AoM: International Management Division
     
  Home arrow Five-Year Division Review
Friday, 31 October 2014
 
 
2011 IM Division Review PDF Print E-mail

2011 IM Division Review

February 11, 2011

 

International Management (IM) Division Executive Committee:

Mary Yoko Brannen, Anil Gupta, John Mezias, Sam Park, Jennifer Spencer

 

Overview

 

This 5-year review of the IM Division captures the Executive Committee’s analysis of the division’s current status, its strengths, obvious areas for improvement, and the new initiatives that are do-able and will increase the value-added by the division and enhance its attractiveness to current and new members. This analysis is based on (i) review of data on membership trends, (ii) results of the multiple choice as well as open-ended questions in a survey of the membership conducted in Fall 2010, and (iii) the EC’s own perceptions regarding the evolutionary trajectory of the division as well as the opportunities and threats that may lie ahead.

 

This review is organized as follows:

1.      Key Conclusions: (i) Strengths, (ii) Area for Improvement, (iii) Possible New Initiatives.

2.      Analysis of Trends in Membership Data

3.      Key Findings from Division Membership Survey Results

 

 

Key Conclusions

 

  • The EC believes that the IM division is doing quite well in the following areas:

-          It remains one of the largest divisions (4th largest) in the Academy

-          Quality of the PDW

-          Quality of the main Program

-          Division social and networking

-          Joint AOM-AIB symposium

-          Thought Leadership Café (with leading scholars from other divisions)

-          Division governance

-          Solid financial situation and very good at fund-raising

-          Collegial culture

 

  • Areas for improvement (suggested by survey results):

-          The 5-year membership trends indicate that IM is not growing as rapidly as the Academy as a whole.

-          The division website needs improvement in several areas: (i) more frequent updates to keep it timely; (ii) richer content especially regarding teaching resources; and (iii) enabling creation of online communities with common interests.

-          The division needs to figure out ways to increase member involvement.

-          The division needs to increase the disciplinary relevance and rigor of the papers and sessions in the PDWs and the main program.


  •   Additional new initiatives with high potential to add significant value to the members:

-          Easy-to-Implement: Conduct video interviews with journal editors regarding research in IM domain and post these as podcasts on the IM website.

-          More Difficult-to-Implement: Organize joint IM-BP-OMT and/or IM-OB-HR mini-conferences (on a bi-annual basis?) at a time and location different from the annual meeting.


Analysis of Trends in Membership Data

 

  • Of the 25 divisions and interest groups of the Academy, IM ranks #4 in terms of membership size. In terms of shared membership, IM highest commonality is with the other large divisions of the Academy (see Table 1).


Table 1

Division Rank in Terms of Membership Size

 

 

Division

Membership Size (1/2011)

Shared Membership Between IM and This Division

Total  #

% of IM Members Who  Are Also Members of This Division

1

BPS

5123

1247

44%

2

OB

5950

502

18%

3

OMT

3954

449

16%

4

IM

2833

n.a.

n.a.

5

ODC

2647

237

8%

6

ENT

2581

415

15%

7

TIM

2541

331

12%

 

A very large proportion (44%) of IM members are also members of BPS. In turn, from the BPS perspective, IM is their 2nd largest shared membership division (24% of BPS members are also IM members), second only to OMT (27% of BPS members are also OMT members).

 

     Implications:

-          IM should actively explore joint programming with BPS and OMT.

-          IM should also explore opportunities to deepen ties with some of the other large divisions (especially in the more micro areas such as OB and HR).

 

  • During the last five years (2006-2010), IM membership has grown at a slower pace than for the Academy as a whole. This is true for membership from within as well as outside the US (see Table 2).


Table 2

Membership Size

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

5-Year % ∆

IM Total

2764

2879

2940

2891

2962

+7.16%

AOM Total

16679

17589

18525

18882

19441

+16.56%

IM (US)

1581

1605

1619

1540

1537

-2.8%

AOM (US)

10866

11022

11270

11109

11039

+1.6%

IM (non-US)

1183

1274

1321

1351

1425

+20.5%

AOM (non-US)

6169

6567

7255

7773

8402

+37.0%

 

A likely explanation is that, as globalization has become more widespread and mainstream, new members are more inclined to join the disciplinary divisions rather than IM. This interpretation would reinforce the need for IM to explore more intensively the opportunity for joint programming with some of the other divisions.

 

Key Findings from Division Membership Survey

 

The following observations/conclusions are derived from the results of the member survey administered in Fall 2010 (n=484, 17.1% of total membership). 36% of the respondents indicated IM as their primary division; 40% as one of their two primary divisions; and, 24% as one of their secondary divisions. Thus, the respondents appear to be representative of the membership as a whole.

 

Key Findings from Responses to Multiple Choice Questions:

  • Overall level of satisfaction with membership in IM:

-          Extremely satisfied (13%)

-          Very satisfied (37%)

-          Satisfied (40%)

-          Somewhat satisfied (8%)

-          Not satisfied (2%).

  • The two most important reasons why people belong to IM (numbers indicate the % of respondents indicating this as either the most or the second most important reason):

-          Gain and share information relevant to research (67%)

-          Develop and maintain social relations (45%).

  • Perceived quality of IM  PDWs and Program (relative to other DIGs):

-          High or best quality (55%)

-          Average quality (24%).

  • The two most common “primary reasons” for not attending the annual meeting (when not attending):

-          No funding (52%)

-          No time (48%).

  • Areas of highest satisfaction at the annual meetings:

-          Social and networking opportunities (58%)

-          Overall access to participation in the program (51%)

-          Symposia (43%)

-          Traditional paper/Divisional presentation paper sessions (41%).

  • Areas of lowest satisfaction at the annual meetings:

-          Poster or visual sessions (44%)

-          Divisional roundtable paper sessions (26%)

-          Interactive sessions/cross-divisional  paper sessions (25%)

  • The three most preferred formats as a session presenter:

-          Traditional paper/Divisional presentation paper sessions (55%)

-          Professional Development Workshops – PDWs (46%)

-          Symposia (39%)

  • Areas of highest satisfaction with the division:

-          Fair and open elections (50%)

-          Diversity of program sessions (42%)

-          Efforts to reach out to international members (42%)

  • Areas of lowest satisfaction with the division:

-          Opportunities outside of the annual meeting to network/collaborate with peers (42%)

-          Focus on developing events at times other than the annual meeting (40%)

-          Opportunities to influence the division (36%)

  • Highest  ranking possible new initiatives (ranked “1” or “2” out of “11”):

-          Miniconferences in different regions and countries (31%)

-          Teaching resources (24%)

-          Communities of practice based on common interests (23%)

 

Key Findings from Responses to Open-Ended Questions:

 

  • What do you like best about membership in the IM division?

-          Collegial culture

-          Relationships with fellow division members

-          Division social

-          Symposia and PDWs

-          PDW and show case symposia

-          PDW programs of interest to practitioners and access to newsletter

  • What do you like least about membership in the IM division?

-          Boring paper sessions!

-          Low intellectual ferment

-          Low turn-out at paper sessions

-          IM doesn't try to do anything new outside of what the rest of the AoM conference does.  Successful new ideas at AIB, such as breakfast with the fellows, should be adopted by IM.

-          It is American-centric

-          It seems that status and reputation of IM are not perceived as high as it should be among other divisions at AOM.

-          The fact that, as in this survey, this division could still use the word "international members" to mean "non-US members."

  • What issues should occupy the IM division’s time over the next 5 years?

-          AIB-IMD joint events

-          Meetings in other parts of the world. Travel funding, research funding opportunities for members from outside US and Europe.

-          Integration with AIB

-          Mentoring doctoral students!  Help us become future leaders of the division!  But this is my very biased perspective, of course :-)

-          Getting AOM out of North America; Considering IM-specific mini conference outside of North America

-          Moving outside the normal conference mainstream.  The conference format now downplays the importance of the division at the conference itself.  IM should attempt to think about outside activities beyond the August conference.

-          Increase Quality of Theory Development (workshops)

-          Quality of papers presented

 

  • What can the IM division do tomorrow morning that would increase its effectiveness?

-          More students involvement

-          Put on a mini conference

-          High-quality, mini conferences in different areas

 

  • What do other divisions/interest groups do well that IMD should consider doing?

-          BPS is more proactive - it has more information in its newsletters, and posts are well in advance so members have time to react and get involved.

-          RM division offer practical tools & resources for various methods. We should be able to offer research interest-based network list!

-          Many of the papers in the field are of questionable quality.  Anything, including limiting the number of sessions, that would improve quality would be a great step ahead.

-          BPS seems more active/energized than IM.

-          Research methods, BPS

-          The ENT is great at involving members on their committees and getting them involved in the work of the division.

 

Health and Governance Checklist

Please click here to see the Health and Governance Checklist (in PDF format)

 

Last Updated ( Thursday, 14 July 2011 )