This document contains survey results from AIESEC structures in September 2015. It includes the following key points: 1. The response rate for surveys sent to structures was over 99%. Survey results show satisfaction levels among members and how likely they are to recommend AIESEC. 2. When compared to previous surveys, there was a dramatic increase in members who were promoters and a decrease in passives and detractors. This indicates higher satisfaction levels. 3. At the local committee level, most had over 70% of members who were promoters who would recommend AIESEC, with Net Promoter Scores ranging from 50-90. 4. Overall for AIESEC Serbia, the Net Promoter Score

1. [ September 2015 ]

2. #In Structures
Response Rate
205
99%
*No replies were received from SUs or expansions
** Numbers for total structure taken from TM Tracker (September values)
207
Total # # Of Replies

3. (EB abstracted)
Participant Structure Chart
TMP TLP
% Of Participation for Each
Program in Survey
TMP
TLP
EB
68.8%
64
Did not participate in
survey
141
31.2%
Total # Relative

4. 13%
19%
19%11%
12%
14%
12%
Participant Structure Chart - LCs
Novi Sad EF
SINGI MET
Kragujevac Nis

5. LCs
LC NS
LC EF
LC FON
LC SINGI
LC MET
LC KG
LC NIS
#Of Replies/#In Structure
27 / 28
37 / 37
37 / 37
23 / 29
23 / 23
28 / 28
25 / 25
Response Rate
96%
100%
100%
79%
100%
100%
100%

6. oGIP
iGIP
oGCDP
iGCDP
MPR
CR
F&L
TM
Other
23 11.3%
19 9.4%
19 9.4%
76 37.4%
31 15.3%
914 6.9%
0 0%
8 3.9%
13 6.4%

7. oGIP
11%
iGIP
9%
oGCDP
9%
iGCDP
38%
MPR
15%
CR
7%
F&L
0%
TM
4%
Other
7%
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE PER FUNCTIONS IN TMP/TLP STRUCTURE

9. Global Awareness – 53.1% of members
International XP – 60.3% of members
Str. & Wknsess – 48.2% of members
Coaching – 42.9% of members
Effective Comm – 53.1% of members
Understanding Val – 58% of members
Flex. & Adaptibility – 59.8% of members
Supportive Env. – 58% of members

10. 0
0
1
4
1
6
13
42
84
53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER OF RESPONSES PER GRADE
Series 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0%
0%
1%
2%
0.5%
2.9%
6.3%
20.5%
41%
25.9%

11. 0
1
2
5
6
7
19
31
68
66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER OF RESPONSES PER GRADE
Series 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0%
0.5%
1%
2.4%
2.9%
3.4%
9.3%
15.1%
33.2%
32.2%

12. 1
4
2
3
8
6
11
27
52
91
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER OF RESPONSES PER GRADE
Series 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.5%
2%
1%
1.5%
3.9%
2.9%
5.4%
13.2%
25.4%
44.4%

13. 0
0
3
1
4
9
10
32
65
81
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER OF RESPONSES PER GRADE
Series 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0%
0%
1.5%
0.5%
2%
4.4%
4.9%
15.6%
31.7%
39.5%

14. 1
0
0
4
4
7
21
34
50
84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER OF RESPONSES PER GRADE
Series 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.5%
0%
0%
2%
2%
3.4%
10.2%
16.6%
24.4%
41%

15. 1
0
2
3
4
7
14
19
67
88
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER OF RESPONSES PER GRADE
Series 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.5%
0%
1%
1.5%
2%
3.4%
6.8%
9.3%
32.7%
42.9%

16. 0
0
0
3
2
4
12
31
79
74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER OF RESPONSES PER GRADE
Series 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0%
0%
0%
1.5%
1%
2%
5.9%
15.1%
38.5%
36.1%

17. 2
0
1
1
5
2
12
18
65
99
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER OF RESPONSES PER GRADE
Series 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1%
0%
0.5%
0.5%
2.4%
1%
5.9%
8.8%
31.7%
48.3%

19. Promoters
Passives
178
19
Detractors 8
86.8%
9.2%
3.9%
Absolute
Absolute
Absolute Relative
Relative
Relative

20. How satisfied are you
with your function? Passive
Promo
Detractor
153 – 74.7%
34 – 16.6%
18 – 8.7%
153 of our members are satisfied with their current position
34 are unsure or don’t know
18 members are unsatisfied
When compared to the 1st NPS survey of the previous term, we can see a dramatic increase in promoters and decrease in
passives and detractors (both relative and absolute). In part, this can be due to the greater experience of EB teams in working
with their structures and better TL preparation, as well as new TS systems.

21. oGIP
iGIP
oGCDP
iGCDP
MPR
CR
F&L
TM
Other
77% 18%
66.6% 33.4%
72.2% 16.7%
76% 18.3%
80% 20%
81% 9.5%
0% 0
100% 0%
75% 0%
5%
0%
11.1%
5.6%
0%
9.5%
0
0%
25%
Promo Pass Det Promo Pass Det

22. LCs
LC NS
LC EF
LC FON
LC SINGI
LC MET
LC KG
LC NIS
FUNCTIONS oGIP iGIP oGCDP iGCDP MPR CR Other
Promo/Pas/Det Promo/Pas/Det Promo/Pas/Det Promo/Pas/Det Promo/Pas/Det Promo/Pas/Det Promo/Pas/Det
80% / 20% / 0% 100% / 0% / 0% 50% / 50% / 0% 90% / 10% / 0% 100% / 0% / 0% N/A N/A
66.6% / 33.4% / 0% 80% / 20% / 0% 66.6% / 0% / 33.4% 69% / 31% / 0% 100% / 0% / 0% 80% / 0% / 20% TM – 100%
Promo
100% / 0% / 0% 25% / 25% / 50% 66.6% / 33.4% / 0% 80% / 20% / 0% 33.4% / 66.6% / 0%
50% / 50% / 0% * 0% / 100% / 0% 66.6% / 0% / 33.4%
*
75% / 12.5% / 12.5% 75% / 25% / 0 % N/A
60% / 20% / 20% 100% / 0% / 0% 50% / 50% / 0% 58.3% / 25% / 16.7% 33.4% / 66.6% / 0% N/A
100% / 0% / 0% * NONE 100% / 0% / 0% 81.9% / 18.1% / 0% 75% / 25% / 0%
100% / 0% / 0% 100% / 0% / 0% 66.6% / 33.4% / 0% 71.4% / 14.3% / 14.3% 85.7% / 14.3% / 0%
*– Data not relevant – too few responses.
N/A
TM – 100%
OC
80% / 20% 0
TM – 100%
promo
N/A
TM – 100%
Promo
100% Promo - 1
member
100% Promo - 2
members
66.6% / 33.4% / 0%

23. Based on your
experience, how likely are
you to recommend
AIESEC to your friends?
Indifferent
Certain
No
178 – 86.8%
19 – 9.2%
8 – 3.9%
In comparison to the previous TXP cycle NPS survey, there is a positive growth in this area.
Neutrals and detractors have decreased, while promoters have increased. We also see a rise in
the number of LCs that have no detractors.

24. TLP 82.5% 17.5% 0%
TMP 74% 19.7% 6.3%
80
70
PROMO PASSIVE DETRACTOR NPS
PROMO PASSIVE DETRACTOR NPS

25. LCs
LC NS
LC EF
LC FON
LC SINGI
LC MET
LC KG
LC NIS
Promoters
88.9%
78.4%
75.6%
56.5%
58.3%
75%
84%
Passives
10.1%
16.2%
19.5%
34.8%
29.2%
25%
12%
Detractors
0%
5.4%
4.9%
8.7%
12.5%
0%
4%

26. LC NS 90
LC EF 70
LC FON 70
LC SINGI 50
LC MET 50
LC KG 70
LC NIS 80
*Numbers rounded up to the nearest 10
For AIESEC Serbia
NPS 70