.

Such situation is riskier when they achieve leadership roles, as they count with a “legitimized

power” added to the “charismatic” personality that they usually possess. Those features made

them able to persuade others “to do something that he or she would not otherwise have done”

(p. 166), that persuasion uses to be so subtle because these leaders spend “time listening,

summarizing, integrating, and guiding what is being said, making key interventions and

summoning images, ideas, and values that help those involved to make sense of the situation

with which they are dealing”.

As a result, other members does not notice such persuasion and feel the decisions taken are

theirs; but what this leader did was to “control the foundations of decision making -preventing

crucial decisions from being made and fostering those that one actually desires” (p. 173)

If such actions have negative connotations, they may also be healthy for the organization; as

they may generate “some form of opposition” (p. 155). Opposition is necessary for
organizations to grow and re-evaluate their process, because they can make visible what is

failing.

5. Outcomes

AIESEC has existed in the world for almost 68 years, in such a frame of time, it has growth

from 7 countries to 126, from 7 members to 70,000, and it has a high retention rate, and more

members aspire join every year.

Almost after the second month of involvement, most people feel encouraged to continue

because of the friendship work environment, the support everyone provides to everyone, the

great network they get through the contact with other members from other cities in their country

and from the whole world, and also for the practical learning they obtain: public speaking, event

management, sales, project management, finance management, time management, resilience,

public relations, communications, marketing, human resources subsystems, negotiation skills,

conflict management, training skills, commitment, flexible thinking, coaching, mentoring,

global mindset, entrepreneurial outlook, social responsibility, emotional intelligence, proactive

learning, languages (learning or improvement), information systems management, are among

the skills they have the opportunity to get during their time in AIESEC.

People in AIESEC are volunteers, when working at national and global levels they usually

receive a stipend that cannot be considered a salary. They work for passion, they firmly believe

in the purpose of the organization on make a more peaceful society through the cultural

understanding and the diversity it offers through its programs.

They have made possible to make healthily coexist the three types of interests in its

membership: Tasks, as they are committed to the AIESEC goals; Career, since they connect

their future purposes with the chances provided by AIESEC; and, Extramural, because they

find the equilibrium between the responsibilities acquired in AIESEC without forgetting that is

a temporal experience and their personal aims must and can be interrelated with what they do

in there.
 The organization enjoys of high rates of credibility; many companies are more open to work

with AIESEC due to the seriousness of its endeavors, and the high quality services the

organization provides, especially the global talents that temporary go to contribute them. It is

not unusual that many of those employers permanently hire them after concluding the AIESEC

powered internship.

The political and entrepreneurial management of the organization are a good approach to “real

life”, which gives the chance to members to experience similar systems they will see in their

future workplaces. Actually, members generally think about AIESEC as a personal and

professional preparation for the life out there.

AIESEC has faced challenges during its organizational life and it still will face them in the

future, but it has learnt to adapt to its environment and make the utmost of it.

Despite the conflicts that are normal in any organization, AIESEC is a good example about how

can cohabit different images of organization, and yet be highly appreciated for all its

stakeholders.

Supporting this theory is the fact that AIESEC has been recognized by WorldBlu as one of the

Most Democratic Workplaces of the world, name that was changed this year to Most Freedom-

Centered Workplaces, being in the list during 9 years in a row.

View publication stats