Mcp 1617 Panel Interview Output

AIESEC United States MCP 1617 Interview Panel Report

Panelist: Domenic Smith (MC), Samson Wu (MC), James Larmer (BoD), Mohammed Mostafa (Denver), Nassim Oroumchian (Davis), Claire Girardeau (Denver), Shane Brannigan (Washington DC), and Balaji Srinivasan (Boston).

December 11, 2015

As per the AIESEC United States Compendium (see section 3.3 of the By-Laws), from December 9-11, 2015, a panel of Board of Director and Member Committee members as well as 5 LCPs interviewed all AIESEC US Member Committee President applicants.

This report is the outcome of those interviews, and represents the collective opinion of the panel. Please keep in mind that this report is a summary of opinions, and was dependent on the performance of the candidate in that particular interview.

Each interview was 30-45 minutes, with each question having a time limit of 2 minutes. Due to the tight timeframe of each interview, there were many topics on which the panel would have liked to hear more, but the candidates were not able to convey. Should anyone have any doubts or questions following this report, it is best to follow up with the candidates to hear more on these

topics in their own words.

A member of the AIESEC United States Board of Directors, James Larmer (Chairman) was invited. As MC responsible for elections, Samson Wu was the interested party on the member committee. As current Member Committee President, Domenic Smith was

automatically selected for the panel. The five LCPs (elect and current) were selected from LCPs who expressed interest. The LCPs selected were: Mohammed Mostafa (Denver), Nassim Oroumchian (Davis), Claire Girardeau (Denver), Shane Brannigan

(Washington DC), and Balaji Srinivasan (Boston). There were five broad categories on which each MCP candidate was evaluated. Each candidate was given a score from 0-5 for their competency in each of the five categories, based off of questions asked by the

panel. The categories are listed below, and were defined by the Member Committee relevant to the panel.

About the Panel

Categories Descriptions

Solutions Orientation

Visionary Leadership

Stakeholder Management

Strategic Agility

Team Management

This category evaluated how solution oriented each candidate was, including ideas on how each support function would contribute to the candidate’s key measures of success, and what programs (GIP, GCDP, TMP, TLP) should be the main focus.

The ability to create and articulate a realistic, credible, and attractive vision of the future that improves upon the present situation.

In this category, the panel assessed the candidates’ knowledge, prioritization, and ideas for usage of different stakeholders including alumni, Board of Directors, AIESEC International, and partners.

The ability for companies to stay competitive in their business by adjusting and adapting to new innovative ideas and using these ideas to create new products and services as well as new business models.

This category inquired into each candidate’s ideal team, both in qualities in teammates and in accountability and governance structure. It also inquired about baseline rules and expectations eachcandidate has for their team.

Scores Summary

Strategic Agility

Team Management

Solution Orientation

Visionary Leadership

Stakeholder Management

Candidate Average

Adriana Villar 3.8 4.0 3.1 3.9 4.1 3.8

Alexandra Robinson

3.4 4.0 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.0

Amy Ho 3.8 3.6 4.0 3.7 4.4 3.9

Nick Scheifler 4.1 3.5 4.0 3.9 4.2 3.9

Samantha Lumpkin

4.0 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.0

Category Average

3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.2

Adriana VillarScore

Category Average Summary

Strategic Agility 3.8 3.8

Adry has a good sense of strategy and was able to tie in her work experience in Colombia into product specific initiatives she would implement. Additionally, Adry was the first candidate to focus on product development around the AIESEC 2020 goals. She could have expanded further into how her approach would address current limitations in the program but her emphasis on aligning U.S strategy with international strategy showed her ability to think from a big scope.

Team Management 4.0 3.8

Adry demonstrated a clear understanding of what she is looking for in a team and in her teammates. She understands that each of her teammates would have different personalities and mindsets yet believes that their purpose is what should unite them. She believes that committment is a combination of personal and team motivations. She demonstrated a good understanding of the difference between managing an MC and an LC as the MC would have to handle 40 different realities rather than just one.

Solution Orientation 3.1 3.9

Adry has a well-developed ability to address issues and find solutions on her team. Her approach to problem solving within her team centers on compassion and communication with her team members. Her weakness in this area is in her personal self-refection of her own failures and her ability to learn from them to move forward with a solution.

Visionary Leadership 3.9 3.9

The committee seems to unanimously agree that Adry showed good visionary thinking and likes that her vision for AIESEC US ties into the 2020 goals and the SDGs. While a few in the committee think she did a good job of explaining the AIESEC way, others felt that it lacked some key fundamental aspects.

Stakeholder Management 4.1 4.2

Adry demonstrated a good understanding of stakeholder prioritization. She listed her top two priorities as the LCPs and the BoD. She emphasized the importance of LCPs because they are the ones whose cooperation will greatly support the pursuit of national goals. Adry also discussed the importance of communication between the LCPs and the MC. She proved to be solution oriented, and in her response to the question about an unhappy stakeholder, she discussed the need for a plan that would hold both parties accountable. Adry believes that the most underutilized stakeholder group is the BoD because plenty of untapped knowledge and resources can be gained from them. Some thought that Adry could have given more context in relation to involvement within the BoD. Lastly, Adry argued the need for coaching to encourage better partnerships.

Alexandra RobinsonScore



Alex views strategy as method of problem solving and her initiative for keeping AIESEC relevant would be further participation in the international plenary and a focus on current events and trends. Her platform could have been stronger if she expanded the scope of her ideas and emphasized how this focus would relate specifically to AIESEC’s products and comparing the effectiveness of our current strategy to the differences in her strategy.


Alex demonstrated a good understanding of what it means to lead a team and the qualities she is looking for in her team. She places high value on respect and vulnerability as she believes that these qualities can create a a cohesive team culture. She understands that leading an MC is different from leading an LC in that MCs can be detached from local realities and operations. She would like to address this by creating more lines of communication and using data to make decisions.


Alex showed that she has faced failure before and is very capable of reflecting on that failure to develop solutions. In her problem solving, Alex will break down large issues into smaller, more easily resolved issues. Alex also focuses on creating positive spaces in her problem solving where she will attempt to coach another through their problems from a point of caring.


Alex understands how the SDGs increase AIESEC's relevance and helps us form parnerships with other organizations that believe in the SDGs. While some feel her vision for AIESEC US is unclear or not ambitious enough, others feel it is realistic and aligned with AIESEC US's role in AIESEC 2020. Overall good understanding of the AIESEC way, relevance and possible future of the entity.


Alex demonstrates a good understanding of stakeholder management. Her list of priorities in descending order of importance is the MC team, the LCP class, and the BoD. She understands the level of attention each stakeholder should be given in her specific position. In her answer to the question about an angry stakeholder, Alex showed that she is willing to humble herself in relation to the stakeholders, ensure their needs are cared of, and take concrete next steps to solve the problem. She believes the most underutilized stakeholder group is the alumni. She would like to increase their accessibility to AIESECers and have more mentorship programs. Alex realizes that alumni’s ideas can be applied to current operations.

Amy HoScore



Amy is data driven in formulating her decisions and she has a good grasp of various strategic approaches. However, her explanation of how data would be used for product development and at an operational level was not as well-developed. Additionally, Amy’s explanation of when she implemented a strategic initiative all the way through could have been strengthened with more specific examples of how she followed the strategic framework she laid down earlier.


Amy has a clear understanding on the characteristics and qualities she'd like to have in her team. She didn't provide specific qualities she'd like to see in individuals within the team. She clearly has done her research on team management and exhibits the ability to act upon her research. She understands that leading an MC team is different than leading an LC and placed great emphasis on how an MC team needs to be able to distinguish their work/life balance in order to be functioning. She places great value on commitments and outlined all the various types of commitments her team would have to adhere to.


Amy is a very analytical problem solver. Her strengths in this area lie within her ability to self-reflect and determine exactly where she went wrong. In helping others solve problems, she takes more of a coaching approach wherein she will listen and coach another on their issues, but won't directly give a solution.


For the most part, Amy has a good understanding of AIESEC, the AIESEC Way and what AIESEC US could potentially be in 2020 but requires more elaboration on how her vision would fit into this, the importance of the 2020 goal and how we would go about reaching that.


Amy has a good understanding of stakeholder prioritization. She gave a layered approach to stakeholder management with different levels of importance assigned to each group. Her first priority is members (including alumni), her second priority is customers, and her third priority is the Board of Directors, the State Department, and AIESEC International. she did not express how the MC team could be utilized in her discussion of prioritization. If a stakeholder was angry she would try to get to the root of the problem and search for possible solutions. Even if the stakeholder were to leave the organization, Amy would be focused on the follow up and try to create a positive channel and environment to make it easy for them to return. Though some liked this response, others would have liked to hear about a more generalized approach to unhappy stakeholders instead of the example of exchange subsidies. Amy believes the most underutilized stakeholder group is the members and alumni. She believes members are overworked with problems that could be easily solved, and she emphasized that alumni possess valuable connections that should be taken advantage of.

Nick ScheiflerScore



Nick has a good strategic mindset and believes our continual success is dependent upon developing the membership core within AIESEC. Nick would further utilize the LDM as a framework for organizational strategy and keep AIESEC relevant by emphasizing growth in professional skills within the Global Leader program.


Nick has a good grasp on what a strong performing team looks like and how to manage one. He knows the qualities he is looking for in a team but could've expanded more on what qualities individuals in his team should have. He would like his team to be open minded, selfless, and adaptable. He places great importance ensuring both his team and LC members are developing practical skills that can be translated to the real world.


Nick is very solution oriented, showing a results driven approach. He focuses very much on professional relationships and can set aside emotional aspects of his relationships, if necessary, in the pursuit of goals. Having faced past failures himself, Nick has the ability to self-reflect and determine the best action steps for moving from a problem to a solution.


Interesting approach about the SDGs and encouraging more partnerships with global orgs. He understands AIESEC’s relevance to real world issues and how long term goal setting plays into carving a niche for how we can contribute. The elevator pitch on the AIESEC Way could be tidied up, was not very clear about what we do and why we do it (surface level description of our values).


Nick understands stakeholder management and approaches prioritization from a business perspective. He said his first priority would be the MC, and his next focus would be the LCPs. Some liked how he focused on the leadership core of stakeholders while others thought that he didn’t highlight many of the existing stakeholders in his answer. It was clear that Nick also values corporate partners and the BoD. He discussed his background experience on addressing angry stakeholders and understands that as MCP he could never make everyone happy and must take complete ownership for problems that arise. He believes that the most underutilized stakeholder group are the members, and they should be developed because they help lead change in the organization. He also mentioned how he can use his role as MCP to interact with LCPs and empower them.

Samantha LumpkinScore



Sam was able to tie in previous experience working on the national trainer team as an example of how she implemented a strategic initiative all the way through. She has a solid grasp of strategy although her explanation of strategy could have been better articulated to be more comprehensive. Sam has a good understanding of the importance of live feedback in keeping her initiatives up to date and our products relevant.


Sam demonstarted a very clear understanding of what she looks for in a team. She places a high value on resilience, collaboration, and positivity in her team and teammates. She believes that the main difference between an MC team and an LC is the need for the MC members to be independent and that as MCP, her job is to hold them accountable. She also understands that the MC can be detached from the LCs' realities and she suggested how to bridge the gap.


Sam sees a lack of activity from members as the biggest issue facing AIESEC US at this time. In her problem solving approach, Sam uses a team-based, collaborative method while also drawing on her previous problem solving experience. Sam has a strong grasp of problem solving and will empower her entire team to solve problems alongside her.


Sam understands the SDGs well and believes it will help in forming partnerships with other organizations and giving relevance to the organization. She also believes it can be used in the development of our Global Citizen program. Her explanation of the AIESEC way was on point. Her vision for AIESEC US was very good while a few thought it could be more clear and how it ties into the 2020 vision.


Sam demonstrated a very good understanding of stakeholder prioritization and clearly outlined her relations with each stakeholder. She would prioritize her MC team followed by the LCP and the BoDs. Though most liked her order of prioritization, some thought she should have included alumni and other external partners. Sam’s reasoning behind her prioritization is that she hopes to focus on and develop LCs and their members first before worrying about international prestige. In relation to the question on addressing an angry stakeholder, Sam responded that she would try to set clear expectations from the start of the organization’s relationship with that stakeholder. She would make sure to discuss their concerns with them, and if she wasn’t the best individual to answer their questions, she would direct them to someone else. Sam believes that members are the most underutilized stakeholder. She would like more open communication between the MC and the general members. Her idea was to give more responsibility to the role of the NSB to increase member touch points and education and bridge the gab between the MC and LCs.

For ReadingThanks!

If you have any questions or inquiries the election manager:Samson [email protected]

Business

Mcp 1617 Panel Interview Output