Minutes of the Spring 2009 Executive Board Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
April 5, 2009
New Orleans, Louisiana
Members Present: Tammy Allen, Scott Highhouse, Deirdre Knapp, Kurt Kraiger, Gary Latham, Ed Locke, Morton McPhail, Jim Outtz, Doug Reynolds, Lise Saari, Eduardo Salas, Donald Truxillo, Suzanne Tsacoumis, Howard Weiss. Also present were numerous committee chairs and chairs-in-training.
Members Absent: Jose Cortina and Cristina Banks
CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS
President Kraiger called the meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. CST.
President Kraiger acknowledged the guests at the meeting, including Franco Fraccaroli, president of EAWOP, and José M. Peiró, president of Division 1 of IAAP; thanked everyone for a successful conference; and asked Milt Hakel for an update on the SIOP Foundation.
Dr. Hakel stated the SIOP Foundation is in sound fiscal condition. They are beginning to look for new campaign ideas and will contact everyone.
In regards to the Alliance for Organizational Psychology, the presidents of SIOP, EAWOP and IAAP-1 will be meeting in Santiago in May and at the ICAP in Melbourne in July a year from now.
Dr. McPhail reviewed the financial report. The report is only a preliminary budget, pending completion of analysis of the SIOP conference money, SIOP’s major source of income. The final budget will be developed this summer and presented to the board in September.
SIOP experienced substantial unrealized losses in its investment funds over the last year. Investment performance aside, Dr. McPhail said he anticipates the Society will come in slightly below income targets for this year but will come in a little below expenses as well. The budget for next year is about 4.5 percent smaller than this year’s budget. The preliminary budget’s expenses for next year are about 2.25 percent more than income. Portfolio officers will be asked to reduce budgets for next year by 5 percent.
He reported that SIOP did well this year, given the times. This year’s is the fourth largest conference that we have had. We don’t need money immediately. Overall, we are in better shape than most voluntary associations like SIOP. Most societies don’t have more than 1-3 months revenue in their reserves. We had more than a year’s worth last fall, though we have less now.
Dr. Locke asked what SIOP is doing to prepare for future losses. Dr. McPhail said he is reluctant to make any significant moves but that we can look at our policy on reinvestment of dividends and interest. President Kraiger noted that the losses we saw in the last year are mostly paper losses but that we should look for ways to save.
Dr. Weiss asked if we can expect membership rates to decrease. Mr. Nershi said the membership numbers are normal for this time of year.
Dr. Reynolds asked if there is a way to review and watch our finances. Mr. Nershi noted that we have implemented a monthly check-in with the investment advisor.
Motion made by Dr. Locke to approve the preliminary budget. Motion seconded by Dr. Tsacoumis. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: 2009-2010 preliminary budget approved.
Motion made by Dr. Locke to accept the consent agenda. Motion seconded by Dr. Salas. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Consent agenda accepted. Approved the following:
· February meeting minutes
· Funds for President to travel to EAWOP Congress
· Cluster coordinator reports
COMMITTEE CHAIR MEETING AND ORIENTATION
President Kraiger explained the online committee chair orientation. He explained the responsibilities of the chairs and how the old ones can help the new ones get oriented and explained various other dates, deadlines, and procedures for their use. He noted that committee chairs need to form their committees now and should consult with portfolio officers on committee duties.
President Kraiger explained that the voting officers on the new Executive Board include:
· Eight portfolio officers
· Four APA Council representatives
· President, past-president, and president-elect
· Financial officer/secretary
President Kraiger explained portfolio officer and administrative office personnel duties as well.
Dr. McPhail made two points about committee budgets: 1) one of SIOP’s financial principles is that those who benefit from the activity should fund the activity, and 2) another of our principles is that when committees propose new expenditures, they should try to think of ways to offset that new expenditure.
Dr. Dickson asked if it is acceptable for graduate students to help make committee decisions even if they are not SIOP members. There was a discussion of the roles of graduate students, particularly non-members, on SIOP committees. It is important to be clear that the role is only to provide input, not take part in official committee votes.
COMMITTEE CHAIRS BREAK-OUT GROUPS (half hour)
President Kraiger called the meeting back to order at 10:03 a.m.
Review of Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures.
Mr. Nershi stated that APA wants to make sure this is still our policy since it is incorporated into APA policy. If SIOP does not respond that they are still SIOP’s principles, they expire as APA policy. There was discussion regarding whether the Board would like to revise the principles at this time.
Dr. Reynolds suggested a review of the principles be scheduled with the revision of the APA standards. President Kraiger said we will respond and say “yes, these still reflect the principles of Div. 14;” then we will decide if we want to put together a task force to revise our standards, and if so, develop a schedule to do so.
Dr. Olson-Buchanan: The final conference attendance totaled 3,650. Dr. Olson-Buchanan states that this is an amazing number since so many other organizations’ numbers are down. Dr. Eric Heggestad is leading the conference evaluation process. The post-conference survey will be sent out soon.
Dr. Salas asked if we have data on workshops. Dr. Tsacoumis said they were much lower; we had somewhat fewer than 400 people in the workshops in the past, and somewhat fewer than 250 this year. Many people came in later and left the conference earlier.
Dr. Olson-Buchanan also explained there was a problem with speakers who had submitted and accepted, and then cancelled because their companies pulled the funding for travel. Dr. Scott explained that many of those who cancelled thought they didn’t have to find a replacement speaker.
There was discussion about the pervasiveness of the problem and how to prevent it at future conferences. The board discussed the possibility of attaching a stigma or penalty to cancellations and its implications for certain circumstances in which people need to cancel. President Kraiger asked that the program committee take a look at this problem.
The board discussed taking steps to figure out why attendance of workshops was down and what options SIOP has for next year’s conference, such as offering fewer sessions, advertising the workshops more, etc.
Dr. McPhail said SIOP should also highlight the good hotel rate in Atlanta.
Dr. Olson-Buchanan asked for the board’s ideas for the 25th anniversary conference next year.
Dr. Scott discussed the numbers from this year’s conference. We had 1,244 submissions, 897 accepted and an overall acceptance rate of 72 percent with posters. The evidence-based theme track attendance was less than desired. People might not understand that they can float in and out. Mr. Nershi said that another factor is the CE credits. People think you need to go to the whole thing because you have to attend all the sessions to qualify for the CE.
Dr. Scott said that at some point we need to evaluate whether the theme tracks make sense.
Dr. Olson-Buchanan said most innovations take a few years. The interactive poster sessions did not start off as popular. All of our best pieces have taken a few years to figure out.
Dr. Rotolo said the conference scheduler is a good step, but it would be a good tool if you could click on the theme track. It might also be a good idea to be able to click and see who else is attending certain sessions.
Next year’s theme tracks are renewal and revitalization on Saturday and virtually connected workforces (social networking, telecommuting, etc) on Thursday.
Dr. Latham, who had just returned from the School Library Makeover, discussed the event. It was part of the Corporate Social Responsibility theme track. He said it was inspiring and impressive.
Dr. Weiner explained that the Saturday Theme Track Committee decided that as part of the effort in New Orleans as well as the theme, we should do something to volunteer. Target put in $25,000, and we worked with Hands On New Orleans and SIOP member Michelle Ehler. The volunteers renovated the library at Langston Hughes Charter Elementary School. About 70 people signed up. They also asked for a $20 donation for Make It Right project. Dr. Latham said the event was a success.
Leading Edge Consortium.
This year’s Leading Edge Consortium is Oct. 16-17 in Denver. The topic is “The Leading Edge of Selection and Assessment in a Global Setting.” Lois Tetrick is chair. Anne Marie Ryan and Tanya Delaney are co-chairs. This is our fifth annual consortium.
APA Model Licensure Act. APA appointed a taskforce to review the Model Licensing Act and develop revisions. Divisions nominate representatives, then APA appoints a representative group of people. Judy Blanton and Vicki Vandaveer (representing multiple constituents, including Divisions 13 and 14)were appointed to work on it. This is a multi-year process.
SIOP Licensing Brochure.
Dr. Blanton, outgoing chair of the state affairs committee, said they get calls from people who want to know about licensure. We do have a good Web site about this, but students still lack a lot of information and much of the information they are provided is wrong. She prepared a short brochure which lays out the licensure laws. There are a lot of differences between states. Most states require licenses for people to call themselves psychologists. Those who exempt I-O’s have narrow exemptions. So we would like to publish a short brochure, and this may require a small amount of money to print up.
SIOP Response to APA Model Licensure Act
. APA put the act out last fall for public comment. The latest version is now out for public comment until June 5. An attempt has been made to exempt many I-O activities from the licensing requirement, but the final authority is the legislation adopted by the states. Those who work with individuals would need to be licensed. Clearly this is only a recommendation.
The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards is also working on a model act.
Greg Gormanous and Peter Scontrino are putting together a small group with state affairs. No name yet for the sub-committee. The sub-committee is not establishing policy. That goes to the Executive Board. Dr. Blanton said the next step is to get people involved at the local level. It won’t go to council until March of 2010.
June 14th is when the discussion of the current policy will take place at the fall APA Council meeting. The biggest issue is the licensing of Master-level school psychologists.
Discussion ensued with Dr. Locke saying he is a against a formal policy response. Dr. Weiss questioned the new sub-committee’s purpose. Dr. Latham explained that Drs. Gormanous and Scontrino will formulate something and bring it back to the EC before the comment period closes in June.
Dr. Weiss said we need to clarify SIOP’s position and communicate that to whoever is writing recommendations to the states. It will be very difficult for the sub-committee to put together recommendations without knowing what the EC’s official opinion is on the topic.
Dr. Kraiger explained that in February the Executive Committee took a formal vote of its position for policy on licensing. Dr. Weiss explained that it said SIOP does not believe in the mandatory licensing of I-O psychologists.
President Kraiger said that one of the tasks is to communicate SIOP’s position on licensing. It seems that we now have many different positions. We need to create a single position and communicate it. It would be nice to have the entire position to give to the APA in response to the model licensure act. Some states might use the act, some might ignore it, etc. but it is something that we want to have a voice in. Clinicians cannot do the things I-O psychologists do unless they have the training I-O’s do. That statement was able to get into the model licensure act. Over the next three years, we want to continue to look at the MLA. It won’t change much. He will explain the executive board’s position to the licensing sub-committee then, going forward, the board needs to have a consensus of opinion as best we can. Then we are also exploring the idea of looking at a certification program to offer states an alternative to licensing. We could define the standards of I-O. States can ignore it, but it is a way of controlling our destiny.
Dr. Gormanous said the verbiage is very general. The other issue is that we need to have a consensus. If people don’t think there should be an official SIOP reaction to this, let them speak now.
Dr. Blanton noted there may be a split between academics and practitioners. Maybe we should make sure we do talk to practitioners about the pros and cons. We also need to focus on the work of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB), not just APA.
Dr. Locke said this is not only about who can call themselves a psychologist. It also regulates actions. It is a lot different to regulate the use of a name than to also regulate what you do. He thinks it is a mistake to focus on the states right now. The states take APA as a guideline for their regulations, so we have to hit it earlier than the states and get to it before it is sent to the states.
President Kraiger said Paula Skedsvold on The Federation, said we should advocate at the level of governors, etc. We do need to talk to the states.
Dr. Blanton said it is unlikely that the regulatory boards are going to want to move away from what they have. They’re becoming more aware. The states aren’t malicious; they are just ignorant. They think all psychologists are clinicians.
Dr. Weiss said he thinks we need a task force or sub-committee. He thinks we need it to focus on both of these groups: states as well as APA. Whatever this task force puts together, it needs to focus on the people who provide training to I-O psychologists. Academics will not allow anyone to give curriculum instructions. If SIOP wants to provide certifications, it needs to be through SIOP, because the schools will not allow anyone to tell them what their curriculum should be.
Dr. Kraiger said Dr. Cortina thinks we need to identify a certain number of schools that if you graduate from them you are certified. Dr. Kraiger doesn’t suggest we do this, but this is an example of how to recognize those schools that train I-O’s.
Dr. McPhail said he thinks it would be irresponsible not to respond to the MLA as an organization. He moved that President Kraiger appoint a task force to prepare a draft response that would be approved by the Executive Board in time to submit to the APA task force before June. Dr. Weiss seconded the motion.
Dr. Outtz said there is a need for SIOP to take control over some aspects of who gets to say who is an I-O psychologist.
Dr. Allen Kraut said licensing is coming down the track, and it would be folly for us to ignore that. He asked if clinical department curriculums are influenced by licensing laws.
Dr. Weiss explained that the requirements put on clinical programs create enormous strain and resentment by psychology departments. Speaking for his department, the accreditation process that follows the licensing process is used by clinical programs for increased resources, etc. Psychology departments resent that but go along with it because that’s the way it has always been and also because they believe clinical is a core of psychology, and they cannot cut it out. But, Dr. Weiss said, he does not think the same would be said for I-O. The I-O programs are already in jeopardy in schools. If they have to meet the same accreditation demands as clinical psychology, many schools may just decide to get rid of I-O altogether.
Dr. Chris Rotolo commented that not figuring the issue out will always be a limiting factor to SIOP’s branding and visibility. We are trying to get people to call themselves I-O psychologists, but they don’t because many of the states don’t allow us.
Dr. Locke asked that all sides be represented on any licensing committee.
President Kraiger said that the issue is protecting what we have built into the MLA. The task force job is to look at what is there, look at the language, see if we can say things more clearly, more so than opening the discussion whether or not we should be licensed. A second question is how we can get more influence with the APA, the states, etc. He will reconsider who is on the task force. He is open to taking names.
Dr. Allen clarified that this is just to review the language, not to endorse it. We still agree that our official position is that we do not want licensure. Dr. Weiss clarified that the motion already voted on in February just said that we don’t think licensure should be mandatory. There are two issues: SIOP’s position and what we need to put in front of APA since that has already moved forward.
Dr. Locke noted James Bray said that regardless of what would happen at the fall meeting it would have to go to the other committees that might change it in SIOP’s favor.
President Kraiger will make it a point to call James Bray to try to get more influence. He will appoint task force to review the MLA and provide commentary to the Executive Board.
The board then voted on Dr. McPhail’s motion that the president appoint a task force to prepare a draft response to APA’s Model Licensure Act that would be approved by the SIOP executive board in time to submit to the APA task force before June. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved a motion that the president appoint a task force to prepare a draft response to APA’s Model Licensure Act that would be approved by the SIOP executive board in time to submit to the APA task force before June. Dr. Weiss seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Update on Response to Practitioner Survey and Marketing General Report.
Dr.Latham said that following what he said in TIP and at the plenary address, he:
1. Asked the professional practice committee to establish mentoring program
2. Asked the Professional Practice and Awards committees to come up with a new early career practitioner award
3. Asked Mr. Nershi with the Leading Edge Consortium committee to set up a meeting for practitioners to share best practices to take place before the LEC
4. Asked Conference Program Chair Sara Weiner to institutionalize symposia for practitioners on best practices
5. Asked TIP Editor Wendy Becker to have a quarterly column on keynote addresses to the media/public so members can see the effect practitioners are having
6. President Kurt Kraiger will also make it his personal responsibility to develop Webinars, community of interest, journals and books, etc.
President Kraiger clarified that the resource Dr. Latham is referring to is to provide to members a customizable stream of information and reports. He followed up with the resource and found it is not a good fit. There are other resources he is considering, however, such as to create Wiki sites providing research summaries, discussions, etc.
Dr. Rotolo said Visibility Committee is looking at putting together an article in response to the TIP article summarizing the practitioner survey results.
Publications Board Procedure Document.
President Kraiger said the document is already adopted. Kraiger went over the guidelines approved in the February Executive Committee meeting. Dr. Jose Cortina looked at the process for editor appointment and developed a standardized procedure. Mr. Nershi said this is not up on Web site yet, but the entire briefing book is on the Web site.
President Kraiger said we need to integrate the role of the publications board with the publications officer.
Feedback From Town Hall Meeting.
At the meeting they talked about licensing and the name change.
Dr. McPhail stated dismay that the meeting was so sparsely attended. The room was hidden and not well advertised. We should do more to try to get a venue and get a larger contingency of folks together to see what they are missing. President Kraiger stated that even when we advertised it extensively last year, we didn’t get much more interest.
Dr. Salas suggested finding a way to make this not compete with the rest of the conference.
Dr. Weiss said the meeting needs younger, newer members there. Dr. Outtz suggested inviting certain people to increase attendance. Dr. Rotolo said the SIOP Exchange will be an ongoing issue to get people involved.
President Kraiger said we can encourage the Executive Board and committees to come to the meeting and bring people with them who might want to get involved.
Dr. Reynolds said he thinks the attendance at the town hall is not unlike the attendance at other SIOP committee meetings. Maybe we could organize it as a track and make the town hall meeting a hallmark event of this.
Committee Sunset Review.
Dr. Kraiger explained the sunset reviews of committees. The person doing the review comes back with a recommendation to either keep the committee or get rid of it. It was last done in 2005 or 2006 and we need to get caught up. At the last meeting we approved a sunset review schedule.
Sunset Review of APA Committee. Dr. Bauer said we should continue to have a committee on APA but asked if we could we do more branding around them or add them to the survey? She recommends continuation of the committee.
Dr. Blanton said APA President James Bray is interested in having people help work with APA program and changes for the APA convention. Maybe this is something the committee can be helpful with. Dr. Kraiger said he will possibly make an appointment for this.
Sunset Review of Electronic Communications Committee. Dr. Truxillo said the committee is a low-cost committee and central to many things we are going to do right now. He recommends continuation of the committee.
Sunset Review of TIP Committee. Dr. Tsacoumis recommends that the TIP committee continue.
Motion made by Dr. McPhail to accept the recommendations of the three sunset reviewers to continue the APA, Electronic Communications, and TIP committees. Motion seconded by Dr. Locke. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Motion passed to continue the APA, Electronic Communications, and TIP committees
New Name for SIOP.
Dr. Latham discussed Frank Landy’s work contacting presidents to express his dissatisfaction for the name I-O psychology. He received responses from 22. Eighteen wanted to change to organizational psychology. Two were strongly against it. The executive committee debated the issue in the fall and there was an open forum the Saturday at the conference.
President Kraiger said there was a decision made at the Executive Committee meeting in October to have a name change vote. Part of the concern about the vote five years ago is that SIOP was against four other names, and it won but got less than 50 percent of the vote. Landy said that if it came down to two, SIOP would not win and we would have a different name.
The Executive Committee voted to have a vote of membership between SIOP and the Society of Organizational Psychology. Organizational psychology was seen as the alternative, although we didn’t really suggest the name during the February Executive Committee meeting.
Marketing General also suggested a tagline to communicate who SIOP members are and put this tagline everywhere. Marketing General made numerous recommendations. We decided on the tagline: “Integrating Science and Practice at Work.” We aren’t just changing the name of the society; we are changing the name of the field.
The current plan is to have an FAQ that will talk about issues such as the cost of changing names. An estimate is that it will be between $15,000 and $20,000 when it is all done. There are other things that will need to take place. Should we change TIP to TOP, will we change the name of the journal, will we get graduate schools to change their names? At some point we would say, it looks like the vote would be successful or not. If we thought it would be successful, we would notify members to vote in May and then give them a month to vote.
Dr. McPhail said $20,000 is the tip of the iceberg. Beyond that, we also have the need to communicate that change widely to the public and other entities. The financial impact of changing a little piece of things but also notifying and making sure we are marketing that properly is likely to cost a lot more. Secondly, will next year be the 25th anniversary of SIOP or the first anniversary of SOP? This doesn’t seem like a great time to do it.
Dr. Reynolds asked if changing the name to organizational psychology means that we have decided on a new acronym for the society. Also, is the tagline set? Looking at it in terms of visibility, the acronym is an internal visibility issue. Should the acronym be considered separately from the name of who we are? The tagline should also be separate. He said he is concerned about the proposed tagline. It’s self-referential. It makes sense to I-Os psychologists, but people who don’t know what we do would not know what that meant.
Do we need to agree on the acronym and tagline as part of the name change?
Dr. Rotolo expressed concerns that nowhere in the process are we getting our clients’ viewpoints on the decisions we made.
Dr. Outtz also noted that there are also legal documents in the government that recognizes us as I-Os.
President Kraiger explained that what it gains is that it loses a term that makes it difficult to explain what we do. We want a term that has relevance. From Landy’s document, when you start explaining to people that you are an I-O psychologist, you lose people. Industrial feels old. It confuses us with industrial engineers. Our clients are industry, they are organizations, etc. We were also looking for a single word term to describe what we do. We wanted to move away from Industrial-Organizational and we chose organizational as the ending point. Dr. Becker noted it also has a better fit with European systems. Dr. Blanton noted a lot of them also use Occupational or Work psychologists.
Dr. Highhouse commented on the history of name change attempts. We have been trying to do this for 30 years and there is usually something that kills this. The sentiment has been there for 30 years, it’s just that no one has pushed it over the edge.
Dr. Bob Lewis said we are not just changing the name of the society; it is likely there might be implications toward what programs advertise themselves as academically. If the tagline is much more descriptive, that would get us much further. The proposed tagline is ambiguous and vague. It could apply to anyone.
Dr. McPhail said that since the argument has been around a long time, it probably isn’t that important. He said he resents the idea that industrial is antiquated. When I am in an industrial setting I am doing industrial psychology, he said.
Dr. Outtz said we need to lay out the pros and cons and let that be the prelude to the vote.
President Kraiger clarified that the tagline is something that we choose; it would just be an executive decision. The name of the society would be a vote of the membership since it is a bylaws change.
Dr. Deidra Schleicher suggested rearranging name to form the Organizational Psychology Association with the acronym OPA. There was discussion of the potential new acronym. Some societies don’t use acronyms, some use abbreviations.
Dr. Gormanous said it took the American Association of Psychology Boards three years to decide to change the name. He suggested that the board try to achieve more consensus and find out what their objectives are.
Dr. Knapp said that “industrial” questions have been around for thirty years. If it has been that long of a debate, then it is important.
Dr. Marcus Dickson expressed concern over voting numerous times on the name change. We already had one vote and you are saying we didn’t do it “right,” he said. So we have another vote. So if we do it again and we don’t get it “right” are we going to have another vote? Can we just acknowledge that the people who vote get to vote and make a decision and that it counts?
Dr. Reynolds said that at the time of the last vote, in terms of shepherding organizational change, that vote was designed to cause the issue to fail. There was no setup or discussion. The first vote was flawed. The name change is critically important.
Dr. Highhouse said it was technically a vote for the name change. Although no single proposed name received a majority, there were more votes for a different name than our present one.
Dr. Outtz asked if this is that important, shouldn’t there be more cognizance that due diligence has been done?
President Kraiger stated that any thought that the issue hasn’t been discussed is due to a shifting membership. A new person walking in the room may think there are issues that haven’t been talked about yet. Or these new people could just not know about the work on due diligence yet. He said he hasn’t heard anything at the meeting that is new, and he has never heard consensus on this.
Dr. Reynolds asked if the board has gone through the due process with membership to make sure people are informed. A pros and cons document was suggested.
Dr. Latham said that some people like “industrial,” but a lot don’t. The point is we should have a vote. No one’s opinions are going to change. People who like industrial will always like industrial.
President Kraiger said we can slow down the process, and get the information out there. We can post on The SIOP Exchange: “Name Change Vote Coming.” It would be easy to post messages, talk, debate, etc. Then go ahead with the vote.
Under the bylaws, a vote like this would be binding on the Executive Committee.
Dr. Knapp said that we could vote on the name but say that the tagline will be included. Mr. Nershi noted that it limits your flexibility if you include the tagline in the bylaws.
Dr. Rotolo asked if the board already voted that the name change would be organizational psychology.
President Kraiger said it has. Some people will question the organizational name. We can say why we chose it. In every discussion it seems it runs 70-30 percent in favor of organizational psychology against any other alternative.
Dr. Rotolo said we just want to make sure organizational psychology means what we want it to mean. He suggested having surveys of the public ahead of time to make sure the name portrays what we want it to.
There was discussion of a suitable time period for the name change. Three months will be the time period. There will be a vote in mid-July. President Kraiger suggested the board discuss the tagline issue at a later date. He will draft people to help him in the next two weeks to pull together information and circulate it throughout the board. We will post the information on the SIOP Exchange. Wendy will also put something into TIP.
Psychologically Healthy Workplace Award.
Dr. Anna Erickson said APA launched this without partnering with SIOP but they are interested in getting input. People should try to get involved at the state level. The first PHW conference was in D.C. in March. Some organizational psychologists presented and there is an opportunity for SIOP members to present there.
President Kraiger said APA President James Bray mentioned that he is giving out Practice Presidential awards each month this year. He asked SIOP for endorsements.
Early Career Contributions Award.
This is an action item for the awards committee to look at. President Kraiger explained that one of the problems is the extent to which practitioners are recognized for what they do. While the criteria are not strictly academic, the early career award currently favors academics, so we want to create a second early career award for practitioners, and make the other for academics.
SIOP Exchange (blog) and Electronic Communications.
President Kraiger explained SIOP’s new blog, The SIOP Exchange. Anyone can post and he will be writing a column. This is a tremendous opportunity to keep people informed.
President Kraiger explained that SIOP is a member in the Federation for Psychological, Behavioral and Cognitive Science. Since we pay a lot for membership, President Kraiger said Dr. Jay Goodwin, Dr. Knapp and a few others are going to look at the advocacy efforts we have planned and how we should best implement them into the SIOP committee structure. They might have a plan in place by the fall to take advantage of The Federation and help them work for us. There is also a lot of stimulus money dedicated to putting medical records online, and we have talked about a possible partnership in human factors where we could go to Congress and talk about what we could do to help this process.
APA Council Representative Report.
Dr. Knapp said that at the January Meeting of APA they worked on strategic planning. This is the first strategic plan in the history of APA. Budget-wise, APA is in decent shape but hurting. They passed a budget in January with $12 million in cuts and publications are down. A group SIOP helped start called Acting For Science has become part of the caucus for science. We participated in that, and it is one of the places we talked about the convention and how it is not appealing to people in I-O or many other disciplines.
Also, The Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology (CRSPPP) recognizes I-O as a specialty. This is set to expire in 2010. We should renew it. Dr. McPhail suggested giving this information to Visibility Committee for their benefit.
Meeting adjourned by President Kraiger at 2:47 p.m.