february march recruitment report 2014

TMP Recruitment

February/March

2013

Report

Recruitment

process

AIESEC in Poland | Recruitment Report | February/March 2014

TMP recruitment

report

Promotion Internal recruitment

Recruitment

Recruitment

process


17 Local Committees and 1 Initiative Group created Talent Plan based on their exchange plans for Q2 & Q3

2014

Results of last promotion campaign Create your own story was result of 1370 applications for AIESEC in

Poland it’s 89,72 % of plan realization

8 from 18 entities achieved more than 100% of promotion plan realization: Gdańsk, Olsztyn, Warszawa UW, Wrocław UT,Lublin, Kraków, Poznań i Łódź

0

50

100

150

200

250Applications : Planned vs achieved

Number of planned applications Number of achieved applications

Promotion

Recruitment

process


Local Committee / Initiative Group

Number of planned applications

Number of achieved

applications

% plan realization March/ February

2014

% plan realization October 2013

Trend

Katowice UE 95 55 58 99 Kraków 160 210 131 136

Poznań 120 127 106 113

Warszawa UW 80 97 121 121 Warszawa SGH 120 77 64 143 Average : group IV 115 113 96 125

Gdańsk 60 87 145 107

Łódź 90 107 119 122

Lublin 112 114 102 113 Toruń UMK 60 48 80 52

Wrocław UE 125 91 73 201

Wrocław UT 80 91 114 82 Average: group III 88 90 106 110

Białystok 40 33 83 97

Kielce 50 34 68 108 Olsztyn 40 54 135 69

Rzeszów 150 58 39 51

Szczecin 80 68 85 62 Average: group II 72 50 82 66

Nowy Sącz 35 10 28 31 Average for group I 35 10 ? 25

Bielsko- Biała 30 9 30 27 Average : Initiative

Group 30 9 30 27

Recruitment

process


Average promotion activities took 19 days and average cost was 418 zł. 1 LC used materials from previous

promotion and 1 LC couldn’t count costs of TMP promotion (2 pararell promotions in same time- TMP &

OGX).

Group Average cost of promotion IV 126,47 III 933 II 139,83 I 270

Initiative Groups 30

The most successful channel for promotion which got the biggest number of applications was on first

place facebook ( 17 from 19 Local Committee , on second Friend/Acquitance from AIESEC (11f rom 19)

and on third place was Friend/ Acquitance (10 from [in this question was possible to choose more than 1

option]

Facebook gave us more than 306 applications, Friend / Acquitance from AIESEC 217 applications and

Friend/ Acquitance around 29 applications it’s 40 % of total number of applications.

LC Łódź only from those 3 channels received 101 applications – 94, 39 % of plan.

Facebook (14 from 18 Local Committees) Friend / Acquitance from AIESEC (10)

Friend/ Acquitance (6)

Promotion

Recruitment

process


0

1000

270

433.86

0

100

1500 1500

200

600

300

30 99.14 72

0 0

1000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Cost of promotion

Cost of promotion

Promotion

Recruitment

process


Faculties from which were the biggest number of applications. Number in every square shows how many Local

Committees mention this faculty.

It means that still the biggest potential we have in students of Management and Economy faculties

Management

13

Economy

10

Finance and accounting

4

English filology

5

Tourism & recreation

2

Sociology / Psychology

4

Promotion

Recruitment

process


It’s 18,3

member

per LC

331

Members (except EB) was

engaged in promotion

activities

It’s 17member

per LC

313

Members (except EB) was

engaged in Assesment

Center & Reviev Board

process

Recruitment

process


In 3 from 19 committees more than 50% of members in Local Committee was engaged in Recruitment

Processes -> it is progress to comparison in October, where 6 entities engaged more than half of LC

But still it means that we are putting BIG effort and engage a lot of our human resources into recruitment

process. In result a lot of other processes don’t have enough capacity to work- people are focus on another

activity.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5

32

44

14

60

50

40 47

66

32

49

35

100

30

20

30

21

13

% of commitee engaged in AC/ RB excluded EB

% members enagaged on RB

Recruitment

process


Page 1

0

Entity Number of planned NEW members Number of recruited NEW members

% plan realization

Katowice UE 21 24 114

Kraków 53 77 145

Poznań 48 43 90

Warszawa UW 30 35 117

Warszawa SGH 36 38 106

Average for group IV 46 43 114,4 Gdańsk 28 33 118

Łódź 37 33 89

Lublin 64 47 73

Toruń UMK 38 29 76

Wrocław UE 46 48 104

Wrocław UT 45 54 120 Average fro group III 43 40 96,66

Białystok 18 13 72

Kielce 43 27 63

Olsztyn 18 26 144

Rzeszów 75 45 60

Szczecin 47 26 55

Average for group II 40 27 78,8

Nowy Sącz 14 8 57,14

Average for group I 14 8 Bielsko- Biała 14 9 64,29

Average for Initiative Group 14 9

New members :

Recruitment

process


Page 1

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

21

53

48

30

36

28

37

64

38

46 45

18

43

18

75

47

14 14

24

77

43

35

38

33 33

47

29

48

54

13

27 26

45

26

8 9

New members: plans vs realization

Number of plannednew members

Number of recruitednew members

Recruitment

process


Page 1

2

Local Committee / Initiative Group Number of planned members to reallocation

Number of reallocated members

% plan realization


Kraków 64 45 70

Poznań 18 26 144

Warszawa UW 19 8 37

Warszawa SGH 15 13 87 Average for group IV 28 22 84,2

Gdańsk 30 30 100

Łódź 7 12 171

Lublin 0 0 -

Toruń UMK 4 5 125


Wrocław UT 6 15 250

Average fro group III 13 16 149 Białystok 5 9 180

Kielce 15 19 60

Olsztyn 7 6 86

Rzeszów 9 9 100

Szczecin 12 13 109

Average for group II 10 11 107 Nowy Sącz 6 8 133

Average for group I 14 8

Bielsko- Biała 5 4 80 Average for Initiative Group 14 9

Reallocation:

Recruitment

process


Page 1

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

24

64

18 19

15

30

7

0

4

20

6 5

15

7 9

12

6 5

20

45

26

8

13

30

12

0

5

20

15

9

19

6

9

13

8

4

Realloction : plans vs realization

Number of plannesmembers toreallocation

Number ofreallocated members

Recruitment

process


Page 1

4

Local Committee / Initiative Group Number of planned people Number of recruited people

% plan realization


Kraków 117 122 104

Poznań 66 69 105

Warszawa UW 49 42 86

Warszawa SGH 51 51 100 Average for group IV 66 65 98,6

Gdańsk 58 63 109

Łódź 44 45 102

Lublin 64 47 73

Toruń UMK 42 34 81


Wrocław UT 51 69 135

Average fro group III 54 54 100 Białystok 23 22 96

Kielce 58 36 62

Olsztyn 25 32 128

Rzeszów 84 54 64

Szczecin 59 39 66

Average for group II 50 37 83,2 Nowy Sącz 20 16 80

Bielsko- Biała 19 13 68

New members + reallocation

Recruitment

process


Page 1

5

45

117

66

49 51

58

44

64

42

66

51

23

58

25

84

59

20 19

44

122

69

42

51

63

45 47

34

68 69

22

36 32

54

39

16 13

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Talent plan in total: plans vs realization

Number ofplannedpeople

Number ofrecruitedpeople

Recruitment

process


Page 1

6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Relation of new members to reallocation in recruitment

Reallocation

New members

Recruitment

process


Page 1

7

In total AIESEC in Poland became bigger for 615 new members. It means that we realized our National Talent

Plan (only for new members) in 91,11% <yay>

During this recruitment we were also focus on Internal recruitment. We realized 94,36% of those plans and

251 members get new TMP positions and in result stayed in organization.

So in total we realized 92,03% our plans.

The lowest realization rate was in the Initiative Groups – around 60 %. Other LC’s achieved more than 80%.

8 LCs realized 100% or more of Talent Plan – Kraków, Poznań, Warszawa SGH, Gdańsk, Łódź, Wrocław UE, Wrocław UT i Olsztyn

Biggest LCs achieve better results in external recruitment -> more than 114%

III cluster achieved the best results in internal recruitment -> almost 150%

Recruitment

process


Page 1

8

More than 73% of new members were women

For AIESEC in Poland in every LC we recruited 27 women and 10 men

Mostly in every committee female members were more than male but in LC Wrocław UT was perfect proportion: 50% females and 50% males.

In IG Bielsko Biała 89% of recruited members are women.

165 450

Recruitment

process


Page 1

9

254

Candidates resign form taking

part in recruitment process It’s was more

than 16% of

total number

of

applications

191

People was rejected

after application

Average – in

every LC we

lost potential

14 candidates

It’s was 12,5% of

total number

of

applications

4 LC’s : Toruń UMK, Wrocław UE,

Olsztyn,

Bielsko Biała, Białystok,

Katowice UE

didn’t reject

925 people we observed during

Assessment Center.

We reject 169 candidates

after this part of process.

It was almost

61% of

applications

which we

received

Recruitment

process


Page 2

0

78 % of new members took part in Local Conferences (the same level of % was in October 2013).

35

54

8

38

47 45

77

29 33

26

48

26

9 13

43

27 24

33 35

44

3

33

47

30

66

19

32 26 26

11 0 12

38

20

12

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Recruited members vs LCC participants

Recruited members Participants in newbies track

Recruitment

process


Page 2

1

Internal

Recruitment

Internal

Recruitment

We spend more than 145 hours in

preparation whole recruitment process. But a

lot of LC couldn’t write even average number of hours which they spend. The record-holder

spend more than 48 hour (LC Kielce).

If we add all days spend on recruitment

process as AIESEC in Poland we spend around

172 days in recruiting great people into

organization. It means that every LC spend

around 9,5 days on Assessments and

Review Boards, selection and allocation

(maximum was 18 days, minimum was 2 days).

53%

29%

6%

12%

Allocation

Before LCC

During LCC with earlierpreparation

During LCC

After

Recruitment

process


Page 2

2

Local Committee Plans for reallocation

Potential for reallocation

Reallocated people

Used potential(in %)

Białytstok 5 11 9 82%

Bielsko – Biała 5 0 4 400%

Gdańsk 30 36 30 83%

Katowice UE 24 30 20 67%

Kielce 15 15 9 60%

Kraków 64 70 45 64%

Łódź 7 30 12 40%

Lublin 0 7 0 0%

Nowy Sącz 6 8 8 100%

Olsztyn 7 9 6 67%

Poznań 18 40 26 65%

Rzeszów 9 9 9 100%

Szczecin 12 15 13 87%

Toruń UMK 4 12 5 42%

Warszawa SGH 15 130 13 10%

Warszawa UW 19 10 7 70%

Wrocław UE 20 30 20 67%

Wrocław UT 6 30 15 50%

Sum up 266 492 251 51%

Reallocation : detailed information

Recruitment

process


Page 2

3

Internal

Recruitment

Only in Katowice UE and Kraków all old members were allocated to team without new members. In Rzeszów

and Wrocław UE some teams were created only from TMP-TMP, some were mixed: new members with TMP-

TMP. In other LCs AIESECers were mixed- new with experienced.

To promote possibilities to experienced members mostly we were using google group.

Yes, most of them 45%

Yes, most of them (more than 90%)

44%

Yes, but only

half of them 11%

No 0%

Allocation according to members preference

25%

14%

15%

12%

16%

14%

4%

Internal recruitment channels

Emails of gmail group

Booklet withinformation

Promotion campagin-own idea

Caoachin/mentoringmeeting

Individual talks withpeople who arefinishing their TMP

LCM

Promotion campagin-idea from MC

Recruitment

process


Page 2

4

Difficult situation in LC

Poor / short promotion (not enough ppl )

People resign from LCC

huge number of people resign from

taking part in recruitment and

LCC

AIESEC is not recognizable on the

university

Applications were not as qualitative as

in October, even though there were a

lot of them

Reallocation

Decreasing number of

members in teams

Small additional recruitment (for 5 ppl) - Kraków

Project comparision

Solutions:

Main reason not achieving Talent Plan goals:

february march recruitment report 2014

Recruiting & HR