2008 Survey Results


Published on

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2008 Survey Results

  1. 1. Results of the 2008 Academy of Management Survey Jimmy Le Program Manager November 21, 2008
  2. 2. Overview of the 2008 Meeting <ul><li>9,572 people attended the Anaheim meeting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>7,569 primary registrants;1,460 guests </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1,145 survey respondents (15% response rate) </li></ul>
  3. 3. What Meetings did you Attend? Sessions you attended at least once (check all that apply) Note – question asked only if attended “at least once”
  4. 4. Overall Satisfaction w/ Meetings Percentage Rating Sessions as “ Very Good ” or “ Excellent ” * 2005 number does not include consortia. In 2005, 82% rated consortia as “very good” or “excellent.”
  5. 5. Kiosks <ul><li>Conclusion: Kiosks were a big success! </li></ul><ul><li>Over 46% used Kiosk to register (3,570 out of 7,732) </li></ul><ul><li>Most were very satisfied (see chart) </li></ul><ul><li>For people that chose not to use: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ I prefer face-to-face interaction ” (42%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Didn’t know about kiosks ” (23%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ There was no line at the regular registration ” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ I needed to go to the regular registration to p/u program materials (program, bag, CD) ” </li></ul></ul>% indicating “ agree ” or “ strongly agree ”: Can program materials be placed at the kiosks?
  6. 6. Housing Bureau <ul><li>Conclusion: People are of two minds </li></ul><ul><li>Over 61% booked hotel through housing bureau (4,753 out of 7,732) </li></ul><ul><li>Write-ins (374) either loved or hated: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Please add more of the discounted rooms – they sold out too quickly (as they do every year) ” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ I found a better deal myself (using Expedia) ” </li></ul></ul>Criteria used to choose your hotel (% indicating criteria as “ Important ” or “ Very Important ”):
  7. 7. Primary Reason for Attending… “ What was your primary reason for attending the 2007 AoM meeting in Philadelphia? ” … is to present
  8. 8. Exhibits Area <ul><li>Reasons people went to exhibits area: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>70% went because interested in buying books </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>47% to use the internet café </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Those who didn’t attend said “ Not interested in purchasing books at this time ” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>110 write-ins (“ Not interested ” was the most common reason given) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>However, this was not one of the options given to respondents (add in the future) </li></ul></ul>Reasons listed for not attending exhibits:
  9. 9. Community Interests What types of meetings would you be interested in attending in the future?
  10. 10. 2007 Meeting Logistics Percentage indicating “ agree” or “ strongly agree” with the following statements:
  11. 11. Miscellaneous… <ul><li>The vast majority (75%) brought a laptop </li></ul><ul><ul><li>33% to work on their presentation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>54% for other work-related use </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Over two-thirds (68%) felt there was adequate time between sessions </li></ul><ul><li>Nearly all (88%) would choose to attend a session by their division over an All-Academy session (if schedule conflicted)* </li></ul>* Question read, “ If the two were scheduled concurrently, would you be more likely to attend a session by your division / interest group or an All-Academy Session? (e.g. All-Academy Symposia, Interactive paper session, visual paper, and caucuses) ”
  12. 12. Conclusions & Observations - I <ul><li>I think it makes sense to conduct an exit survey every year </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Past surveys conducted in 2001, 2005, 2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>While some questions may vary by year (e.g. ascertaining success of kiosks), some consistent questions would be useful for measuring year-over-year trends </li></ul><ul><li>I found the open-ended responses (from both 2005 & 2007) to be very helpful </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consider using them more (both on specific issues and overall satisfaction) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ If you could change one thing about the AoM meeting, what would it be? ” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Is there anything else you would like us to know? ” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Please ask for demographic data in the future </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gender </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In 2005, 55% men, 45% women </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>US vs International </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In 2005, 67% US, 17% Europe, 5% Canada, 5% Australia, 5% Asia / SE Asia </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Type of university (teaching vs research) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In 2005, 50% faculty from research univ., 18% from teaching univ., 21% PhD students </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Breaking out faculty between junior and senior would be useful as well </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Conclusions & Observations - II <ul><li>Though only 5% mentioned “job placement” as their primary reason to attend, several write-ins mentioned “recruiting” as one of their objectives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Would be useful to have some questions regarding satisfaction with the AoM job placement / recruiting services (website, registration, venue, overall process, etc) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What % of faculty / students used job placement services at AoM? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What % of new faculty found their job through AoM placement? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions ( [email_address] or 214-405-2953) </li></ul><ul><li>Thank you! </li></ul>
  14. 14. Backup Slides
  15. 15. Overall Satisfaction w/ Meetings Percentage Rating Sessions as “ Very Good ” or “ Excellent ” 82% (2005) 80% (2005) 67% (2005) 73% (2005) 49% (2005) 50% (2005) 59% (2005) Numbers from 2005