Program Committee Goals and Progress Report Form
Committee Chair Name: Tammy Allen
Date: March 31, 2007
ï¯ Goals Report
x Progress Report
Committee members, email addresses, and subcommittee assignment
Olson-Buchanan, Julie email@example.com Correspondence Review
(Past Program Chair)
Beal, Daniel (Dan) firstname.lastname@example.org Invited Sessions
Duffy, Michelle email@example.com Invited Sessions
Krauss, Autumn firstname.lastname@example.org Invited Sessions
Kudisch, Jeff email@example.com Invited Sessions
Lima, Lizzette firstname.lastname@example.org Invited Sessions
Rupp, Deborah email@example.com Invited Sessions, Chair
Chernyshenko, Sasha firstname.lastname@example.org IP/COI/CE
Day, Rachel RDay@air.org IP/COI/CE
LeBreton, James email@example.com IP/COI/CE
Skinner, Jolene Jolene.Skinner@isrinsight.com IP/COI/CE
Stark, Steve firstname.lastname@example.org IP/COI/CE
Baltes, Boris email@example.com IP/COI/CE, Chair
Casper, Wendy firstname.lastname@example.org Proposals/Flanagan
Lankau, Melenie email@example.com Proposals/Flanagan
Poteet, Mark firstname.lastname@example.org Proposals/Flanagan
Eby, Lillian email@example.com Proposals/Flanagan, Chair
Facteau, Jeff firstname.lastname@example.org Reviewing Process
Finkelstein, Lisa email@example.com Reviewing Process
Lapierre, Laurent firstname.lastname@example.org Reviewing Process
Boswell, Wendy email@example.com Reviewing Process, Chair
Gruys, Melissa firstname.lastname@example.org Sunday Seminars
Kello, John email@example.com Sunday Seminars
Lundby, Kyle firstname.lastname@example.org Sunday Seminars
Penney, Lisa Lisa.Penney@mail.uh.edu Sunday Seminars
Rogelberg, Steven email@example.com Sunday Seminars, Chair (& Program Chair-In-Training)
Bruck, Carly firstname.lastname@example.org Sunday Theme
Bulger, Carrie Carrie.Bulger@quinnipiac.edu Sunday Theme
Wang, Mo email@example.com Sunday Theme
Payne, Stephanie firstname.lastname@example.org Sunday Theme, Chair
O’Brien, Kimberly email@example.com Graduate Student Assistant to the Chair
Program Goals and Progress to Date
1. Continue to improve program formats.
A. Modify the Call for Proposals incorporating feedback from previous program chair.
Complete. Lillian Eby and the Call subcommittee thoroughly reviewed the existing call and incorporated suggestions from Julie Olson-Buchanan based on 2006.
Major changes made to the call include:
- Diversity of affiliations requirement applied to practice forums as well as to symposia
- Content areas reviewed, modified and updated
- Clarification of “Rule of Three” guideline
- Required CVs and learning objectives to be included with Master Tutorial submissions
- Submitters provided opportunity to indicate if they want their submission automatically considered by APA (applicable to Posters, Symposia or Roundtable) if it not accepted by SIOP
- Link provided to sign up to review at end of submission
B. Review comments from the recent SIOP member survey for suggestions and ideas on how the program can be improved.
Complete. Kim O’Brien (USF doctoral student) completed a content analysis of all open-ended comments pertaining to the SIOP program. Themes such as the desire for more speakers outside of SIOP were incorporated into invited sessions. The content analysis results were shared with the Conference Chair and the Future Program Task Force.
C. Evaluate the success of the adjustments made to the Community of Interest sessions.
COI subcommittee Chair, Boris Baltes, collected feedback from the 2006 COI conference subcommittee chair. Here is his report:
The turnout was much better then last year with 162 people attending the 11 sessions. However, there was quite a bit of variation with some sessions attracting 30 people and 3 sessions not attracting anyone. The successful sessions were all pre-defined (3 emerging topics sessions were not pre-defined) and the two most attended (Executive Development and Executive Talent) were based on the main topics of the Fall consortium. Providing beverages seemed to help attendance as well.
1) Need a room with better foot traffic (the room this year was totally separated from the rest of the conference).
2) Try and keep the sessions between 10:30 and 4:00 if possible.
3) Make sure “known” facilitators are used. Best attended sessions had better known facilitators (for the most part).
Actions for 2007:
- It was decided to not use the emerging topics sessions for 2007. All sessions are predefined and appear on the program schedule.
- The room designated for COI sessions is amongst other sessions so there should be no “foot traffic” problem.
- An article was written for January TIP helping to highlight these sessions.
- The final set of COI sessions and facilitators for the 2007 conference are listed below:
The sessions for this year are:
- Session 12: Issues in IRT, Friday 10:30-11:20 (Facilitators: Oleksandr Chernyshenko, University of Canterbury and Stephen Stark, University of South Florida)
- Session 28: Issues in Multilevel Research, Friday 11:30-12:20 (Facilitators: Gilad Chen, University of Maryland and Robert E. Ployhart, University of South Carolina)
- Session 49: Cross-Cultural Research, Friday 12:30-1:20 (Facilitators: Deanne N. Den Hartog, University of Amsterdam and Marcus W. Dickson, Wayne State University)
- Session 62: Collaborating on International Practice: Connecting U.S. and International I-O, Friday 1:30-2:20 (Facilitators: Pauline Velez, San Francisco State University and William C. Byham, Development Dimensions International)
- Session 87: Work-Family Interface, Friday 3:30-4:20 (Facilitators: Ellen E. Kossek, Michigan State University)
- Session 112: Executive Assessment: The Role of Assessment "Tools" in EA, Friday 5:00-5:50 (Facilitators: P. Richard Jeanneret, Valtera and Robert F. Silzer, Human Resource Assessment & Development)
- Session 129: Entry Level Selection, Saturday 8:00-8:50 (Facilitators: John D. Arnold, Polaris Assessment Systems, Kirk L. Rogg, Aon Consulting, and Thomas D. Heetderks, Yum Brands)
- Session 145: Conditional Reasoning, Saturday 9:00-9:50 (Facilitators: Lawrence R. James, Georgia Tech and James M. LeBreton, Purdue University)
- Session 172: Organizational Justice, Saturday 11:00-11:50 (Facilitators: Jason A. Colquitt, University of Florida)
- Session 181: Aging and Industrial-Organizational Psychology: Current and Future Issues, Saturday 12:00-12:50 (Facilitators: Suzanne M. Miklos, O.E. Strategies, Inc. and Harvey L. Sterns, University of Akron)
- Session 200: Leadership Talent Management (Leading Edge), Saturday 1:00-1:50 (Facilitators: Robert B. Kaiser, Kaplan DeVries Inc., Robert E. Kaplan, Kaplan DeVries, Inc., and Cynthia D. McCauley, Center for Creative Leadership)
- Session 218: The Science and Practice of Mentoring, Saturday 2:00-2:50(Facilitators: Tammy D. Allen, University of South Florida and Mariangela Battista, Starwood Hotels & Resorts)
Sessions 62, 181, 218 include an academic facilitator paired with a practice facilitator (note: addresses SIOP strategic goal 4).
D. Make an effort to bring in speakers from outside of I-O psychology.
Several of our invited sessions feature speakers from outside of I-O psychology. Speakers for our globalization sessions on Sunday include Randall Schuler from the global strategic human resource management area, Brian Glade who is SHRM's Vice President of International Programs and Dominick Salvatore, a leading economist.
The regular program invited speakers from outside SIOP include Rashaun Roberts from NIOSH and Tima Bansal who will do a session on corporate citizenship.
Credit goes to Sunday Theme subcommittee chair Stephanie Payne and Invited Sessions subcommittee chair Deborah Rupp for their hard work pursuing outside speakers.
In order to make SIOP members more aware of these special sessions, an article was written for the January TIP and notification is provided at the conference website.
2. Continue to improve the submission process.
A. Review the website and make suggestions for improvement as needed.
Done in conjunction with changes to the Call for Proposals.
B. Review existing content areas and make changes as needed.
Done in conjunction with changes to the Call for Proposals.
3. Continue to improve the review process.
A. Examine the criteria used to determine who is an expert reviewer and continue efforts to increase numbers.
This has been completed. Wendy Boswell and her Review Process subcommittee discussed the issue of how expert reviewers should be identified. Additional discussion with the program committee and with Larry Nader from a system programming perspective have resulted in a weighting system of the existing criteria being implemented with a cut score of >12 determining expert status. This system appears to yield a greater number of experts from the reviewer pool.
B. Review and consider changes to the existing rating form.
Completed. Minor changes have been made to the rating form. We have also implemented a new process to recognize submissions that should be not be accepted due to violation of the diversity of affiliation and word limit guidelines.
C. Review how rating data is used to make acceptance decisions and modify if needed.
Done. It was determined that no changes need to be made. We will continue to weight all rating categories equally.
D. Refine content categories (see 2B).
Done – see above
E. Review and revise reviewer guidelines and emails as needed.
F. Brainstorm ideas for recognizing reviewers.
Completed. Reviewers will be asked to stand at the plenary session.
G. Continue efforts to increase or at least maintain number of existing reviewers.
Completed. Several efforts have been implemented to address this goal.
- An incentive to review (and a reward) has been added by including all reviewers in a raffle for SIOP prizes. This information was conveyed in the initial reviewer recruitment letter.
- Additional recruitment efforts such as personal contacts are underway by the Review Process subcommittee.
- A link was added at the end of the submission process that takes submitters directly to the sign up to review page. This serves as another reminder to review.
4. Explore ways to further improve the scheduling process.
A. Expand meeting time in Tampa with past and incoming program chair from 2.5 days to 3.0 days
The Tampa scheduling meeting was planned and held accordingly.
B. Continue to identify ways to minimize content overlap during the scheduling process.
We worked very hard during the scheduling process to reduce content overlap. It should be noted that some content areas such as selection and leadership have so many sessions on the program that content overlap is inevitable. Overall members should find a variety of content choices available for sessions at any given time on the program.
5. Identify ways to align program with SIOP’s strategic goals.
A. Use invited sessions and Sunday themed sessions as mechanisms to further strategic goals.
6. Develop written documentation designed to aid future program chairs and create a history of program activities.
A. Continue to work on initial timeline document provided by past program chair.
Done. The final version has been sent to the incoming Chair.
B. Ask subcommittee chairs to provide final summaries of their activities for the year and tips for the following year that can be passed on.
Subcommittee chairs have been asked to provide a brief report at the end of the program year. These reports will be provided to the incoming Chair.
Strategic Planning Goals: (Please highlight committee goals related to the advocacy of SIOP’s Strategic Planning Goals)
1. Goal with brief description: Use invited sessions and Sunday themed sessions as mechanisms to further strategic goals.
- The Sunday Theme for the 2007 conference is Globalization. This theme and the sessions developed around it can help facilitate the exchange of ideas between I-O professionals around the globe (strategic goal 4).
- One of the invited sessions in development is a panel discussion involving scientists and practitioners (strategic goal 4).
- One of our invited speakers is a VP from SHRM. This fits with our globalization theme and also represents outreach to related organizations (strategic goal 1).
- Other speakers are from NIOSH and from the economics discipline (strategic goal 1)
Note: Sessions accepted outside of the regular review process reviewed with strategic planning goals as criteria. The accepted sessions address strategic goals 1 and 2.
2. Goal: Overall goal of program is have an organized and high quality program
Action: All actions are geared toward this objective, which addresses strategic goal 3. An interesting, high quality program should enhance members’ enjoyment and satisfaction with SIOP membership.
Updates or Comments From Chair:
Preparations for 2008: Last year’s Program Chair, Julie Olson-Buchanan and I have worked closely with the incoming Program Chair in preparing documentation for the development of a new application to handle the electronic submission process. We are hopeful that the new system will eliminate/reduce many of the difficulties currently experienced with the assignment of reviewers and the scheduling of the program. We have also worked closely on the Future Advancement of the Conference Program Task Force and the document prepared for the Executive Committee. Many of these suggested changes should result in an improved program that serves the needs of our members.