Upload
aiesecincolombia
View
152
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BRAZILCHINA, MAINLAND
CZECH REPUBLIC
EGYPT GERMANY GHANA INDIA MEXICO POLAND TUNISIA TURKEY URUGUAY
Response 13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1
Total NPS 15 -50 0 -100 40 100 50 50 -60 -100 14 0
Com&Re NPS 11 -100 0 -100 40 100 63 50 -67 -100 17 0
Matched 25 0 0 0 40 0 33 50 -50 0 0 0
13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1
15
-50
0
-100
40
100
50 50
-60
-100
140
11
-100
0
-100
40
100
6350
-67
-100
170
25
0 0 0
40
0
3350
-50
0 0 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Response Total NPS Com&Re NPS Matched
NPS Based on Countries
BRAZILCHINA, MAINLAND
CZECH REPUBLIC
EGYPT GERMANY GHANA INDIA MEXICO POLAND TUNISIA TURKEY URUGUAY
Response 13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1
Total NPS 15 -50 0 -100 40 100 50 50 -60 -100 14 0
Com&Re NPS 11 -100 0 -100 40 100 63 50 -67 -100 17 0
Matched 25 0 0 0 40 0 33 50 -50 0 0 0
13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1
15
-50
0
-100
40
100
50 50
-60
-100
140
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Response Total NPS Com&Re NPS Matched
NPS Based on Countries
Conclusion 1• Main TN Providers
• India, Brazil, Germany
Conclusion 2• Satisfaction between main Providers
• India > Germany > Brazil• Poland might not be a very good choice
(good amount of response but NPS < 0)
BRAZILCHINA, MAINLAND
CZECH REPUBLIC
EGYPT GERMANY GHANA INDIA MEXICO POLAND TUNISIA TURKEY URUGUAY
Response 13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1
Total NPS 15 -50 0 -100 40 100 50 50 -60 -100 14 0
Com&Re NPS 11 -100 0 -100 40 100 63 50 -67 -100 17 0
Matched 25 0 0 0 40 0 33 50 -50 0 0 0
13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1
11
-100
0
-100
40
100
6350
-67
-100
170
25
0 0 0
40
0
3350
-50
0 0 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Response Total NPS Com&Re NPS Matched
NPS Based on CountriesConclusion 3
• Satisfaction change between status• India: Com&Re > Matched• Germany: Com&Re = Matched• Brazil: Com&Re < Matched
Conclusion 1
• Main TN Providers
– India, Brazil, Germany
Conclusion 2
• Satisfaction between main Providers
– India > Germany > Brazil
• Poland might not be a very good choice for TN (good amount of response but NPS < 0)
Conclusion 3
• Satisfaction change between status
– India: Com&Re > Matched
– Germany: Com&Re = Matched
– Brazil: Com&Re < Matched
NPS Based on Countries
What makes this difference? Mindset about the two countries?
Promoter Issues Level 2
7%7%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%4%
4%
51%
% within PromotersJob-description aligned with the TN form
Cross-cultural working experience
Education, training and tools to fulfill the job
Living diverse cultures and having a multi-cultural experienceMatching process explanation
Integration into the local culture
Programme benefits explanation
Objectives of the programme
Exchange participant responsibilities & programme policies (XPP)Education about The AIESEC Experience
other 24 issues
Comment sum up
• Generally, the host entities are not giving enough support for the trainees in problem solving, logistics or other services
– Problem solving JD misalignments, salary misalignments etc.
– Logistic: accommodation, legal process
– Other service: LC involvement, city induction, TN taker induction
• Almost all host entities are having communication problems
– Not fast responding for the request, especially with the problem solving
– Messages not clearly delivered
• If TN takers are taking care of trainees, satisfaction will be much better
– Though Indian LCs are not completely taking care of the trainees, but TN taker there are taking care.
• If culture aspect is extremely good, even if AIESEC part did bad, trainees are satisfied with the experience
Conclusion 4
• JD is the main issue for satisfaction in all countries
– If the JD is clear explained and the same as stated in the TN form, EP will be satisfied, otherwise, will not.
– Main detractors complains:• JD’s clarification before going
• JD is not aligned
• Logistic is another issue but if the culture aspect is very strong, the experience will still produce promoters
Conclusion 5
• Lots of EPs are complaining about the services. Is it an expectation setting problem or really the host entities problem?
Conclusion 6
• The culture and other stakeholder like TN takers are also contributing to the satisfaction of the EPs
Based on Issues
• All the countries to some extend, the host entities’ service are
not that satisfying, mainly about communication effectiveness
and JD alignments.
• However, we also need to see more if it is an expectation
setting problems.
• Culture experience and professional experience are making
EP satisfied with the experience.
General Conclusion
Suggestion 1 Strong alignment with the country partners
• Make sure the TN form is completely right and aligned and work with the country partners that can guarantee the JD clarification.
Suggestion 2 Expectation Setting
• Change the mindset with certain countries, like India
• Tell all the truth about all the problems that they might encounter.
Suggestion 3 Culture preparation strengthen
• Culture difference explanation Get support from country partners. – For example, Russians are colder than you expected when you don’t know each other. Indians
are more relaxed than even Latinos. Germans care a lot about punctuality. Etc.
• Cross-culture adjustment methodology learning.
Suggestion 4 Strengthen the usage of quality reporting tools
• Make sure the EPs now when they have problems who and where they can turn for help while how they can help the organization to improve– NPS surveys
– NCB case report
– LC and MC contacts, etc.
General Suggestions