Home Home | About Us | Sitemap | Contact  
  • Info For
  • Professionals
  • Students
  • Educators
  • Media
  • Search
    Powered By Google

Minutes of the Winter 2009 Executive Committee Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

February 6-7, 2009
New Orleans, Louisiana

Members Present: Tammy Allen, Talya Bauer, Jose Cortina, Deirdre Knapp, Kurt Kraiger, Gary Latham, Ed Locke, David Nershi, Ken Pearlman, Lois Tetrick, Donald Truxillo, Suzanne Tsacoumis, Howard Weiss.


President Latham called the meeting to order at 4:32 p.m. President Latham then turned the floor to Ann Howard. Executive Session for discussion and decisions of fellowship committee recommendations.

Motion by Dr. Cortina to approve the Fellowship Committee’s recommendations, except for one nominee, of whom the Executive Committee asked the Fellowship Committee to reconsider. Motion seconded by Dr. Locke. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Motion passed
to approve of the fellowship committee’s recommendations, except for one nominee.
Dr. Kraiger announced the newly elected SIOP officers.
Executive Committee:
·       President Kurt Kraiger
·       Past President Gary Latham
·       President-Elect Eduardo Salas
·       Financial Officer/ Secretary Mort McPhail
·       Doug Reynolds-Communications Officer
·       Scott Highhouse-Publication Officer
·       Lise Saari-Membership Services Officer
·       Cristina Banks-Professional Practice Officer
·       Jim Outtz -Instructional and Educational Officer position
·       Suzanne Tsacoumis -Conference and Programs Officer
·       Donald Truxillo -External Relations Officer
·       Tammy Allen-Research and Science Officer

Dr. Kraiger also noted the change of the executive committee’s name to the executive board beginning at the Annual Conference and explained that though Jeff Stanton’s name was inadvertently left off the ballot for financial officer the first day of the elections, it did not affect the results of the election and there will be no special ballot. Dr. Kraiger explained his plan for committee members to gain a clear view of their roles through orientation materials on their positions. Dr. Kraiger will send materials as well as an e-mail to all officers making sure they know their role so they are ready in April. This is especially important in light of the changes to the Executive Committee.
Dr. Pearlman asked why the president-elect did not attend the meeting, as the executive committee had discussed at the October meeting. Mr. Nershi said he would look into it.
We may need to close the election in December so that the president-elect can attend future winter meetings. Dr. Cortina asked if Dr. Kraiger has thought about the connection between the publications officer and the publications board President Latham is putting together. Dr. Kraiger said no. Mr. Nershi said there was discussion that the publications chair would serve on the publications board. Dr. Cortina said that it is not clear what the Publications Officer would do apart from the publications board. Dr. Kraiger explained that the idea for the board was created after the Executive Committee went through the process of developing the portfolio positions and that this is something the group needs figure out.


Dr. Cortina moved to accept the minutes of the October 2008 meeting. Dr. Bauer seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: October 2008 executive committee meeting minutes approved.

Motion made by Dr. Kraiger to accept the consent agenda. Motion seconded by Dr. Bauer. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Consent agenda accepted.

Leading Edge Consortium. Dr. Tetrick stated that the co-chairs of the 2009 LEC are Ann Marie Ryan and Tanya Delany. The topic is selection and assessment in a global setting. Most of the presentations are outlined and they are trying to identify speakers. The chairs are considering changes to the format, such as more face time, open discussion time, and sessions spread out more across the day and a half. 

Dr. Locke asked if there is there a way to control SIOP’s cost risk, given the finances. Mr. Nershi said SIOP has a contract with the hotel, which has to continue, but we have been conservative with room counts and other things and can still scale back on receptions. Dr. Locke recommended that we look at the worst-case scenario. Mr. Nershi said that because the LEC is such a small session, there is not much to worry about. Denver is easily accessible and there are already sponsors lined up for the event. Mr. Nershi stated the 2010 leading Edge Consortium will be held in Tampa, Florida, chaired by President Latham. The topic has not yet been determined.
Conference Update.Mr. Nershi stated future SIOP Annual Conference locations have been selected through 2016: Honolulu in 2014, Philadelphia in 2015, and Anaheim in 2016.

Dr. Truxillo stated his concern that the Hawaii location would reduce attendance. He said he is more concerned by the proposed structure of the conference than the location, however, as the schedule has been proposed by the site selection chair to begin around 7 a.m. and end at 1 p.m. Mr. Nershi said this earlier schedule was just a suggestion because people want free time in the afternoon. Dr. Truxillo said it also concerns him that there would be only six hours of programming, which would mean less people accepted to present at the conference and less people attending. Mr. Nershi said we might decide not to end the days that early and that decision would be made by the conference and program chairs. Because the site is a convention center, holding more sessions at once would also be a possibility.
Dr. Weiss asked what percentage of conference attendees are students. Mr. Nershi said 25-30 percent. Mr. Nershi acknowledged that the Hawaii site might deter students, but said the location may attract more people since it is viewed as a vacation destination. Dr. Weiss asked Mr. Nershi if he expects the registration numbers to be about the same. Mr. Nershi said students will probably drop off, but the location should, in general, attract more people.
Dr. Truxillo said he is concerned about the hotel being not being self-contained or alternatively feeling too closed-off from the rest of the city. Dr. Locke commented that inflation after the recession would also hurt conference attendance. Dr. Locke asked how we protect ourselves from this. Mr. Nershi said there are clauses in the hotel contract to protect us. Although room rates are locked, they can change the other aspects such as food and activities.

Meeting adjourned by President Latham at 6:30 p.m.
Meeting called to order by President Latham at 8:00 a.m.


Publication Board.
Dr. Cortina was asked to put together a set of guidelines intended to establish procedures for selecting editors and for managing SIOP publications. He provided a report entitled, “Publications and Publication Board Procedures” detailing the guidelines he and a small group of past editors of various journals developed.

President Latham asked Dr. Cortina to summarize where the committee stands. Dr. Cortina said he will spell out what needs to be included in vision statements and ask the members of the committee to decide how different that needs to be. The committee discussed various editor terms and their rationales for a certain length of time. Dr. Kraiger asked if the book series editors could have a five-year commitment where the last year of one overlaps with the first year of the next chair. He asked if TIP is different because it’s not treated as a publication but as a committee. Would we have to change the administrative manual or the bylaws to change TIP from a committee to a publication? Mr. Nershi said he thinks an editor could still be appointed through this process and have a committee. Dr. Cortina said the reality is that it’s still going to be an appointed position, but now there will be this process. Dr. Kraiger noted that they would be creating a separate position that says the appointment goes through this committee when it says in the bylaws that the president-elect appoints them.
Dr. Cortina said that as it is now, the publications board only has a few weeks to go over the materials and choose an editor. He asked the feeling of the group in regard to length of term for the series editors. Dr. Pearlman suggested five years.
Motion made by Dr. Tetrick to approve publication policy report drafted by Dr. Cortina and committee, pending revisions per the discussion and have the administrative manual modified to reflect the changes. Dr. Kraiger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Publications and Publications Board Procedures report accepted, pending revisions per discussion of committee and revisions to administrative manual to reflect the changes, accepted.

Response to Practitioners Survey Recommendations. President Latham noted the results were presented in three installments of TIP. He asked Drs. Knapp and Tsacoumis to take a look at Rob Silzer’s survey as well as Marketing General’s suggestions. He also asked Deb Cohen and Joan Brannick to look at it and come up with three to five key things they want us to do.

Dr. Pearlman made a chart to distill Marketing General’s survey results, taking into account others’ suggestions. Practitioner recognition is an area that can be expanded upon in the survey results. Dr. Pearlman noted much of the ideas are an extension of what is already going on in SIOP, but asked if the committee could prioritize what can be done now.

Dr. Kraiger explained that the work he wants to do with the Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) encompasses much of what’s on the Marketing General survey. The ECC’s working on a Microsite/blog, the SIOP Exchange, that is visible by anyone and will be a way for SIOP members and nonmembers to communicate on I-O issues. Only members can write posts for the site unless cleared through the ECC, and there would be regular posting of new blogs/topics. The idea is to stimulate discussion of topics and engage in dialogue. Dr. Tetrick noted this will be a great avenue for state affairs.

Dr. Kraiger said a lot of what is on the list of practitioner needs is also about resources. He suggested using Wiki technology to create different types of sites that would serve different communities within SIOP. Dr. Pearlman asked how the idea of the practitioner Microsite overlaps with the current Microsite. He asked if we can just include something specifically for practitioners on the current Microsite or if there should be a practitioner section on the SIOP Web site. He asked if this would create division between academics and practitioners. Dr. Kraiger said it is about content. There would just be specific places for specific content that practitioners would be looking for. Mr. Nershi asked if this would mean creating a separate Wiki from the Microsite and Dr. Kraiger said it would because one would be for information and one for discussion. Dr. Kraiger also suggested online resources for key articles that would provide a direct feed to members of journal article summaries, popular books, etc. Members would subscribe and every month receive in their inbox articles, journals, etc. This would be a service. Many companies use something like this already. Dr. Locke said conceptual organization is going to be very important. Also you have the problem of conceptual overload. We don’t want people to get a thousand articles and just say, I don’t want that many articles. Dr. Kraiger said this would be a paid service. It is offered to companies already and he is in the process of finding out if SIOP can get it.

Discussion ensued regarding what SIOP currently offers practitioners and why the dissatisfaction remains. Practitioners are well represented, but you don’t see the practitioners getting the awards. What they want is some sort of mechanism for recognition. How does a practitioner who is working at a company doing good work get recognized? The company people used to be earning awards as much as the academics, but that’s not true anymore. Dr. Locke asked if we have a practitioner award now. Dr. Bauer said yes, but just one. Dr. Knapp said the problem is seen in the early career contribution award. The statement of criteria refers to practice, but the committee looks at the publication amount. Dr. Locke asked why we don’t have two separate early career awards. Dr. Tetrick said she thinks some of the problem is that there is not a lot of visibility to what SIOP is doing for practitioners. Mr. Nershi noted that the Leading Edge reception at the conference could easily be a practitioner networking reception. However, the committee must ask whether they want something that is dividing people.

Dr. Locke asked what percentage of submissions to the conference are practitioners. Drs. Kraiger and Bauer said that, without posters, more than half the publications are practitioners. Dr. Kraiger said a lot of the problem is that practitioners think the Society provides more to academics and academics think the Society provides more to practitioners. Dr. Weiss agreed, saying that the Leading Edge Consortium and programming committee are examples of practitioner activities. Dr. Truxillo said this happened a few years ago when academics said the Society was becoming to practice-oriented.

Dr. Bauer said one thing that is highly visible is awards. President Latham asked if we could have the practitioners come up with a “practitioners of the year” award. Dr. Bauer suggested a separate award for early career contribution. Several members commented on the fact that they do not want to promote a divide between academics and practitioners, but Dr. Kraiger said that SIOP has been trying to push the two groups together for several years now and it hasn’t work. Dr. Weiss agreed and said there is no reason not to have separate awards. Dr. Pearlman said the sore spot seems to be recognition. Speaking as a practitioner, he said he is happy with what SIOP does, but that’s not to say it can’t do better. He said there is a built-in bias in the early career award and the fellowship criteria against practitioners because it is difficult to document what they do. Dr. Locke suggested changing the guidelines for how to write a practitioner letter for fellow. Dr. Weiss suggested the Fellowship Committee look at how practitioner-oriented organizations award Fellows to see what criteria they look for. Dr. Knapp suggested a push to get practitioners to post tools on the SIOP website so when they are putting together their package for an award, they can refer to something that is documented.

Dr. Pearlman said he would like to see the SIOP website work raised to a cabinet-level position because a lot of what the committee is saying can be tied into the website. Dr. Bauer said they also need to think of who will own the improvements and activities. For example, SIOP doesn’t have a Wikipedia page. She thinks someone put something up and it got deleted. Someone was going to do something. Nothing happened. She said she believes the problem is that they don’t have someone who owns it. Mr. Nershi stated that there is a complete website revision in process that will be complete within the next thirty days. It will help organize the website.

President Latham stated that the committee endorsed a survey on practitioners and that they are responsible to respond to it. Dr. Tetrick said she has heard people ask what they are doing with the survey. Dr. Weiss said there are two dimensions: recognition and relevance. SIOP is doing a lot of things that are relevant to practitioner needs but could be better at recognition. 
Dr. Pearlman noted that things are tough and probably will get tougher. SIOP needs to be conscious of belt tightening. We will know more after the conference. Conference income is about sixty percent of SIOP’s total income. Registration attendance is projected to be about 11-15 percent lower this year. Sponsorship is down 35 percent. Workshops are down 25 percent. We built in a budget shortfall of about $30,000 dollars, but things are looking worse. We might be looking at a shortfall in the $300,000 dollar range.

Mr. Nershi said the conference is early this year. Typically, the early registration deadline is Feb. 28; this year it’s the fifteenth. Registration is still about 11 percent behind, maybe more based on reports from last year. People are coming in later and leaving earlier. The number of reservations is now 16 percent less than what was projected. It has really affected the workshops. People are coming Thursday as opposed to Tuesday for the workshops. They are going to the seminars instead because they are cheaper. Our sponsorship is also down in booth sales. People are cutting back, but we are not as bad as other groups. The National Auto Dealers Association attendance is down 60 percent.

Dr. Pearlman said that anecdotally we know everyone is experiencing similar problems. APA has been showing a decline in membership, while SIOP has actually shown an increase in membership. Dr. Pearlman said we are looking at a potentially fairly large deficit. There is no question there will be a loss, the question is how to limit it. If there are things we can do to save, we will do it. The situation is bad but not dire. We still have a fairly large reserve fund. We have almost a year of operating expenses, most societies only have 3-6 months worth. The downside is that about sixty percent of that was in mutual funds. We are down about 38 percent. That was mitigated by the fact that we have a lot of money in bonds. We have about $1.46 million in assets right now. We can withstand a significant shortfall for a while, it’s not desperation, but we need to weather the storm, we are hoping we won’t have to tap any of those funds right now and lose money. We are trying to be conservative. We don’t want to liquidate stocks and lock in our losses. Sitting tight might make sense. We will confer with the financial manager to get recommendations.

Dr. Kraiger asked if we hit our room block at the Sheraton. Mr. Nershi said yes, but we have another block at the Marriott. Dr. Kraiger asked what penalties we would pay if we didn’t fill the rooms. Mr. Nershi said we would pay an attrition penalty. We have to fill up 80 percent of the rooms or pay for those room nights not sold. But we aren’t that bad. Mr. Nershi said there is also a food and beverage minimum. We have to pay a certain amount, but if attendance goes down we can scale down. We are good at the Sheraton right now because the room space is free if you hit your 80 percent occupancy, which we have done. There is some risk at the Marriot, but we look good. The biggest risk is loss of income from workshops, cancellations, etc.
Dr. Pearlman said that starting in January a lot of companies and schools clamped down on travel budgets. Even some presenters want to phone in their presentations. President Latham said SHRM is having the same concerns. They are sending e-mails to members showing why this is the conference you can’t miss. Maybe in the next few weeks we can come up with something similar to take to a dean or employer. Mr. Nershi said a few things have been done. It you cancel later than 90 days out you have to pay for a room night. Another reminder will be sent out before the February 15th early registration deadline.
Dr. Locke commented that this financial situation is unprecedented in history and government is doing the wrong thing. It will be quite bad, it might last all next year, then we could get hyperinflation. He suggested Dr. Pearlman talk to the investment company to see if they are thinking about ways to respond to changing conditions. Dr. Pearlman said SIOP has a traditional mix of funds: large cap, small cap, etc. We do talk with the financial company a few times a year, but we should be more aggressive.
Dr. Locke said he is worried that SIOP has lost $183,000 in one year. Dr. Pearlman said that number is plus $60,000 due to more income. He said he would characterize the situation as belt-tightening. We have to assume the situation is going to get worse. Dr. Weiss said that in addition to the stock market, there is also the recession to worry about. It could cause a long-term loss of income due to fewer people attending the conference and other activities. What can we do to make it easier on those people? Dr. Nershi said one thing is that SIOP is too dependent on conference income. The LEC, Jobnet and the Learning Center help as well as sales of subscriptions for online sessions, etc., but we need to figure out other sources of income. Dr. Locke asked if we are making money on the Frontier book series. Mr. Nershi said not a lot, but the Science you Can Use series might help. Dr. Kraiger suggested the evidence-based series be sold outside of SIOP to increase income. President Latham said the Practice series editor wants to market the books to SHRM. The Science You Can Use editor is also trying to market the series to HR people. Dr. Weiss asked what the incentive is to write a book for SIOP. Mr. Nershi said this discussion came up with the APA book, but the tradition is that authors give the royalties to SIOP. Dr. Pearlman said the normal publications income is $50,000 not including TIP sales. Dr. Bauer asked if something was going to change with the IOP journal to help make money. Mr. Nershi said they decided not to increase the dues to cover the costs of the journal, but we aren’t making any money on the journal. We are actually losing money. We do get lump sum payments from Wiley for the editorial support, but those payments are phased out over the years. Dr. Weiss asked if the journal could be electronic. Dr. Kraiger said the balance between whether the journal is a money maker or whether it is a marker for the Society was discussed from the beginning. Dr. Pearlman said SIOP had a lot more money when it said it was okay to lose money on the journal.
Dr. Locke suggested lowering dues to help SIOP members. Mr. Nershi said he doesn’t think the cost of membership is the problem. Dr. Kraiger said the barrier is not SIOP dues but the $200 they pay to APA. He suggested waiving payment of APA dues as a requirement of membership. Dr. Pearlman said SIOP will have to start thinking about this for next year’s budget. What are companies doing? They are cutting travel budgets, etc. and we will have to start thinking about that for next year’s budget.


Executive Education Program Partnership with Business Schools.
President Latham said the program is set for the University of Toronto in the fall. We should be successful in getting other schools to partner with us. Dr. Tetrick said not to forget the psychology departments. Dr. Latham said the big business schools are already ready to put the program on, but he will speak with any psychology department that wants to talk.

The program in October was on innovation and creativity. Dr. Kraiger suggested this be part of continuing education. President Latham explained the process: SIOP gets a fifty percent profit share and the speakers get a fee paid to them. His third goal as president was a revenue stream for SIOP. Business schools bring people in and make lots of money, but psychology departments get nothing. Why not partner with SIOP to say that it is evidence-based management?
Dr. Weiss asked if this would be good to extend to other organizations like Metro. President Latham said yes, but asked if they would have the resources to get it together. Dr. Nershi commented that attendees are also typically local people who won’t be impacted by travel cuts, a reason to work with local groups. Dr. Bauer suggested writing up an e-mail of talking points.
Payment for EAWOP and IAAP representatives. President Latham asked if we should pay for the EAWOP and IAAP representatives to attend the president’s dinner at the conference. Total costs were estimated at $300. President Latham asked if there was a consensus to pay for the representatives and everyone agreed.


Future of Psychology Practice Summit
President Latham said we have worked hard to form a partnership with APA. APA wants $4,500 to sponsor a luncheon. He said he doesn’t think we can promise that much, but we should give something. Mr. Nershi said SIOP already told APA things were tight and that things are tight with them, hence the request for sponsorships.
We are not sure how many people are participating. Dr. Knapp suggested splitting the cost with Division 19 or Division 13. Dr. Bauer said we need to ask two things: do we want this and can we afford this? Dr. Tetrick said we do want to be involved. Dr. Kraiger asked if APA originally asked for full sponsorship. Mr. Nershi said they asked for $4500, but we don’t know if that is what the whole lunch will cost. Dr. Kraiger said it sounds like they want SIOP to pay for everything.
Dr. Weiss said he doesn’t think it is a good use of funding, since SIOP has 2 of 150 delegates. Dr. Tetrick said it would give us visibility within APA. President Latham suggested giving $1,500 instead. Dr. Pearlman said it would be good if we could give $1,500. President Latham said it would be a goodwill gesture. Dr. Knapp said it would be a good number and that we should work with Division 13. Dr. Cortina asked if the committee feels we can afford this. President Latham said SIOP is a division of APA and that it is in our best interest to help them. Dr. Locke asked what is in it for SIOP. President Latham said APA is listening. The APA president is listening. Dr. Tetrick said it is not just the president, it’s also the other 150 people there. Mr. Nershi said they probably will not put up signs saying who sponsored it. Dr. Cortina asked if $1,500 will be appreciated. Dr. Knapp said Division 13 offers coaching for each president. They are there getting to know this president and we don’t do anything like that.
Dr. Weiss motioned for $1,500 for the summit. Dr. Tetrick seconded the motion. All approved the motion with one abstention. Motion passed.
ACTION ITEM: Motion passed to give $1,500 to sponsor a luncheon at the APA’s Future of Psychology Practice Summit.

Proposed Federation Foundation Science Café ($5000 to $7000).
Mr. Nershi said SIOP representatives met with the new director of the Federation in Washington recently. We asked her what we can get out of this. This is one of the projects they brought up. It is a public event to highlight science. We would find speakers. We did one last year on aging in the workforce, but this one would be better. We pay the fee and they organize it without input. Staffers for senators and congressmen, etc. would be invited. 50-60 people would go, and we would say “here’s the thought leaders we have on this particular topic and they will address issues.”
Mr. Nershi said he thinks this would be different than in the past. Dr. Weiss asked what we get out of it. President Latham said this is one efficient, effective group. They are 100 percent loyal to science. They are very good at lobbying APA and congress.
They would probably put it on in the spring. Dr. Tetrick said this is a timing issue. Michelle Obama is interested in work and family issues; why not do something on that? Dr. Weiss agreed that this might not be the right topic right now when there are so many other more timely topics to talk about. President Latham said this topic was selected a long time ago.
Dr. Pearlman asked it the funds would be requested out of this year’s budget. Mr. Nershi said yes, they would do it in the spring. Dr. Weiss asked how useful this is, apart from being nice to the federation. Mr. Nershi said it would be about outreach, making science accessible to the general public. Dr. Knapp said we joined the federation so they could give us this service. There was discussion of whether or not this is the right topic right now and if it can be changed. Mr. Nershi said nothing is set because they don’t have any money. President Latham said we should get in touch with the Foundation president and ask them to rethink this in terms of topic. Mr. Nershi suggested asking them if this is something we can put into our next budget year starting July 1.
Dr. Kraiger expressed concern that the committee just had a discussion about being more fiscally conservative, and this generally was not a positive experience last year, and given that, it would be hard for him to vote in favor of spending money. He suggested waiting to decide anything until after the conference. Dr. Knapp also advocated changing the topic and audience back to funding sources. Discussion postponed.

Revision of SIOP’s Licensing Policy.
President Latham discussed a document prepared by Robert Dipboye. Dr. Kraiger said it was decided that SIOP needs to create a policy statement that we can put on our website that conveys our position on licensing. The plan was to send it to the EC and see if they like it or want to change it. The feedback was that the current document will not work.
Dr. Knapp said there was consensus around certain aspects of the issue. The document did not do a good job of saying what the consensus was. Dr. Kraiger said he doesn’t think there’s consensus on anything. He said there were things that were discussed though, and he thinks they can craft something that captures a broad range of sentiment. He said we need a good starting point. When we talk about licensing, we can’t separate the history, Dr. Tetrick said. For the practice of I-O, what do we think the standards should be?
Any kind of document that dictates curricula requirements to psychology departments will be ignored. The departments will not allow SIOP, APA or anyone else to decide anything of that nature. They could just stop teaching it. Something like this could easily push us over the edge, then the training of psychology would be relegated to places that are not integrated into large comprehensive psychology departments. The document has to reflect the fact that any suggestions for curricula will be dismissed. We also need to make clear our belief that mandatory licensing should not be part of SIOP.
Dr. Weiss circulated a letter signed by heads and former heads of psychology departments regarding licensing. Dr. Pearlman asked if the letter was representative of department heads. Dr. Kraiger said that as a former department chair he would be comfortable adding his name to the memo.
Dr. Locke said he is opposed to licensing morally and practically. Dr. Knapp said it is the states that say I-Os have to be licensed. Dr. Locke said he is not opposed to private licensing. SIOP could offer private licensing done by SIOP and run by practitioners. SIOP could make a lot of money by doing it. From the point of view of the states, if you take APA’s definition of what psychology is, it is so broad it would include everything, but we could develop it however we want. SHRM would side with us. Dr. Tetrick said that a lot of laws state “unless certified by another recognized organization” which would bypass licensing. Dr. Pearlman asked if other states have this wording. How much would SIOP licensing people solve? Dr. Tetrick said it is an avenue for people who think they need it or want it.
Dr. Kraiger said they should set something up that is done within this worldwide Federation. Dr. Weiss said he likes Dr. Locke’s idea to offer private licensure, but asked, what about the state licensing boards? We could set this up, but what if it doesn’t get through the state boards? We need to give the basic message that mandatory licensing should not be required for non-one-to-one I-Os, but if you want it, we have it. Dr. Tetrick said there is a split between whether or not it is needed. Dr. Kraiger said we cannot split from the states and not offer an alternative.
Dr. Locke asked if APA would support us and our proposal. Dr. Cortina said we should say no to the changes to the model licensure act and also develop an alternative saying we don’t want clinicians to decide who can practice I-O. But this doesn’t represent everyone’s views and APA probably wouldn’t listen. We can play by the state’s boundaries or not, but if we don’t play ball things will be worse for us. President Latham said he thinks APA representatives have tried to represent the best interest of SIOP. He said he also believes the APA model licensing task force is listening to them. Secondly, SHRM makes a fortune off of certification. This could be a great revenue stream for SIOP. We should also discuss this with our other partners, such as EAWOP and IAAP-1.
Dr. Knapp said that first we should agree on something. This could make money, but we could also lose our shirts. We can’t afford to put a lot of money into it right now, though it is a possibility in the future. Dr. Pearlman asked how SIOP licensing would work and how it would interact with the state licensure. Dr. Locke said it would be better to tell the states to stay out of it. No research shows that licensing helps protect the public, but we should offer it if they really want it. Dr. Knapp said that right now the states are ignoring APA. We need to focus on what the states are doing. The state psychological associations are the biggest players.
But the topic on the table is our own position, Dr. Weiss said. Dr. Kraiger pointed out that the states aren’t saying “we suggest that you do this.” They are saying it is the law to do so. Part of the issue is that I can say I don’t need to be licensed, but the state is saying I need to be. We need a way to say to the state lawmakers, your law affects us and we have created an independent process that better serves the people we interact with. The law needs to be modified to say people can be licensed by SIOP. Dr. Locke suggested getting a test case against a state and then tell others to get in line with the ruling. Dr. Kraiger said that now someone who practices I-O would have a choice to pursue I-O without licensing, pursue licensing or pursue SIOP’s certification. Dr. Weiss asked if the states will be responsive. President Latham said the State of Washington couldn’t be more cooperative. They aren’t after us; they are just focusing on clinical. Most states are very respectful of certification. Dr. Pearlman asked what the response of the states would be. President Latham said the states don’t care. Dr. Locke said there is some preoccupation with all occupational groups to get licensing. Dr. Weiss asked if state laws lay out the licensing requirements. Dr. Tetrick said they do. Dr. Weiss asked if we now have to get every state to change its law.
Dr. Cortina said we are still just talking about the model licensure act. This is APA’s position on what the states should be doing. If anyone just wants to practice I-O psychology and not call themselves a psychologist, they can do that. Dr. Locke said that is not true. They are defining psychology as using techniques to influence behavior, which includes just about every profession. Dr. Weiss added that the law excludes those who don’t do one-to-one practice, which takes I-Os out of the equation. Dr. Knapp said there are only six states that don’t regulate the practice of I-O. Dr. Weiss said that looking at the exemptions, it is unclear when you get to the point where you are improving the organization but not providing one-to-one assistance. Dr. Tetrick said the intent is whether you are helping an organization or a single person.


Virginia E. Schein has agreed to take over the international white paper for Robert Pritchard. There will be a presentation at SIOP. John Scott agreed to be representative to the United Nations and represent the three-society partnership.
Mr. Nershi has brought to the attention of the committee the ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership’s Global Principles for Socially Responsible Associations and Nonprofits. The principles are a set of guidelines for associations and nonprofits to sign, agreeing to support with respect to human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption. By signing, the signer expresses a commitment to advance the principles and make a clear statement of the commitment to stakeholders and the general public.
Dr. Kraiger made a motion to motion for the executive committee to agree to support the Global Principles for Socially Responsible Associations and Nonprofits with respect to human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption, and with this commitment, express its intent to advance these principles within SIOP’s sphere of influence and make a clear statement of this commitment to stakeholders and the general public. Dr. Truxillo seconded the motion.
Dr. Truxillo asked how the signing would be made clear to stakeholders. Dr. Kraiger suggested a link to it on the SIOP homepage with the text of the principles. Dr. Locke asked what this support would entail and how we would implement it. Mr. Nershi explained that SIOP would decide how to implement this support, maybe by continuing the volunteer project next year.
There was discussion in which the board discussed whether SIOP should issue policy statements. Mr. Nershi said this is a positive thing; it is an aspirational statement. Dr. Kraiger said we are already doing a lot of this anyway. Dr. Knapp said people could quibble about it. Dr. Kraiger said negative consequences are possible if people hold you to your statement.
Voting took place for Dr. Kraiger’s previous motion to sign the statement. Motion passed with four votes against.

ACTION ITEM: Executive committee agrees to support ASAE and The Center’s Global Principles for Socially Responsible Associations and Nonprofits with respect to human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption, and with this commitment, express its intent to advance these principles within SIOP’s sphere of influence and make a clear statement of this commitment to stakeholders and the general public.

APA council representative report.
Dr. Knapp stated that the APA has been hit hard, but they have a good amount in stocks so they haven’t been as hard hit. There’s been a hiring freeze, salary freezes, etc. Nominations to boards and committees are outstanding right now. They were very successful getting people to boards and committees last year. There’s strategic planning going on right now. A few years ago working with science oriented divisions, they put together a strategic planning initiative for science non-clinical members. They developed an “acting for science” group. The question became, “How do we get APA to have initiatives that are acting for us?” There will be a meeting Thursday, February 12. The APA ethics code has some internal inconsistency in regard to what you do when there is a conflict between what the law says you are supposed to do and professional guidelines, so clinicians are being asked to look at code and find conflicts.
President Latham said he contacted Divisions 5 (measurement), 8 (social), 19 (military), and 21 (engineering), and suggested that we need to be working together, rather than going in isolated. He received a strong response from everyone. It’s of interest to us to support one another. We need to be more vocal at APA. Dr. Knapp said they have internally agreed on pretty much everything.
Dr. Tetrick said the one thing we don’t want to lose sight of in APA is working with the practice directorate so they don’t forget there are non-healthcare providers. Dr. Kraiger said APA is now coming to SIOP to ask for people to serve on committees and summits etc. It might not be effective, but if we don’t get on these taskforces, we will be excluded. Is this a waste of time? President Latham said is much more constructive to be fighting inside the tent than outside. Now that they are listening to us, it’s foolish to let it pass by. Dr. Knapp added that many SIOP members are members of APA, so we owe the members to be part of these parent organizations. Dr. Truxillo said this has been going on a short time, so it’s worth continuing.
Dr. Locke asked if there is anything else other than the licensing laws that we need to be a part of. President Latham said we have to constantly remind them that there is more to psychology than clinicians. Dr. Weiss asked, apart from the fact that we have members who are part of APA, how much APA’s opinion of SIOP matters since there are other organizations available to I-O psychologists now. If we could convince the constituency that they aren’t getting anything out of it, why try to include ourselves in APA? We could be our own division without APA couldn’t we? Dr. Knapp replied that SIOP is incorporated and a lot of divisions aren’t. Dr. Tetrick said that if SIOP totally splits from APA, there would still be a division 14 of APA because they aren’t going to give that up. Dr. Cortina said it’s not so much that the Model Licensure Act is going to help us, but it is going to hurt us if we aren’t involved. APA will have a taskforce on psychology in the workplace, and they do not include someone from SIOP. After the fact, President Latham will go to the president of APA and say we ought to have a seat at this table, and they do accept that, but they don’t seem to do it on their own.
Dr. Knapp said that another example is the Ethics Committee. If you are licensed you are obligated to abide by the ethics. The prior version was not easily interpreted in the context of how I-Os practice. We did not have a member on that taskforce, but we did send Dr. Knapp as an observer and they let her talk.
Dr. Weiss asked if one of the ways they hurt us could be with their journal. The Journal of Applied Psychology is a critical scientific journal. If we decided to move out, could they decide we don’t need I-O types to be the editors? Dr. Tetrick said they would probably keep the journal because it makes a lot of money.
Dr. Knapp stated the point is not whether SIOP should pull out of APA but how active we should be in APA. Dr. Tetrick said SIOP could use some services that APA offers, such as media.

Advocacy Team Update.
Dr. Kraiger said his task for this meeting was to come with a task force that would come back with an advocacy initiative that said what we want to advocate and to whom. There is no Chair yet. He is also working on members. Peter Scontrino will take over state affairs. When he talked to them about coming on board as chairs, he is telling them he wants them to serve on the task force, so it will include committee chairs. Over the next few weeks he will come up with a chair. He will get in touch with the people who were involved with it a few years ago to get advice.


Update on SIOP Microsite.
It was agreed that Dr. Kraiger already provided a sufficient update on the Microsite in his discussion about website initiatives.

California Psychological Association
Top Minds and Bottom Lines Conference. Dr. Nershi said that SIOP agreed to provide funding, but no new developments have come from Judy Blanton. If it works, we might want to duplicate it in other areas. It is designed to show business leaders the value of I-O.


Book Series Update.
President Latham saidDenise Rousseau is editor of the new Science You Can Use series. Mr. Nershi stated a submissions call is up on Web site.
SIOP Certification of Coaches. President Latham stated the Leading Edge Consortium was a huge success. People are asking for coaching certification classes. Anne Marie Valerio is heading a group to look at it (Bob Lee, Sandy Shullman, Bill Macy, David Peterson are all working on it). This is in recess for now. All we were trying to do was to be responsive to practitioners. We had an all-practitioner task force.

Dr. Kraiger added that he will move forward with sunsetting as he indicated in the plans circulated in January. Dr. Cortina asked if they should have more people help since there is so much sunsetting to do. Dr. Kraiger said that to be caught up, over the next three years, every officer will do one committee and in three years they will be caught up. President Latham said he hopes Dr. Kraiger knows how much President Latham has appreciated him over the last four years, how much he has loved him, and how happy he is to be passing this on to his soon-to-be successor.
Revision of SIOP’s Licensing Policy (cont.).
Dr. Kraiger said he has two talking points: first, we were discussing the sense that we don’t have a consensus or a working document on a SIOP policy on licensing. He doesn’t think it’s a question of whether we need consensus; we do need a statement. Second, we moved into a discussion on the issue of licensing and where we should be involved in that. We need to make a decision about how to make a policy that goes on the website that takes into account what we discussed.
Dr. Weiss said there needs to be some policy statement as guidance for the development of this task force and so on. Dr. Weiss made a motion that SIOP does not believe in the mandatory licensing of I-O psychologists. Dr. Tetrick asked if the executive committee can make that determination. Dr. Kraiger seconded the motion. Dr. Kraiger said it means that as we issue a policy statement that there has to be a clear indication that we are opposed to mandatory licensing. Dr. Locke asked if the committee can do this. Mr. Nershi asked if this represents the viewpoint of the membership. President Latham said this could be asked of any motion. Dr. Kraiger said that, as a starting point for discussion of licensing, it does represent the view of most members. Some would say there is a very wide set of practices that should be licensed, some would say none should be, but the fact that states would mandate it as part of our professional practice, it seems there is widespread opposition to. Dr. Tetrick said she is not convinced they do agree. There are three groups of people: those opposed, those for it and a huge middle group that don’t even know what it is. Dr. Truxillo asked if there are people in the second group who believe in the mandatory license of all psychologists. Dr. Bauer said yes, because they want to keep people out. Dr. Tetrick said she has heard people express that what we do does affect people. Dr. Weiss said that from a processes point of view the committee could have a referendum on everything that comes up on the committee agenda. He does not know what all of SIOP believes, but he knows what he believes, and he is prepared to vote for the motion. President Latham said that from the day he became president-elect, he has talked to practitioners, by no means a representative sample, asking them where they stand on licensing and a lot of them are not for licensing. He has only talked to a few who are for licensing.
Dr. Weiss said that nothing in the motion prevents people who want to get licensed from doing so. Dr. Bauer said they should add to the motion that anyone who wants to pursue it can. Dr. Pearlman said the committee already agreed it wasn’t going to issue policy statements. Dr. Weiss said that in this case it is part of what SIOP does as an organization, so it is necessary. Dr. Truxillo said this is less a general policy statement and more of a basis for the licensing discussion. Dr. Kraiger said it creates the foundation to create the policy, and also removes a source of anxiety for a lot of people that would want to participate in the discussion. Dr. Pearlman said that this seems more of a preamble to SIOP’s decision. Mr. Nershi suggested writing what SIOP will do as opposed to what we believe.

Dr. Kraiger said a second policy motion would be to appoint a task force that would have two missions: craft a policy statement, beginning with the motion we are discussing, second that they would begin a discussion of SIOP-owned or directed licensing consistent with what we are talking about. Dr. Weiss said there might not be a need to state the premise upfront then. Maybe we could just appoint the task force with that mission. Dr. Kraiger said the task force would probably have the same mission either way. Dr. Weiss said he is uncomfortable with SIOP not actually saying it in a motion. He wants a vote that says this is the starting point for any policy statement about licensing. Dr. Kraiger said the reason for doing this is so the committee and members feel less anxious. The issue is whether this is something that provides direction to the taskforce. Mr. Nershi said it does clarify everything. Dr. Tetrick said it seems illogical. We say we don’t think we need this, but if we say we don’t need this then why are we doing it?
Dr. Knapp noted that there are different types of credentials. SIOP should say it acknowledges that most jurisdictions require this and we oppose it, and that gives us a starting point for other activities. She suggested two task forces, one to deal with policy statement on licensure and another that would look at potential voluntary certification processes. She likes the idea of it being more global. Both things could then move forward at the same time. Dr. Locke said it is fairly simple to write up a statement and the private certification can proceed on its own. He doesn’t know if it will be too expensive to do certification on a big scale or if SIOP should just certify one thing. President Latham said the economy might look up in a year, so the taskforce should come up with an idea with a dollar figure attached to it and in a year they consider the potential cost.
The committee voted on Dr. Weiss’ motion that SIOP does not believe in the mandatory licensing of I-O psychologists. Motion passed with two votes against and one abstention.
ACTION ITEM: passed motion saying SIOP does not believe in the mandatory licensing of I-O psychologists.
Dr. Knapp said that with the model licensure act, SIOP’s statement, and certification possibilities, there should be two taskforces. Dr. Kraiger said he would like the certification taskforce to start thinking about voluntary certification before thinking about the policy statement. Dr. Weiss said the policy statement could include only the motion passed, but there could be more. At this point, all we have said is, “let’s think about the policy statement.” Dr. Knapp said she would like to see the two activities separated because the statement could help articulate the certification. Mr. Nershi said the third issue is the model licensure act task force. Dr. Cortina asked if this is our response to the Model Licensure Act. Mr. Nershi said no, but we should try to amend this to allow our members leeway. Dr. Cortina said that if we are saying we don’t want mandatory licensure, then that should be in our response to the MLA.
Dr. Knapp lauded the efforts of Judy Blanton and Vicky Vandaveer who are on the Model Licensure Task force. They are doing the best they can, knowing that the MLA is going through regardless. Mr. Nershi said there are a lot of variables because even though we might believe I-Os should be exempt, the states might not agree. Dr. Weiss suggested telling members on the task force about the ambiguities that are in the act right now. Dr. Kraiger said he doesn’t think this will change a lot. It took years to get to this point. Dr. Locke asked what would happen if the task force defies our views. Dr. Kraiger said that a year from now it will be on the council agenda for adoption. We can vote against it, we can encourage other people to vote against it, we can fight it, and in the meantime we can develop a certification program. This might not have any impact on any state law, but it is having a long-term plan that we could give to the states. Dr. Knapp said it would be better for us to have the MLA than what we have now. Dr. Kraiger said that if states adopted this, I-O psychologists would be better off than they are now because they would be less likely to be taken to court. In most states, we are required to be licensed. Dr. Knapp said that the more we get in the game, the more visible we are. You take a risk every time you take a position. The laws are getting more restrictive.
Dr. Kraiger said he envisions the two task forces: one to craft a full statement of SIOP position on licensing, building upon the approved motion and another to investigate a SIOP-sponsored certification program for I-O psychologists.


Awards Chair.
Dr. Kraiger said Anna Erickson is going to take over as awards chair. As we move into this new process, he wanted to have a practitioner in that role. Dr. Knapp asked about work on the volunteer recruiting process e-mail to make it electronic. Mr. Nershi said it is done and is working. There are more volunteers than ever. Dr. Tetrick asked if they are being assigned to committees. Mr. Nershi said he will work on it. Dr. Tetrick said she is getting e-mailed questions about how to get on a committee. Dr. Bauer suggested making it salient on the Web site.
Early Career Contribution Award. Dr, Knapp asked how the process of creating another early career contributions award would work. Dr. Weiss said that if it is monetary, the foundation needs to find cash for it. Mr. Nershi said they are having the same situation as SIOP with cash going down. Dr. Weiss asked if we could have two awards and give them each $750 from the original $1,500 award amount so SIOP is able to give out two awards. Mr. Nershi said that they would want it to be on par with the other awards. Dr. Bauer said the money doesn’t seem to be a very important aspect of the award. Dr. Weiss asked if they have the money for this. Dr. Pearlman said that if it’s based on a corpus that’s drawing interest, there is a minimum amount of money that has to be in the fund before it can be awarded. Dr. Kraiger asked if this can be put on the agenda for the April meeting. Mr. Nershi said they should check on the foundation to see if the money is there. Dr. Bauer suggested keeping the value of the award on par with the other awards at $1,500, and calling it the Distinguished Professional Early Career Award.
SIOP Name Change. Dr.Kraiger said there was a positive reaction from Frank Landy’s article in TIP. The committee had talked about making sure people were informed, making sure they know what the consequences are, etc. We could discuss it at the conference and educate people. Do a vote sometime in May. In our discussions, most people seem to favor changing it from industrial-organizational psychology and they favor organizational psychology more, Organizational Psychology Society or Society for Organizational Psychology? Discussed it at February meeting. We would put something up online to educate people and we haven’t heard in all the discussions anything against it. Dr. Tetrick asked about the ramifications of the name change. For example, if we would change the name of the journal. Dr. Kraiger said yes, that there are ramifications to grad schools changing their names and other things. Dr. Tetrick asked if the committee has really gone through what the cost implications are. Dr. Bauer suggested phasing in changes. Dr. Tsacoumis said we need to know what the implications are.
Mr. Nershi asked if we are changing the name of the field. Dr. Kraiger said yes. It’s not a big deal. If we brought it up at the conference, we would bring it up at the town hall. Then at the closing plenary he would announce it and let people know we are having a vote in a few weeks and tell them that we will have information on the Web site about it. We will notify them via e-mail to educate them. Dr. Tetrick asked if we should allow people to actually comment. Mr. Nershi said yes, but it isn’t easily controlled. When we announce that there is going to be a vote, we have to do it a month in advance and then a month to vote. Dr. Bauer said we could tell members a month before the conference that this is coming and then open it up for voting at the conference. Mr. Nershi said that to do an electronic ballot on an issue like a bylaws change, Dr. Allen has to send a notice to all members in advance. Dr. Kraiger said it would be nice to be able to announce the name change at the conference, but that isn’t feasible, so rushing to get it done doesn’t make sense. It might be a good idea to announce before the conference that we are going to have a vote. Then a week or so after the conference have the vote. Dr. Knapp asked if there is any way to keep the acronym SIOP. Can someone come up with another word that starts with I?
Dr. Tetrick asked if since we are Division 14 of APA, which is Industrial and Organizational Psychology, would that have any implications? Mr. Nershi said that we have to give APA an intention to change the name, but it shouldn’t be a problem. With changing our name, that would also be a good way to reveal our new brand.
President Latham said that among his last acts as president is for him to express his appreciation to the board. He thanked Dr. Pearlman and Dr. Bauer, who are leaving the board. President Latham said that lastly, we have to thank the old president who is about to join the presidents in the sky as this was Dr. Tetrick’s last meeting.
Meeting adjourned by President Latham at 2:30 p.m.