What’s in it for me? Reinvigorating the Spirit of Volunteerism in Management Academia
基于作者多年经验，反思管理学界志愿服务精神衰退的现象，分析供需两端原因，并提出从博士培训、资深学者、机构和期刊层面重建服务文化的行动呼吁。
When we first joined academia about two decades ago, volunteering for service roles felt like a natural extension of the profession and a meaningful acknowledgment of our belonging within it. We vividly recall our early experiences – organizing conferences for the Asia Academy of Management, reviewing manuscripts for conferences and journals, and serving as associate editors – when senior colleagues not only offered guidance but also actively contributed, reviewers promptly accepted assignments, and there was a palpable sense of collective responsibility for nurturing the academic community. At times, these service tasks felt like a distraction from the ‘real work’ of research and teaching. One of us once voiced this concern to a reputed scholar and colleague, who simply smiled and said, ‘If we don’t do it, who will?’ That simple reminder underscored a truth we have carried since: Academia thrives on the collective contributions of its members beyond their immediate interests. Today, however, academia’s collective spirit shows clear signs of strain. As editors-in-chief of leading journals and as leaders of academic associations and conferences, we now struggle to recruit reviewers, conference organizers, and committee members. In journals where we have editorial experience, for example, it often requires extending six to ten reviewer invitations to secure just two acceptances. Similarly, we also faced ongoing challenges in persuading senior scholars to serve as associate editors. Requests for volunteers frequently go unanswered, or they receive polite declines citing time pressures and competing obligations. The ethos of shared responsibility that once animated academia increasingly gives way to a pragmatic calculation: ‘What’s in it for me?’ This cultural shift from a service orientation to one of instrumental calculations troubles us deeply. It raises pressing questions: Who will ensure the academic rigour of our journals? Who will lead our institutions into the future? And what happens when the very structures that sustain our profession begin to erode? In this essay, we draw on our personal experiences over the years to reflect on the gradual decline of volunteerism in academia. We contrast earlier periods when service roles were readily embraced with the current reality of widespread reluctance. We also examine the supply-side factors (declining willingness to serve) and demand-side pressures (growing complexity and volume of academic work) that have produced this crisis. Finally, we offer calls for action, grounded in personal experiences, on how doctoral training, senior scholars, institutions, and journals can help rebuild a culture where academic service is valued and sustained. The growing difficulty in recruiting reviewers, conference organizers, and committee members is not an isolated inconvenience. It reflects a broader crisis facing academia: the gradual erosion of the collective spirit that has long sustained our professional community. In recent years, we have repeatedly seen essential roles remain vacant until multiple requests finally persuade a few willing colleagues to step forward. As conference chairs for the Asia Academy of Management, for instance, recruiting track chairs and reviewers often felt like a game of attrition, with most responses falling into two categories: polite declines citing time constraints or complete silence. These challenges extend across academia, affecting our ability to engage volunteers for mentorship, journal editing, leadership in academic associations, and service roles at the departmental and school levels. This trend raises a pressing concern: Have we shifted too far towards an instrumental view of academic service, seeing it primarily through the lens of personal cost–benefit calculations rather than as a shared professional responsibility? To explore this decline in volunteerism, we next examine both supply-side challenges, where fewer individuals are willing or able to volunteer, and demand-side pressures, where growing institutional and professional expectations place increasing strain on those who do. Historically, volunteerism in academia was driven by a sense of communal responsibility. Scholars saw service roles as part of their professional identity and felt a moral obligation to contribute to the collective advancement of knowledge. Over time, however, the academic culture has gradually shifted towards prioritizing individual achievements measured through publications, citations, and grant funding. As a result, volunteer roles that do not directly contribute to career advancement are often treated as expendable, reducing the pool of high-quality volunteers for essential roles in management academia. Early in our careers, we recall the palpable excitement surrounding the Academy of Management and other major conferences and the eagerness among scholars to review others’ work, not only to contribute but also to learn about the latest research in the field. Reviewing was considered a privilege, a way to engage with cutting-edge ideas while helping shape the discipline. Contrast this with today, when conference organizers struggle to recruit reviewers, and many who do agree provide only cursory feedback. Similar difficulties arise when inviting colleagues to join editorial boards, serve as conference track chairs, or join school committees, reflecting a marked shift in attitudes toward academic service. The hesitation to volunteer stems from not only time pressures but also how academia values service. Service was once seen as a professional duty, a way of ‘paying it forward’. Today, it is often viewed through an instrumental lens that asks, What career benefits does this provide? As junior scholars, we were frequently advised to ‘protect your time; no one will give you tenure for being a good citizen; only publications count’. This counsel stems from the prevailing notion that service contributions hold minimal significance in tenure evaluations, akin to a mere ‘hygiene factor’. With tenure and promotion systems prioritizing research and teaching over service, faculty understandably deprioritize volunteer roles. Our experience serving on multiple tenure and promotion committees confirms this view, as service contributions are often overlooked or treated as peripheral rather than integral to promotion decisions. The commercialization of knowledge production has further accelerated the decline of volunteerism in academia. Some scholars question whether the current structure of academic publishing, where volunteer labour supports commercial operations, remains sustainable. While this concern merits attention, it does not fully explain the broader decline in service participation, which extends to non-commercial academic associations, conferences, and institutional service. Work-life balance concerns and burnout add to the challenge. Hustinx and Lammertyn (2003) observe that burnout and time scarcity are key deterrents to volunteerism. Faculty who already feel overextended may be unwilling or unable to take on additional service commitments, particularly those that demand sustained engagement. Furthermore, the high expectations associated with volunteer roles, such as rigorous peer review standards and conference organization responsibilities, can lead to burnout among existing volunteers, reducing their willingness to continue in these roles or take on new responsibilities. This cycle of burnout and disengagement exacerbates the shortage of volunteers and further strains the system. Work-life constraints affect faculty differently across career stages and personal circumstances. In our own experience as editors and department colleagues, we have observed how academics with significant caregiving responsibilities often face difficult choices between career-advancing activities and time-intensive service commitments. These constraints can limit participation in high-profile service roles, reducing the pipeline of diverse candidates for leadership positions and reinforcing existing inequities in who advances to senior service roles. The decline in volunteerism is not solely a matter of reduced willingness to serve; it also reflects the growing demands placed on those who do step forward. Over the years, we have witnessed how the scale and complexity of academic work have expanded dramatically. Publishing offers a clear illustration. When we began our careers, most journals relied on a single editor-in-chief and a relatively small editorial board. Today, leading journals require multiple editors-in-chief, dozens of associate editors, and a large pool of reviewers simply to keep pace with the volume of submissions. Our editorial experiences suggest that annual submissions to the journals with which we have been involved have grown multi-fold over the past decade. To handle this volume, some journals now require more than 20–30 senior editors. Similarly, other journals have adopted a co-editorship model with three to four co-editors and dozens of associate editors, a scale unimaginable in earlier years. Conference organization has followed a similar trajectory. As conferences have grown in size and scope, they require more track chairs, reviewers, and committee members than ever before. Yet, the expectations for quality have only increased, with demands for rigorous reviews, elaborate conference programs, and professional event management. Specialization within the field adds another layer of complexity. Subfields now require editors, reviewers, and organizers with deep expertise, leaving fewer qualified scholars available for each role. Similar academic roles now require higher qualifications and a deeper level of specialization than in previous decades (Dekker and Halman, 2003). As a result, the same individuals are often asked repeatedly to take on demanding service assignments, creating a cycle of overwork and burnout. Institutional demands have expanded alongside external ones. Business schools increasingly expect faculty to serve on accreditation committees, strategic planning task forces, and internal governance bodies, in addition to meeting research and teaching obligations. These roles are essential for institutional functioning, yet they rarely count towards career advancement and are often perceived as ‘extra’ work rather than as meaningful professional contributions. The cumulative effect is a dramatic rise in the demand for academic services without a corresponding increase in the number of scholars willing or able to meet it. This imbalance intensifies the strain on existing volunteers and accelerates the decline in academic service participation. We contend that the crisis of volunteerism within academia is more than a matter of inconvenience; it threatens the very foundations of our professional community. Without dedicated volunteers to review manuscripts, organize conferences, mentor junior scholars, and lead academic associations, the infrastructure that sustains research, teaching, and scholarly exchange begins to erode. In turn, this erosion of quality and oversight risks diminishing trust in academic outputs and weakening the rigorous standards that have long defined scholarly work. This decline in trust is not a trivial issue; it strikes at the core of academic credibility. Without volunteers to uphold the norms and processes that ensure rigour, the dissemination of reliable knowledge may be compromised. Over time, academia could shift from a collaborative community of scholars to a system where essential work is outsourced, neglected, or performed without the necessary expertise. The gravity of this issue makes it imperative to treat volunteerism not as a peripheral concern but as a central, urgent challenge requiring systemic and sustainable solutions. To restore a culture of volunteerism, we need initiatives that recognize, reward, and embed service contributions within the profession. In the following sections, we outline practical steps to achieve this goal. A key starting point to reinvigorate volunteerism in academia is to embed this value early in the academic journey. Most doctoral programmes we have encountered focus heavily on subject matter, teaching preparation, and publication strategies, but rarely address the broader roles of academics in leadership, service, and institutional citizenship. While emphasizing research and teaching is essential, doctoral training can also provide opportunities to learn about service responsibilities so that junior scholars better understand how such roles sustain the academic community and enrich their professional development. From our experiences of mentoring doctoral students across multiple institutions, we have seen how early exposure to service roles can shape attitudes towards volunteerism. For example, at one institution, PhD students were invited to assist in organizing a doctoral consortium, gaining first-hand experience in coordinating reviewers, managing submissions, and planning sessions. At another, faculty mentors involved doctoral students as co-reviewers for journal manuscripts, walking them through the process of writing constructive, developmental reviews. In both cases, students felt more connected to the profession and more willing to take on such responsibilities in future. Several institutions now use peer mentoring, with senior PhD students helping new entrants transition into academic life. While valuable, this approach carries the risk that senior students may unintentionally downplay the importance of service if they themselves lack adequate training or have not internalized the spirit of volunteerism. Beyond creating awareness, doctoral programmes also need to equip students with the practical skills required for service roles. Workshops on academic reviewing and opportunities to shadow faculty in important service assignments can give doctoral students the confidence and tools to engage effectively. Some programs already integrate professional development seminars on academic citizenship into their curricula, but such efforts remain the exception rather than the norm. Institutionalizing these practices would cultivate a sense of responsibility towards academic service early in scholars’ careers, ensuring a stronger and more sustainable pipeline of volunteers for the future. Senior academics play a pivotal role in shaping the values and norms of our profession. Throughout our careers, we have observed how their attitudes towards service strongly influence junior colleagues. When senior scholars embrace volunteerism, they signal that service is not only a professional obligation but also an opportunity for intellectual growth, networking, and contributing to the discipline’s future. We recall several instances where senior colleagues invited us to co-organize conference tracks, co-review journal manuscripts, or take on other important assignments early in our careers, while ensuring that we were not overburdened with service responsibilities at the expense of research and teaching. For example, the first author, even as an untenured faculty member, was mentored by an editor-in-chief, first as a reviewer, then as a senior editor, before taking on more challenging roles. Such mentorship provided practical exposure to service work while also demonstrating that these contributions were valued and professionally meaningful. These experiences left a lasting impression on us and shaped our own approach to mentoring doctoral students and junior faculty. Equally important, senior academics can guide junior colleagues in balancing service commitments with research productivity, emphasizing that service is a long-term professional responsibility rather than a short-term obligation. At the same time, they must avoid behaviours that discourage or alienate junior scholars, such as imposing authority in ways that silence diverse perspectives, allowing personal biases to shape mentoring relationships, or hoarding service opportunities that could help develop the next generation of academic citizens. By providing guidance, opportunities, and advocacy, senior academics help foster a culture where volunteerism is viewed as both expected and integral to academic life. While the spirit of volunteerism rests on intrinsic motivation, the reality of modern academia requires us to consider how service contributions can be better supported and recognized. Volunteerism in academia should be understood as contributions made beyond contractual obligations, motivated by a commitment to advancing the profession rather than by career rewards. Providing institutional recognition does not diminish its value; rather, it ensures that service work is not overlooked or undervalued. Business schools and universities can take several steps to strengthen this recognition. Incorporating service explicitly into annual workload models and promotion criteria signals that such contributions matter for career progression. Transparent criteria for evaluating service contributions can reinforce the idea that these roles are integral to academic excellence. For example, allocating workload credits for demanding editorial roles or major conference assignments would acknowledge the time and expertise these responsibilities require. Similarly, highlighting service accomplishments in annual faculty evaluations or awards can elevate their status within the profession. We see encouraging signs of change, such as junior faculty increasingly seeking opportunities to join editorial review boards when institutions value such service, and some universities beginning to explicitly recognize collegiality and academic citizenship in annual performance reviews. Journals and academic associations also have a role to play. Some already publish annual lists of outstanding reviewers or provide certificates for exemplary editorial service. Others organize professional development workshops for reviewers and editors, helping volunteers build skills that carry over into their research and teaching roles. Such practices not only recognize contributions but also foster a sense of community among those who sustain the profession through volunteer work. Yet, many editors and reviewers continue to face limited resources and administrative support, contributing to burnout and reluctance to serve. Publishers can help address these challenges by offering training, dedicated administrative assistance, and professional development opportunities for editors and editorial board members, thereby strengthening the infrastructure that underpins academic volunteerism. It is worth acknowledging that some of these initiatives have already found a place within business academia. For instance, many institutions offer explicit rewards for substantial service contributions, such as reductions in teaching loads. Yet, such efforts remain sporadic and uneven rather than systematically integrated into the academic reward structure. Ultimately, the goal is not to instrumentalize academic service but to ensure that volunteer contributions receive the visibility, respect, and institutional support they deserve. Recognition systems, when designed carefully, can help rebuild a culture where service is viewed as both a professional responsibility and a valued scholarly contribution. The future of academia depends on more than the production of knowledge; it relies on the willingness of scholars to sustain the institutions, networks, and practices that make knowledge creation possible. Volunteerism is the invisible infrastructure holding our profession together. When it falters, the very norms of rigour, mentorship, and community risk unravel. Rebuilding this culture is not about nostalgia for the past but about reimagining academic life for an evolving world. It calls for creativity in designing reward systems, courage in challenging the narrow definitions of academic success, and commitment from scholars at every career stage to see service not as a burden but as a shared responsibility. The real measure of success will not be in the number of workshops offered or awards created but in whether we leave behind a profession where the next generation instinctively values service as part of their scholarly identity. That transformation begins with deliberate choices today; choices that affirm academic life as a collective endeavour rather than an individual pursuit. So, when the next request for service comes, instead of asking What’s in it for me? We should ask: What happens if we don’t? The future of academia depends on our answer. None.