chairing a chair conference

Got an invite to chair the national train the trainer. The last AIESEC conference which I chaired was in 2010. Wasn't really sure whether I was up for it (to be honest). Also as I've lost touch of how the organization has evolved over the years (which is quite useful especially when you're a conference chair), it made sense to find out more of what my involvement would be should I accept the invitation. And when I decided to accept the invite, it was way more than what I had in mind - both the amount of work required, but also the returns :)

A+ facilitators delivers A+ conference
Raised the bar when it came to facilitator selection criteria, knowing that there is a possibility that we might not be able to secured a sizable team. But I've personally experienced the difference working with MC/AI facilitators at IC/APXLDS vs LC EB facilitators at LLDS/NLDS - the difference is the quality being delivered to the delegates; as well as expectations among the facilitators. As NTtT's focus was to develop competencies to be a conference chair, it's a no brainer that the facilitators MUST have at least chaired a conference before. There is quite a big difference between chairing and facilitating a conference; although at first glance most might feel that a chair is more of an advanced facilitator - I personally felt the difference when chairing WNCF Hong Kong & IGNITE Vietnam (both national level conference). Next, I also pushed that the NTtT facilitator must have facilitated a conference outside Malaysia e.g. national level conference in another country. Having facilitated quite a few conferences in other countries, one would get first hand experience working with a chair to deliver a conference in another country. And trust me, the role of the chair differs quite some bit among countries. Of course it would have been awesome to have a facilitators team who have all chaired conferences outside Malaysia as well; but am just being realistic that it doesn't happen everyday.

And am glad to have an opportunity to work with an amazing faci team, of whom it's my first time working with all of them. As they all met the faci selection criteria, my personal expectations is that they will deliver amazing sessions. And to a certain extent, I was blown away with the amount of effort that they put in preparing their sessions, and how open they were to feedback. I am also very thankful that they trusted me in pulling the sessions together to flow seamlessly, and took risks with me in infusing design thinking & art of hosting (two areas which I'm passionate) into the conference agenda & culture

infuse your passion & interest
As a chair, I felt that it's crucial that you infuse your area of passion into the conference so that you make the conference your own; which would translate to a unique experience for the delegates. If you think about it, the content for each conference is somewhat similar as the objectives is similar (based on the annual conference cycle) e.g. how different is the objectives and content of LLDS/ NLDS each year? Probably there are more similarities (in objectives & content, though delivery method could be different) than differences when you were to do a comparison. This is also applicable for APXLDS & even IC.

Anyway, the point here is to infuse something that you're passionate in throughout the conference as chairs don't have any sessions to run. Was glad that I infused design thinking elements such as 12 commandments, post it notes, space manipulation, ILIW and many more in this NTtT. As for the art of hosting, hosted an open space on delivering meaningful learning experiences. And yes, plenary sessions are opportunities for the chair to also showcase themselves ;)

Am glad that I challenged the facilitators to develop performance measurements i.e. rubrics for the conference management challenge, so that it becomes clear the required performance standards for each conference management activity. Got exposed to rubrics in my first MOOC peer assessment, and thought that it was a really neat way to define how a good output should look like. Though rubrics are not as straightforward when compared to quizzes, it's better to have evaluation guidelines than nothing at all. And yes, we managed to developed a rubrics for all the conference management activities and were scoring the output of each team at the end of the day. The rubrics also served as a direction that we were heading in terms of the output that we were expecting from delegates.

delegate profile
Another non negotiable item was the delegate profile. We stated in the application form that delegates have to be with the organisation for 12 months, attended LTtT, and facilitated 2 conferences. There were quite a number of applicants who didn't meet the required profile; and though it felt really painful to reject these applicants but it has to be done. It's about getting everyone who is on the same page so that things can move forward quickly.

I remember that the kind of conversations that I had with the full time HK MCs (all in their 2nd MC term), were quite different from the conversations I would have with new MCs, or LCPs. I guess the saying goes that the experienced have eaten more salt than the young ones with rice. And I'm glad that we did just that - hold tight to the delegate selection criteria. The conversations that we had with delegates, and the type of questions asked are at a different level (most valid and key questions! which you won't get if the selection criteria was slacked.) And to be honest, based on feedback the delegate profile has improved significantly this time around, which has also affected the impact of the conference in totality.

roi - return on investment
After so much time, effort & $$$ spent in NTtT, what would be the return on investment? Does it even make sense to organise it on a yearly basis, and if yes what are the results so far? And therefore applying what I've recently learned at the roi certification, one would need to measure the business outcomes. For NTtT,  it's about the number of delegates who will be chairing conferences and apply what they have learned. The NTtT pledge is all about holding them accountable to making things happen. Would definitely take stock (3 months after NTtT) to get a sense where everyone is with achieving their goals and to also gather input on the % of what they have learned at NTtT, that they have applied it. Yes, though we could conduct an ROI study with figures and all but I am quite sure that by gathering qualitative feedback, it would give an indication whether it's worth it at the end of the day. Now the responsibility is with the delegates to make things happen!

what if? multiple tracks
Kick started the TtT initiative back in 2008. And today, there is LTtT in all regions and the NTtT. I still see there is lots more opportunity to expand the TtT initiative.

What if all these were offered to members?
1. Train the Trainer (TtT) - also known as LTtT now
2. Train the Chair (TtC) - also known as NTtT now
3. Train the Agenda Manager (TtAM)
4. Train the Advanced Trainer (TtAT)
5. Train the Facilitator (TtF)
6. Train the Intercultural Trainer (TtIT)

Perhaps it might happen, perhaps not - but everything is possible :D
Am glad that an initiative started years ago has blossomed gracefully!