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

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

May 7-8, 2006

PRESENT:  Tammy Allen, Steven Ashworth, Derek Avery, Talya Bauer, James Beaty, Mindy Bergman, Judith Blanton,  Joan Brannick,  Gilad Chen, Nik Chmeil, Allan Church, Adrienne, Colella, John Cornwell, Jose Cortina, Robert Dipboye, Mary Doherty, Lisa Finkelstein, Eric Heggestad, Verlin Hinsz, Leaetta Hough, George Hollenbeck, Dennis Johnson, Deirdre Knapp, Laura Koppes, Kurt Kraiger, Ronald Landis, William Macey, Jeffrey McHenry, David Nershi, Julie Olson-Buchanan, Kenneth Pearlman, Tahira Probst, S. Douglas Pugh, Mickey Quinones, Douglas Reynolds, Steven Rogelberg, Paul Sackett, Robert Silzer, Lois Tetrick, Paul Thayer, Donald Truxillo, Janine Waclawski, Michael Zickar

ABSENT: Wendy Becker, Joyce Bono, Fritz Drasgow, Heather Fox, Paul Hanges, Mikki Hebl, Gary Latham, Liberty Munson, Robert Pritchard, Eduardo Salas, John Scott  
 

Call to Order
SIOP Journal Update
Strategic Planning
Visibility
Advocacy
Membership
Science and Practice
EAWOP
FBPCS
Adjournment
Call to Order
President's Report
Financial Officer's Report
Secretary's Report
Adjournment

President Jeff McHenry called the meeting to order at 1:08 pm

Dr. McHenry welcomed the group and kicked off the meeting with an introductory icebreaker.  After formal introductions from all present, Past-President Leaetta Hough said a few final words of thanks.

SIOP Journal update:  Dr. Paul Sackett

The first order of business was a presentation by Dr. Paul Sackett on the latest information on the new SIOP journal.

Dr. Sackett thanked the group for a chance to present this new initiative, tentatively titled InteractIOn.  The format of the journal will include a focal article, which could be a position paper on an important topic, or a pair of papers in debate format, or an integrative, multi-authored, multi-perspective paper.  Next, there will be a set of commentaries, including multiple perspectives from science, practice, and the international community.  These commentaries will challenge, amplify, or illustrate.  Although they can take issue with the paper, they are not meant solely to be critique.  Following this, there will be an integrative reply from the original author. Dr. Sackett provided several potential example topics.

The working title InteractIOn has multiple connotations – the format, the scientist practitioner nature of the journal, the technical meeting of interaction effects, signaling complexity and nuance. 

Dr. Sackett said he envisioned two “packages” (e.g., article-commentary-response) per issue, not just one.  There will be four issues per year, and all members and student affiliates will get it, both in paper and electronic format.  It will be part of being a member of SIOP, just like TIP.

The reason for the format, he explained, is that we didn’t want to be competing with existing journals for the same manuscripts, and no other journal in our field makes consistent use of this format.  This will involve different kinds of communication than what currently exists in our specialty area. This should be a wonderful mechanism for creating communication between the science and practice communities, help identify gaps in knowledge and translate research into practice,  and give students coming into the field a richer appreciation for the range of issues and perspectives in the field.

There was a selection committee (Secretary’s note:  This process was reviewed in the Winter Minutes) who selected Dr. Sackett to be the first editor.  He originally planned to work without an editorial board, and have more of an ad hoc “project team” for each topic who would work with him to see who would develop these papers.  They would have a much more proactive role from the beginning, Now, however, he is thinking of having a more big picture strategic editorial board as well.

Focal articles could be commissioned or submitted, and many people have already been contacting him about this, and he is working with some people to suggest how they can further develop their ideas. Articles could be commissioned after meeting with a project team. People interested in submitting a paper should prepare a prospectus – this would be a briefer way to find out if there is any interest before pursuing the magna opus.

Accepted papers will be posted to password accessible web site, and SIOP members will be invited to write commentaries.  They also can also write a prospectus for the commentaries themselves, and the board may solicit them from specific individuals. The commentaries will also be peer reviewed.  This format may make it more feasible for people who don’t have the time to write a long paper to participate and get things out there.

The integrative reply is also subject to editorial review –it will always appear but will be subject to review in tone, in the interest of collegiality.

Moving on to logistical issues, Dr. Sackett informed the group that they are currently weighing out the options of commercial vs. self-publishing.  The first issue should be out at the start of 2008, though possibly as early as late 2007. 

The journal will generate revenue through library subscriptions, individual subscriptions to non-members, on-line access fees, and advertising. He stressed that this will not be a way to make money off of our members.

Another point discussed is that the author of the primary article cannot withdraw the article after they see the commentaries –this will be made very clear.

The RFP for publishers went to APA, Blackwell, Elsevier, Erlbaum, and Sage.  All expressed a great deal of enthusiasm for this, even though they see so many proposals for journals per year and only will take one or two.  This is a useful affirmation that the marketplace agrees that this project makes good sense.

The responses from the journals differed on many dimensions, such as ownership, sharing profit vs. sharing revenue, minimum guarantees, etc.  Also, the 7-year revenue projections varied wildly. Rather than rush this they are going to have a long meeting to go over this in great detail and sort through everything.

The overall goals for the journal are to serve the members, increase SIOP visibility, provide broad access to content, to have a short-term revenue guarantee, and to have long term revenue growth. An interesting question here is which of these is most important, and where are we willing to tolerate some trade-offs?

If we can do it well and cheaply, there may be no reason to get another publisher. There may be great value in going with a commercial publisher for visibility and broad access to content.  However, this would mean not as much revenue.  As we have these pros and cons, Dr. Sackett indicated that he would appreciate knowing the society’s priorities on these issues.

Dr. Bauer asked for a quick clarification as to whether this would increase membership prices.  Dr. Sackett responded that there would not be a journal surcharge per se, but dues could go up since we would be providing more services and benefits to members.  However, if this works out and gives us another source of revenue, costs may be entirely covered.

Conversation ensued regarding the pros and cons of self vs. commercial publishing.  Several people supported the visibility and broad marketing we could get with an outside publisher, and others cautioned to be careful with what the journals are offering.  Also, the idea that we could start out with a publisher and eventually take it on ourselves (or vice-versa) was brought forth.

Dr. Dipboye asked for clarification regarding the peer review process for the commentaries. He discussed how critical this section is for the inclusiveness goal.  Dr. Sackett discussed some of the criteria for review including issues of redundancies, collegiality, and value added.  The issue was also raised that perhaps in the electronic version of the journal there could be further commentaries.

Dr. Kraiger made a few comments related to goals.  One of our drivers is our ongoing desire to make sure everyone in the world knows how we are different. How can we say who were are if we don’t have a journal that says it?  So, something that clearly can do this with wide distribution will be important – probably as important as revenue growth.

Dr. Bergman raised the issue of how we manage the perception of quality of a new journal, which is a concern in our current academic reward structure.  The question of whether an outside publisher would influence these perceptions was raised.

Next, Dr. Colella asked for clarification of the tone/writing-style of the focal articles. In other words, would you need a Ph.D. in I-O psychology to read these articles?  Dr. Sackett clarified that each focal article should be freestanding, in that it shouldn’t assume the reader has a level of background knowledge on the critical aspects of the topic.  It can and should be sophisticated, but not inaccessible.

Dr. Silzer asked how much interest has been received so far from non-academics, and Dr. Sackett replied that it is about 50/50 so far.  This will be an interesting balancing act.  He also mentioned that some practitioner groups should be approached to encourage involvement. Dr. Rogelberg responded that the balance is a noble goal and a tough challenge.  He encouraged the team to stay true to their vision and not try to please everyone.

Dr. Pearlman asked about the process for making suggestions on titles. Dr. Sackett informed us that many people (aside from his wife) really seem to like InteractIOn.  Dr. Quinones asked why we can’t just call it the Journal of I-O Psychology – wouldn’t that give us the most visibility?  Others wondered if we could do both; something like JIOP:  InteractIOn to leave room for any other kind of expansion to other formats of journals.

Dr. Sackett thanked us all for our ideas, and the group thanked him for his informative presentation.

Strategic Planning

Switching gears, Dr. McHenry overviewed the history of strategic planning at SIOP.  It happened first when SIOP incorporated and went forward with its own identity, and it happened again about 10 years ago under Dr. Murphy’s presidency.  Lots of positive things came from both of these processes.  We did it again last September in Chicago.  The weekend was sometimes fun, sometimes painful, but did result in very good outcomes.  Our plan for the afternoon is to split up into four areas indicated as core goal areas and start to develop ideas for initiatives. Before that, we had presentations from EC members to refresh the group on these areas, and a presentation from Dr. Doherty to preview the relevant results of the member survey as they apply to these goals.

First, Dr. Colella reviewed the goal of Visibility. We desire SIOP to be the visible and trusted authority on I-O psychology.  Visibility issues have been discussed for a long time among SIOP members. Dr. Colella asked us to envision many “What if”s”.  For example:  What if the majority of the general public, managers, executives, and your mother all knew what an I-O psychologist was? What if we could turn on the Today show and see someone we knew being interviewed? What if the government funded I-O as much as other disciplines?  What if we were widely engaged in collaborations with other kinds of scientists, and in other countries?

Our objectives are to increase our outreach to a variety of constituencies, heighten awareness that we can improve productivity and well-being (value as well as visibility!), and be able to put forth a concise, complete, and consistent answer to the question “what is I-O psychology?”

Next, Dr. Knapp discussed the issue of Advocacy.  She reviewed some of the problems the EC had with the Advocacy training we received at our EC meeting at APA in January.  Essentially, no one quite new what to expect and not all of us went in with the same definition of Advocacy.  One concern is just because people see us (visibility) they may not listen to us; advocacy is a way to ensure that next step.  One initiative has to do with increasing federal funding, but that is only one consideration.  We also need to think about our impact on laws, both at the Federal and state levels, and our influence within APA.

Dr. Dipboye, who was working with Dr. Knapp on this, made the point that we (including him) may do a lot of whining that we are neglected, but we don’t always take enough action.  We ought to be doing more within APA – forming some more interesting coalitions and being involved on task forces. We could be testifying before congress.  We can be involved not just at the federal level but local level as well.

Dr. Cortina discussed the third area – Membership.  In order for us to be the organization of choice for all I-O psychologists, we have to do everything better, including the conference, TIP, books, listserv, etc.  We need to get members signing on early and staying with it. We need to find out why people leave, and figure out how to meet needs of multiple types of people so they will stay. 

After a ten minute break (2:55 pm – 3:05 pm), we reconvened to hear Dr. Kraiger talk about Science and Practice.  One of the “moose in the room” issues at the Chicago meeting was the tension between science and practice.  This gets integrated into our other goals and our values.  There is a difference between science and practice, and scientist/practitioner.  We need to think about how they complement each other, and maybe move away from the notion of the labels of scientists and practioners.  Some of the issues evolving include collaboration and dialogue, where science informs practice and practice informs science. Some ways for us to do this include several of our initiatives and programs already in place, including TIP, Frontiers, Professional Practice, Consultant Locator, coaching model, international affairs, state affairs, job placement, Leading Edge consortium, InteractIOn journal, international outreach, and the proposed MA consortium.

It was noted that we are probably training 6 times as many masters students going into practice compared to doctoral programs training students for either academics or practice.

Dr. Quinones made an observation that we seem to be somewhat ahead of the curve in our thinking here now that the buzzword in medicine and healthcare is “evidence based practice.”  That is what we’ve been driving for all along as a profession.  This may be a better way to phrase what we are shooting for over “science based practice” as it maps on to the current lingo.

At this point, Dr. Doherty took the podium to discuss the member survey in light of the questions we asked on strategic planning.  The survey had a 33% response rate, made up of 30% students.  A full report on the member survey will soon be available on the website, and the information will be broken down in a multitude of ways (Secretary’s note: Survey results are not reported here as they will appear soon in full on the website).

Dr. Doherty highlighted what members thought was important or very important.  A comment was made that it appeared that many people didn’t see membership in SIOP as a critical goal, however it could be interpreted that it is not seen as an important goal because membership is already important to people (no need to specify as a goal).  It was also noticed that midcareer people seem to be whom we lose, and we should try to drill deeper into this. 

Next, members of the group decided what they were each most interested in spending time on, and split up into four groups, led by the individuals named above, with the task of coming up with about 3 specific initiatives around each goal to be fleshed out in September of this year. After these group discussions, the leaders presented these initiatives, outlined below.

Visibility

1.  Craft our message.  We have different constituencies, so that message might differ for each of them.

2.  Create a marketing plan(s).  Again, might vary slightly. May want to start out with a call for SIOP members with expertise in marketing, perhaps through an ad hoc committee, and then eventually hire a professional firm.  Others suggested having MBA classes that do marketing projects help out.  Also, some consulting firms that do a lot of marketing could help as well.

3.  Provide tools to members for grassroots visibility promotion.  We want individual members to become more visible within their organization, psychology department, university, etc.

Advocacy:

1. Develop and lead coalitions within APA.  An example would be an interpretative guideline for the IRB.  That could be a lead tryout.  This is also the place where we will come up with a mechanism for dealing with an immediate issue as a coordinated group with other non-healthcare provider psychologists.

2.  Active participation in state psychology associations.  We need to meet the leaders and influence their activities and policies.  This is the level, for example, where psychologists have the most potential impact on state legislation related to licensure. This is a good level for which to practice our skills.

3.  Federal funding of I-O research.  We need to use traditional sources like NSF and DoD, but also nontraditional sources like NIH and Homeland Security.  We may be able to get involved with more evaluation research within NIH. We need to learn more how to best use our supporting organization and listen to what they ask of us. We really could be a lot more proactive with what happens with APA and APS.  Dr. Dipboye added that in order to be successful here we need to be better at providing clear, one-page summaries of our qualifications and what we can do – this should be something we all have in our back pocket.  This also crosses over with Visibility’s goals.

Dr. Cortina suggested that SIOP make an effort to help I-O programs develop revenue generating programs in an effort to deal with salary issues. SIOP could help with marketing and designing programs that would help these individual departments.  This may be related to advocacy, but could go somewhere else as well.

Dr. Bauer asked if it is possible for SIOP to be the institution receiving grants rather than universities, such that the money comes back to us.  However, Dr. Chen pointed out that a large part of the reward structure for professors is the overhead coming back to their department.

Dr. Knapp pointed out that funding sources are often interested in interdisciplinary teams, so an idea would be to show on our website some examples of successful ways I-O psychologists have teamed up with other professions (e.g., economists, sociologists).

Membership:

1. Meaningful and actionable trend metrics.  We know there is some lack of a feeling of inclusiveness and many members not rejoining, but we don’t know exactly why because our data are not specific enough. We need to do a better job of asking the right questions.  We need to be able to identify a particular set of labels that will allow us to be able to say why certain groups aren’t staying and what specifically we could do differently to hold on to them.

2.  Increase a sense of inclusion and ownership through meaningful involvement in SIOP activities.  Right now there are very few SIOP activities with which the average member can get involved. There is the perception that a small number of people are doing everything.  We need to think about how to clarify and expand areas of involvement.

3. Identify and market to those who share our core values.  For example, if you are a Ph.D. student in a psychology department, you know about SIOP. But what if you are in an OB program and the business faculty aren’t familiar with it – how can we target you and explain what SIOP does?

Dr. Bauer added in that maybe we could get 1000 members involved in a grassroots campaign for both visibility and gaining new members and holding on to old members. Dr. Church asked about forming a “we want you back” campaign.  Dr. Macey suggested an exit survey to follow up to figure out why people are leaving. 

Discussion also ensued to reflect on whether the goal of getting everyone possible involved in SIOP forces us in any way to change core values? This was why we named this initiative “market to those who share our core values” and not just to everyone remotely involved in workplace psychology issues.

Science/Practice:

1. Defining with rigor standards for effective practice.  This was discussed as something that could happen through the ad hoc committee structure.  It has implications for awards and recognition as well as Education and Training.

2. Revisit the fellowship criteria through inclusiveness.  Dr. Hollenbeck noted that almost 2/3 of SIOP members are practitioners, but 80% of Fellows are academic. It has largely become an academic honor, and we need to get rid of the perceptions (or reality) that you need to be an academic to be a Fellow.

3.  Examine terminology regarding the roles and functions within our profession.  For example, we’ve been saying “nonacademic vs. academic” or someone is “not a scientist”, etc. We need to define the terminology we use. We don’t yet have a structure for this but we need to.

Dr. Kraiger added more about the different possible products emerging from number 1.  Dr. Kraiger (an academic) had suggested an edited book, and Dr. Reynolds (a practitioner) one sheet with six bullets.  Dr. Silzer summed this up with “and there we have it” with much chuckling from the group.  It was suggested we start with the bullets and work from there. There is so much diversity when we talk about excellence in practice, and we need something we stand for as a society in regard to practice.

Discussion ensued about the observation that these bullets seem more slanted toward practice.  One thing we are doing for science is joining the Federation, which puts us at the table with other scientists.

We really need more and better communication about what evidence we have about favoring of academics or practitioners.  It was noted that standards of practice could also be applied to the academic role.  Standards of good practice don’t just help individuals but the organization as a whole.

At this point the group reconvened as a large group, and Dr. McHenry welcomed our two guests.  First, Nik Chmeil, president of EAWOP, took the podium.

EAWOP:  Nik Chmeil

Dr. Chmeil thanked us for inviting him to attend the conference and the EC meeting.  He reflected on how some of the issues we are facing as a society map on to what they are facing in Europe.  At one time EAWOP was a loose network of people really committed to psychology at work.  He said he could see a similar dedication among the participants of the SIOP conference, and how it was not just an academic discipline but focused on application.  EAWOP got approached by the EU commission who wanted information on key topics. At first it was difficult because EAWOP as it was didn’t have the power to respond as a group to the EU; they decided they needed more structure.  This ties into visibility as he believes they missed a good opportunity to help the EU because they didn’t have key positions to represent to others.  More recently, they are starting to have smaller meetings focusing on key topics; the aging workforce is an example, which will take place next January.  The believe they need to have a visible product for the members as well as for others outside the group.  They plan to push their position out there in a unified way.  They are also taking initiative on education, licensing, and testing.  A lot of people in their organization volunteer; it is important to gear up to something that is going to make a difference.

In terms of the science/practice issue, they have had a long history of practitioners complaining about academics.  Academics don’t want to lose the science, but are working hard to figure out how to make a contribution.  They are turning the question around to ask the practitioners what they can do – how can they fill gaps, do evaluations of interventions, etc.  They are starting a web journal that is practitioner led, and is designed not to showcase great claims of things they are doing, but more to provide knowledge as practitioners that academics might not have access to.

Dr. Chmeil also commented on his impressions of our conference. He said he saw some really good papers, and he saw a positive reaction about the conference among attendees.  He mentioned that they have a different style in Europe, but he appreciated the way people talked about things.  He also was surprised by a comment he heard someone make about being afraid to mention qualitative research at SIOP, and his reaction was that it may really tell us something we may not have realized we wanted to know, which we could explore quantitatively.  He also noted that many talks looked at psychological constructs but stopped short of the translation to application.  He ended by stating that he is leaving here as invigorated as he is tired, and thanking us once again for the opportunity.

Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences:  Barbara Wanchisen

Next, Barb from the Federation took the podium. She stated that she learned so much about what we do over the last four days that she never imagined and that we are a large presence.  We will be having two representatives on the Federation – Dr. Ilgen and Dr. Campbell – where as most societies have only one, and the largest (APA) has three.  She provided the group with a brochure of the activities of the Federation for us to review.  She let us know that on June 7th in DC there is a meeting to get a coalition on Capital Hill. Dr. Gelfand is going to be our representative.  Other advocacy efforts are listed, including forums done by groups each year (such as human factors).  They also had a meeting with representatives from homeland security, who were excited about the possibilities and may want to fund some research. They are going to be doing some important follow up work with them.  As things arrive, they will come to us for help.

Barb also talked a bit about FABBS and the science café idea that we discussed in January.  These will take place at museums – at first in DC – and will feature a speaker talking about a specific idea.  For example, at the spy museum they are having Dr. Bob Cialdini (social psychologist) talk about propaganda.  Dr. Hough would like to put one together for next president’s day to focus on leadership.  Labor day seems as if it would have natural opportunities for I-O psychologists.  Dr. Dipboye asked if the Department of Labor had a museum and Barb said she’d look into that. 

Barb ended by stressing how much she really wants to help, and how she really wants input from us and encourages us to email her.

Dr. McHenry ended by asking everyone to let the work of the day sink in overnight before we reconvene in the morning. He also wanted to recognize the people on the conference committee for their fine work – there were 3432 people in attendance, second only to the Chicago meeting.  It was a terrific conference.

Dr. McHenry dismissed the group at 5:00 p.m.

Dr. McHenry reconvened the meeting at 8:04 a. m. on Monday, May 8, 2006.

President’s Report

Dr. McHenry noted that many points were already covered yesterday. He again acknowledged the outgoing committee chairs for their fine work. He stated that Dr. Hough’s presidential address really captured how the last year has been tremendous for the society. There is a lot of action happening on the strategic plan.

Financial Report

Dr. Pearlman presented the financial report.  He noted that this is all pretty new to him and was not involved in the budget preparation process.  He has been assured we are doing very well – and if anyone has any questions either he or Dave can find out the answers.

Dr. McHenry explained to the group that typically at this meeting we approve the portion of the budget that doesn’t have to do with the conference. This allows us to have an operating budget for the new fiscal year, and in September we will pass the final budget. We should be ok as we did well at the workshops and Dallas wasn’t very expensive. We have a pretty good cash reserve

Mr. Nershi explained how the budget is broken down by cluster area; if individuals have questions about a committee’s budget they can look under the cluster.

Conversation ensued reviewing any atypical budget items for the year. For example, Mr. Nershi noted that money is budgeted for journal expenses in case it’s needed for 2008.  The masters student consortium is new, as is membership in the Federation. 

Dr. McHenry noted that we can assume we aren’t going to have a deficit budget, and acknowledged Dr. Cornwell’s work on this.  Although next year’s conference will be more expensive in New York, we should be okay.  The proposed budged expects revenue of $65,000.  In September at the EC meeting we talked about being more realistic in our budget and using money for the benefit of the members instead of having too much of a surplus.

Dr. McHenry called for a motion to pass the pre-conference budged. Dr. Knapp makes the motion, and Dr. Kraiger seconds.  Motion passes unanimously.

ACTION ITEM:  Pre-conference budget is approved.

Secretary’s Report

Dr. Finkelstein reminded the group that the minutes of the EC meetings are now posted for all members on the website.  She asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the January meeting.

Dr. Kraiger makes the motion, and Dr. Colella passes.  The motion passes unanimously.

ACTION ITEM:  The minutes of the winter meeting of the Executive Committee are approved.

Dr. McHenry notes that there were no emergency action items since January to pass. He also noted that committee reports are in the briefing book if they arrived on time to the office, otherwise they will be available on the web.  He asked for any discussion items that don’t require a specific action item to be discussed now.

Dr. Cortina told the group that Dr. Bono wanted us to discuss if the external awards component could be separated from the awards committee or become part of the visibility committee.  Dr. Cortina noted that the Awards committee is overloaded as it is and that the external awards has more of a visibility mission. Dr. McHenry noted that he has plans to discuss this a bit further down on the agenda.

Dr. Kraiger asked if anyone attended the international café.  Dr. Reynolds pointed out that there was an error about the time on the notice that went out to publicize it, and therefore attendance was quite low.  However, the international committee collected information from everyone who attended the social, so they will compile data on that.

Next, Dr. Thayer gave the Foundation report. There is an active drive to supplement the Tenopyr and Katzell funds. For the Tenopyr fund, they are currently at 30K and want to get to 70K.  For the Katzell fund, would like to increase 85K to 120K to get good sized scholarship and travel funds.  Dr. Thayer warned us they are going to be aggressive, so get ready to see him coming with his envelopes.

Dr. Thayer noted that the LGBT committee had their award approved and they will be funding it themselves to start. This brought up the issue of how to deal with a lot of awards coming forth from different places.  The foundation does want to be able to support emerging issues.  They are proposing to stay at a 25K limit for awards. There will be 5 years to put it together, and in the end if the don’t make it,  the money will go to an advancement fund and the executive committee with control it.  The foundation needs to be at arm’s length.  Dr. Thayer thanked this subcommittee for bringing this forward and helping them to think about changes in the way they do things to be more flexible.

Dr. McHenry raised a scenario – what if he was a donor and he designated his funds to go to an award that ended up not being fully funded – what if he didn’t want this money to go to an advancement fund?  Dr. Thayer noted that this would be how it would work, and thanked Dr. McHenry for calling this potential serious problem to his attention.  He will develop an appropriate mechanism to take care of it.

Dr. McHenry also commented on the excitement in the room at the plenary session when Dr. Thayer announced that we have reached the 1 million mark. He apologized for not playing Rocky music but promised that when it gets to 2 million he’d buy him the CD himself.

Next, Dr. Truxillo provided a quick conference report.  Although a lot of charges are not in yet, we are right on target for what we expected, leaving us with a 9% profit.  We had strong attendance, second only to Chicago.  The AV went more smoothly than last year.  We had some innovations, such as the top poster session that Dr. Olson-Buchanan pushed for, which was very well attended.  The communities of interest did better with facilitators, and had good attendance. The doctoral consortium reunion seems to have caught on, and they plan to organize themselves in the future.  We continued with audiotaping, and also videotaped some of the sessions that can be used for CE credit.  Dr. Colella also asked how the increase in student reviewers went, and Dr. Olson Buchanan and Dr. Finkelstein informed the group of how this started last year, we increased the number this year, and they seem to be doing great.  Discussion ensued about thinking of a possible award for best reviewers at SIOP, and Dr. Allen, next year’s chair, took note to think about the logistics around this.

Dr. Truxillo informed the group that they’ve been looking at southwestern cites, trying to move the conference back and forth around the country.  Houston and Anaheim are in the running, and perhaps San Diego.  It was mentioned that many people are looking forward to next year, but some are fearful of the sticker shock.

Dr. Blanton then thanked Ms. Jackson and Mr. Nershi for giving her great support with the CE credit work, and now she is expanding her committee. They are piloting home study with some audiotaped sessions, such as an invited coaching session with Dr. Dave Peterson.  This should be great for our members as well as a potential income stream for us.  Right now we also have Sunday seminars and workshops for CE credit. Her two new committee members will be Dr. Peter Scontrino and Dr. Victoria Pullman.

Dr. McHenry thanked Dr. Blanton for her amazing work, and mentioned that the Fall conference will also have some CE opportunities.  The 3D Group has been doing the CE surveys and they have been very professional.

Dr. Knapp mentioned a comment related to the ethics session – a few people mentioned trying to have a CE ethics session every year.  She requested that maybe next year that could be one that is taped.  It would be great to have sessions with different participants every year.  Dr. Brannick also mentioned that ethics is on the short list for one of the workshops next year.

Dr. McHenry asked how the APA sessions on media and advocacy went this year.  Dr. Knapp mentioned that advocacy wasn’t well attended, but went very well. She also mentioned that the APA folks were delighted with the conference and would like to be invited back.  Dr. McHenry mentioned that this helps to accomplish our goal of advocating within APA and also provides CE credit opportunities for our members.

Dr. Rogelberg asked to take a moment to talk about 3 initiatives, the last of which needs a vote. First, they are now rolling out the teaching websites, available through SIOP, which is a repository of all types of teaching aids posted by members, and using a WIKI format. This can help to create a community and keep people coming back.  Dr. McHenry asked if someone is monitoring this, and Dr. Rogelberg said they have three WIKI “gardeners.”

The second initiative is the SIOP Ambassadors program, which will go live in the next couple of months. This is a matching service for departments who don’t have I-O – they can bring someone in to teach or mentor research.  They will be identifying a set of ambassadors, and will provide travel expenses and possibly a small honorarium.

The last item is an action item – the masters consortium.  Last SIOP at the program directors meeting this was discussed. There is an inclusiveness issue where masters students often feel left out of SIOP. This will have an impact not only on the students but on the faculty at masters programs.  It is planned for post lunch, all afternoon. It will be capped at first 40, and programs will nominate a student. It will have a practitioner oriented theme.  They are requesting $2,000 for snacks, not intended to cover room rental (Mr. Nershi informed him that the room is free).  Dr. Colella pointed out that this was very well developed and ready to go.  Dr. Barnes-Farrell had some concern about only 40 spots with so many programs.  Eventually there may be two concurrent ones, but to start out don’t want it to be too big.

Dr. McHenry said this is an audience we don’t touch a lot. If the issue is funding, maybe he can find out a way to do more – maybe a separate morning and afternoon session. This helps advance the society’s agenda in terms of membership.

Some other ideas that were raised were an eventual masters reunion, and perhaps a speaker from New York coming to talk about things they do related to I-O.  It also could tied in some with the newcomer welcome session.

A request for a motion was made.  Dr. Macey made the motion and included a willingness not only to approve it but to double the size.  Dr. Knapp seconds.  Motion passes unanimously.

ACTION ITEM:  The masters consortium is approved, and a doubling of the size was approved.

Dr. Macey gave a report on the task group on licensure.  There was a report that we reviewed and commented on last August that appeared to resolve some of our previous concerns, but we wrote a letter saying that there were still issues, specifically in regard to a supervised internship requirement that would prevent some of our members from getting licensed.  Several weeks prior to our meeting the requirement for the internship reappeared as other divisions had brought it forth.  We scrambled and worked with Division 5 – we presented the case collectively for why this wouldn’t work for our purposes.  Just prior to the last council meeting we created a friendly amendment, got divisions 5, 12, 19, and 21 on board, and asked that the internship requirement be restricted to those in the healthcare professions. It went smoothly and was all over in 5 minutes.  It was great to have that kind of energy and collaboration around this.  Coalitions get APA’s ear, and we are finding we could do a lot more this way.

Dr. Tetrick, in the state affairs report, mentioned a suggestion that had been brought up to consider a 1-2 year experience in a consulting role to get licensed, but that could preclude academics from getting licensed. 

Next, Mr. Nershi mentioned the DVD of the fall conference available to purchase.  The upcoming meeting has 18 presenters locked in, and planning is going well. It will be October 27 and 28 in Charlotte.  The mini track at this conference was successful.  Finances are in the black and there should be profit on the DVDs.  The agenda should be together soon.  Dr. Silzer mentioned that he brought three clients to the last one and they all gave it very high marks.

The next item was an update on the proposal for branding a measurement data base, originally discussed briefly at the January meeting.  DDI had been approached about supporting a data base of different types of measures. They are sponsoring it but thought it would be an opportunity for us if we wanted to be associated with it.  In January, the EC had requested more information about content, screening, etc.

The issue on the table now is whether we are interested in investigating this more, and who the point  of contact will be.  DDI is donating the time for assembling the database. A service like this has existed for sometime in the health and psychosocial fiends.  All come from published, referee based data sources.  It is descriptive, not evaluative, in its form.  It will be a subscription service, designed for use in libraries.  Dr. Chen mentioned that the research methods group from the Academy of Management just finished a similar project, which is free on their website. It provides just citations from measures, not actual measures. That will also be the case here – whole measures will not be provided.

Dr. Hough asked how something like this would be available to practitioners to access. Dr. Reynolds said they are open to a variety of ways to distribute the service.  Dr. Kraiger said that part of partnering with DDI should be to have some say in how it gets shaped and distributed. We really don’t know what branding for us means in this case. Should we have access to our paying members? Back to the question on the table – does this sound interesting enough to explore, and who is the one that is going to do it?

Dr. Thayer mentioned that something like this was on the table 20 years ago and they didn’t pursue it.  There was concern over quality control. Dr. Hough expressed concerns of liability, and Dr. Hinsz raised the question if a book publisher printed a book of tests and measures, would they be liable?  Dr. Kraiger wondered if we want to get our feet muddy even if we can clean them later.  Dr. Dipboye asked that other that the time of the SIOP task force working on this, is there any cost?  The answer was no.  Dr. Zickar asked if anyone in the room was really excited about this. Without much reaction, Dr. McHenry asked the table if anyone was interested enough to want to take the lead to explore this.  Further discussion ensued about potential liability issues.  Dr. McHenry asked if we had enough interest to identify two or three people to explore the liability issue, interest issue, quality control issue, and the issue of partnering with a for profit company.  Dr. Macey mentioned this might not be in the best interest of people who publish in journals, as now perhaps people would access measures through a database and not read the journals.

Dr. McHenry asked again if we can get a few people to do this. Dr. Kraiger said he would, and he wouldn’t turn down volunteers. Dr. Dipboye said he may be able to think of a couple of people to help. Dr. Macey asked if APA’s legal office could help with some of these questions, and Dr. Knapp thought they probably would be very helpful.  It might be good to make this a more general investigation so that we can find information to go back to in the future if something like this comes up again.  Dr. Kraiger agreed it would be of value to flesh out the general issues and then see how this specific case applies.

The group took a break at 9:30 and reconvened at 9:50.

We turned next to reports from the membership and visibility groups.

Dr. Hough reminded the group that committee reports are now available to anyone going to the website, including the minutes and the strategic plan.  The budget and previous minutes has remained protected by password.  Discussion ensued as to whether reports should be available to anyone who goes to the website or just SIOP members (not just EC members).  Dr. Pearlman suggested that between now and September we think about whether the budget should be password protected or not.  Dr. Finkelstein asked if members ever request to look at the budget and no one recalled this.  Mr. Nershi mentioned one option is to put a budget summary without all the line items.

Dr. Cortina next segued us to a return to January’s discussion of what we are going to do with the Long Range Planning committee (LRP).  It was supposed to go up for sunset review this year.  The issue was that with the new strategic plan and upcoming look at possibly restructuring governance, does it make sense to do away with or restructure this committee?

Dr. McHenry mentioned that he has plans to pull people together for an official view of committee and governance structure, and this would be part of that.  The committee structure as is was formed about 5-7 years ago.  Recently there has been some lack of clarity over the role of the cluster chair – is it for strategic planning within the cluster, or are they a level breaker to the president.  So, it might be good to table the LRP conversation further until after the work in September where we kickoff the governance review.

Dr. Cortina agreed that sort of review would be beneficial. He would like to see in addition to that review that the new members of LRP each choose a goal and initiative for the next few years.  We should have the EC members each take something and run with it, and perhaps we can have a mechanism where new people pick up where former people have left off. No on wants to see LRP issues be postponed while we look into this.

Dr. Hough suggested that maybe LRP should own a piece of the metrics work we need to be doing for strategic planning – to see that the organization as a whole is obtaining the goals.  Dr. Colella wondered how this would work if we each took our own goals – perhaps we need a broader, spanning picture rather than just what the committees are doing.  LRP could be at a higher level – not at the specific initiative level but at the goal level.

Dr. Kraiger suggested we take the assignments we have now as members at large and past presidents, and reassign things around the four goal areas.  By the September meeting we should be really clear on which of the current committees fall within each of the goals, and what committees we don’t have that could fall under those goals.  Dr. McHenry agreed it is hard to separate clusters from four goal areas.  Perhaps on a temporary basis we could shuffle committees.

For September, he plans to have all the elected members, and then initiative champions for each area who can invite 5-7 people to do a detailed working session.  They would do some work in advance to come in with some concrete ideas and work hard at the session and walk away with really specific tasks (e.g., a timeline for a marketing plan for SIOP). He was initially thinking that we should delay working on the governance issue until after the September meeting, but maybe we can do it in parallel.  

Discussion ensued about some of the confusion around the clusters and the strategic goals and how they can all fit together. Many initiatives and committees seem to fit under several goals.  Dr. McHenry does not want the governance issue to get in the way of moving on initiatives.  He was thinking the committee to work on this should be comprised of the president, the senior member at large, possibly the other members at large, the president-elect, one or two past presidents who have been involved in governance changes in the past.  Also, should have a couple committee chairs and possibly an APA council representative as well.

In terms of the initiative champions, we should have some LRP people and committee chairs that seemed central to the issues.  For example, the visibility goal should have the visibility committee chair involved.  An APA council rep should be involved in advocacy, as well as scientific/state affairs.  Dr. McHenry stressed that he doesn’t want to stop any activity happening already, but in terms of big new initiatives let’s get these going for the September meeting in an organized way.

Discussion ensued to finalize who would be championing each group.  The final decisions were:

Membership:  Dr. Bauer, Dr. Quinones, and Dr. Avery

Advocacy:  Dr. Chen, Dr. Knapp, and Dr. Dipboye

Science/Practice:  Dr. Rogelberg and Dr. Silzer

Visibility: Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Colella, and Dr. Hough

Governance:  Dr. McHenry, Dr. Kraiger, Dr. Macey, Dr. Tetrick, Dr. Hough, Dr. Bergman, Dr. Brannick, Dr. Heggestad, Dr. Ryan, and Mr. Nershi

Dr. McHenry asked for a motion to further table the sunsetting of LRP.  Dr. Knapp makes the motion and Dr. Macey seconds.  Motion passes unanimously.

ACTION ITEM:  Table the sunsetting of LRP until after the governance review.

We continued our discussion of September’s meeting.  It would be similar to the strategic planning meeting last year where the EC meeting would start on Friday, and others could have the opportunity to travel in.  The EC would have a dinner meeting on Friday, then there would be a working session all day Saturday and through noon on Sunday.  The champions need to think about who they want to be there.  This will be very lightly facilitated, mostly breakout time. The elected members of the EC will be there and help in any way.  In the end, they will have a set of action plans, even ideas about finances, resources, and metrics.  Dr. Cortina mentioned the importance of having people involved who are personally invested and passionate about the issue. We need to have a high energy level around this.  The plan is by mid-June to have sense of who will be invited so that Mr. Nershi and Dr. Finkelstein can work on planning the event. Dr. McHenry is still deciding if the governance group will also be meeting then.

At this point, we moved back to the original agenda.

Mr. Nershi said the new website has a June 1 launch date, and they plan to do usability testing before that.  They are looking for ways to expand the content to go beyond organizational news for members to also focus outward to the general public.  The website task force will continue to meet on this.

Dr. Hough gave an update on the KARE committee.  At APA in January they lobbied and succeeded in getting the MASH tent approved for APA to help members and businesses. This will also be a wonderful visibility opportunity. Dr. Vandaveer is leading the pack.  Dr. Colella said that she and Dr. Cornwell can work on getting the word out in New Orleans.

Dr. Hough also updated the group on our international connections. She was very pleased to hear reps from our sister organizations speak.  Dr. Tetrick will be giving a keynote address at the South African meeting.

Mr. Nershi suggests having an official letter go to EAWOP telling them that we voted to have them as a qualifying organization and to discuss how this new relationship will work, and to continue to build our connection.  Dr. Tetrick asked if we have any guidelines as to how to partner with sister organizations.  At this point we don’t; this could be an issue in the governance review.

Dr. Kraiger made a suggestion to try to develop a listserv that can facilitate cross culture research.  He suggested that he could communicate this possible initiative with Dr. Silzer or Dr. Rogelberg. 

Dr. Chen raised the idea of letting international members participate in governance.  Dr. Kraiger recalled once talking about this issue of representation.  Dr. McHenry suggested we think about additional ways to advance an agenda with these societies that would be mutually beneficial.  Dr. Barnes-Farrell suggested that we figure out if there are any particular issues we can come together around. Dr. Bergman wondered if we can have something like a leading edge consortium to develop collaborative relationships.  Dr. Tetrick thinks we need more exchange about each other’s conferences.  Dr. Brannick suggested that we could have an international update on our website, or perhaps even a blog.  All of these things can benefit our members – Dr. Probst said it was sort of the same idea underlying communities of interests.  Dr. McHenry suggested we could also learn a lot from EAWOP in terms of the role they play in public policy – they are much more active in staking out positions on issues based on research and then lobbying.  We may not be ready or even interested in doing exactly that, but we certainly could learn from them.

Dr. Kraiger suggested we could facilitate meetings for small groups who want to come together on an issue. We could have competitive proposals that get funded and require that something comes out of it that we could communicate externally.

Dr. Pearlman suggested a slot for international presentations.  This could help inform the membership of things going on outside their spheres of practice.  Dr. Tetrick suggested an invited panel discussion to tell us their view of the future of I-O.  Dr. Allen suggested that she contact the international committee to discuss this for next year.

Dr. Johnson said that perhaps we don’t know what we don’t know, and if we had some international members on committees we could learn more.  We haven’t been very involved in globalization issues.  Dr. Hough mentioned that Dr. Hanges is serving on an APA committee with international members, and we might be able to tap into their connections

Next, we returned to the reassignment of the external awards subcommittee to visibility. Dr. Cortina reiterated that this committee and the awards committee have very different missions.  Dr. Bono wasn’t as concerned with where it went as long as it got put somewhere else more appropriate.  Dr. Colella asked what external awards committee was working on.  They have two things going on now. One is the Katzell media award, and another is scanning for outside awards to submit our members’ names. {SECRETARY’S NOTE:  Correction: the Foundation handles the Katzell award, not this subcommittee.  This was mentioned in error and was corrected subsequently in a personal communication.  The external awards subcommittee has been also focusing on several APA awards}

It was suggested that we might wait on this until we deal with the larger governance issue, but Dr. Cortina stressed that Dr. Bono really could use some immediate relief from this.  Dr. McHenry wondered if it was self-manageable.  There had been some confusion about the overlap with visibility and external awards – both nominated people for APA, and they both won so it wasn’t a problem.  Dr. Reynolds thinks it makes sense for visibility to work with this subcommittee. Dr. Bauer also suggested down the line we rethink what is happening on the awards committee right now and if it is too much for one person to lead up.

Dr. Reynolds mentioned that the conference got some visibility. The Dallas Morning News interviewed a member of the visibility committee, and there were two radio interviews.
 
Next, Dr. McHenry mentioned that the APA board of educational affairs created a report for the assessment of competence in professional psychology.  Dr. Vandaveer wants to know if we want to review it and make comments back. She will contribute but would like to know the concerns we might have as a society.  The due date is August 1.  Dr. Silzer was selected to do this. Dr. Hollenbeck mentioned a desire to read it as well. Mr. Nershi will make the link available, and if anyone wants to comment on this they should let Dr. McHenry know.  Dr. Barnes-Farrell suggested from past experience with similar things that it might be good to have people with strong points of view make comments independently as well because that way we won’t have just one data point coming from our society.  Dr. Hough suggested a letter writing campaign.

The last item on the agenda was an update in participation in APA and APS committees and boards. Mr. Nershi is keeping track of who is on those committees.  These folks should be recognized and we need to have more people involved in these committees.  Dr. Tetrick also encourages council reps to get involved in things. Dr. Knapp agreed that more strategizing could happen between meetings. Even just being an observer or liaison on committee helps – and it’s good to get people to know you. Dr. Bergman wondered if we could recognize these individuals at the SIOP meeting, perhaps with a green ribbon (like the blue committee ribbons), and this idea was well received.  Dr. McHenry also suggested a TIP article to inform people of what they are doing, and he will talk to Dr. Koppes about that.

Dr. McHenry then noted that a fair number of consulting firms donate a lot of time and would it be useful to recognizing them, remaining sensitive to not wanting to endorse any firms.  People wondered if it could just be a letter from the president, or should it be public? After much discussion of pros and cons of appropriateness, it was decided that committee chairs can identify what organizations donated time and services, and acknowledgement letters can go out to them. 

Dr. Kraiger asked what happened to new chair orientation this year and Dr. McHenry said he had made the decision to sacrifice it for strategic planning.  He will rely on the cluster chairs to touch base with new and old chairs to help with this. Dr. Hough also pointed out that there are written materials that can be utilized, and Mr. Nershi said he would mail the chairs the handouts.

Dr. Knapp said she knew that it was a sensitive issue to send unnecessary emails to membership, but a regular newsletter email could be a way to be more inclusive.  Dr. McHenry said he talked about something like this with Dr. Ashworth and he will be considering how to do this.  Dr. Pearlman pointed out that if there is a lot of substance on the website, the email can be highlights that then direct people to the website.

Meeting Adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Lisa M. Finkelstein
Northern Illinois University
SIOP Secretary 2005-2008