MINUTES OF THE FALL MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
SEPTEMBER 15, 2006
PRESENT: Janet Barnes-Farrell, Talya Bauer, Adrienne Colella, Robert Dipboye, Lisa Finkelstein, Leaetta Hough, Deirdre Knapp, Kurt Kraiger, William Macey, Jeffrey McHenry, Kenneth Pearlman, Eduardo Salas, Lois Tetrick
ABSENT: Dave Nershi
Call to Order
Financial Officer's Report
Strategic Focus Areas
Fall Consortium Update
Decade of Behavior
FABBS, APA, SES, Foundation, and Strategic Planning Updates
President Jeff McHenry called the meeting to order at 3:10 pm.
Dr. McHenry welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Dr. McHenry informed the group that he would not go through the items in the President’s report now but would rather talk about each issue as it came up on the agenda later. He turned the floor to Dr. Pearlman for the financial officer report.
Financial Officer’s Report
Dr. Pearlman turned the group’s attention to the budget printouts in the briefing book. He happily reported that this was SIOP’s best year in history financially in terms of net income, net profit, and ROI, and it happened in a year where expenses were at an all time high. This is because everything did really well, including job net, the conference registration levels, the conference workshops, and the fall consortium. The higher expenses were due to such things as changing SIOP to be an actual employer with an Executive Director and benefits for employees. Also, the EC strategic planning session and the fall consortium were expenses, but still net income was at a record.
Dr. Pearlman went on to walk us through the profit and loss reports, revenue expenses for the prior year, and for the current year. Everything seems to be in normal ranges for this type of organization.
Dr. McHenry commented that it is nice that we aren’t as dependent on the conference for all of our income as we used to be. It is still the 800 lb. gorilla, but we are more protected than we once were.
Dr. Colella inquired as to why JobNet was up so much. Dr. McHenry thought it might be due to the good job market last year, and Dr. Hough suggested that employers are really looking to SIOP as a main applicant pool. Dr. McHenry replied that in talking to students as the doctoral consortium last year, the students thought the biggest problem was holding off employers before they were done with school. Dr. Kraiger noted that it is expensive to put ads in the APA Monitor; this might reflect more and more institutions not using that as their primary recruiting mechanism.
Dr. Pearlman next turned to a discussion of our investment philosophy, which is growth and income at a moderate mix. There are plans to do a transfer out of a cash account into a mutual fund, which will bring us to a 38/62 ratio. Still working on what we’ll do next.
Also, there has been a philosophy and practice in SIOP budgeting to underestimate income and overestimate expenses, which worked out great
Dr. Dipboye inquired why publications income was down less than half. The group supposed it had to do with the number of volumes put out this year. Dr. Hough also noted royalty income was up, and wondered what we have that people are paying us to use.
Dr. Pearlman noted that he would check into these issues. Here the group noted how much we miss Dave and how we are floundering around without answers without him.
Next it was noted that we passed the audit, and that everything is operating according to general accounting principles.
Some other recent happenings concerning SIOP finances were brought up next. First, there is some financial information almost ready to go on the SIOP website, where any member can turn to get a summary of the previous year’s numbers in pie chart form with a summary statement.
Additionally, partly triggered by our new windfall situation, conversations have been occurring around how we should act toward our money as stewards. For example, should we have a reserve fund? What kinds of strategic initiatives can we use the money for, and what sort of decision processes should we have around that? Should some of our money go to the foundation? Ms. Lenz and Mr. Nershi are looking into the appropriate model, and we will have a future EC discussion and approval vote.
Dr. Hough noted it was delightful to have a surplus as we embark this weekend on further developing our strategic planning initiatives. Dr. McHenry said although he didn’t want to set a tone for a free-for-all, but if someone tomorrow [at the strategic planning meeting] had a great idea that would cost us $25,000 we actually could do it.
Dr. Kraiger echoed how important it will be to dig deeper and come up with some guiding principles, as we are doing more and more things that are generating revenue, and this could really be a lot of money when the new journal money starts coming in.
Next, the group’s attention was turned to the supplement to the briefing book, with the final budget now that the conference and workshop have made their estimates. At the last meeting we voted on the preliminary budget. We set expectation high for expenses and low on income. Dr. Pearlman called attention to an increase in conference fees. It is proposed that we increase by 20 dollars for nonmembers, and up 10 dollars for anyone not registering in advance.
The workshop fees are proposed to go up as well. They haven’t increased in 4 years, and we have had increased expenses. It is proposed to go up from $400 to $450 for members, and from $600 to $650 for nonmembers. There will also be a small employer increase for the placement center of $15.
There is also a $35,000 increase for an additional staff member to assist Mr. Nershi, and they also need a new copier for the office to do the things copiers these days ought to do. It was noted that Mr. Nershi spends his time on a lot of things that could easily be off loaded.
Dr. Hough inquired whether there was a salary increase for the staff – it was 5%.
It was also noted that there was a shortfall for the Jr. Faculty Consortium lunch, and they’d like to get that funded, but we will get more into that specifically later.
Dr. Pearlman requested comments and questions at this point, and Dr. McHenry noted that he was a little nervous to increase the workshop fees by so much. The hotel is going to be so expensive next year, and it’s great that we are generally keeping registration flat. Could we just raise workshops by $25? Dr. Hough agreed with this suggestion, and others echoed that New York may not be the conference to raise fees. Dr. Kraiger noted that San Francisco, the next year, is also likely to be very expensive.
Dr. McHenry gave the example that $94 is the cheapest lunch catered to a meeting in New York.
Overall, there appeared to be consensus of not wanting a huge fee increase. Dr. Tetrick mentioned that there was an idea to canvas the area to get more nonmembers to go to the workshops. Dr. McHenry noted we don’t have much space, but there are probably some opportunities to catch nonmembers more so than in Dallas, though we had more space there.
Dr. Kraiger asked if the fee was all day or half day, and if it actually was cheap? New York seems like a place to promote this and get lots of nonmembers. Maybe we could raise nonmembers to $700 and keep members the same, and recoup some expenses. Dr. Hough, however, noted that if space is limited don’t want to turn away members, but did like the idea of promoting to nonmembers. Dr. Macy pointed out that some nonmembers continually go to the workshops and they might notice.
Dr. McHenry asked if the consensus was keep this flat for New York? Dr. Pearlman suggested a proposal to keep nonmembers to $650 and keep members flat. Dr. Hough agreed, and there was consensus.
Dr. Pearlman asked for a vote to approve the budget. Dr. Macy made the motion and Dr. Colella seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION TAKEN: Budget is approved.
Dr. McHenry transitioned to the discussion of the Jr. Faculty consortium. It was launched kind of last minute but was very well received and they want to repeat it. Last time they only charged $50 dollars, and we subsidized it with $500 dollars. In New York we can’t even cover lunch with that, so the request is $2,000.
After some positive discussion, Dr. Kraiger makes a motion to support this and Dr. Hough seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION TAKEN: $2,000 will be allotted to support the Jr. Faculty consortium for the 2007 SIOP conference in New York.
Dr. McHenry reported that we had two emergency action items approved since the last EC meeting. One was on August 18th, which was an approval to contribute $1,000 in support of the Katrina Aid and Relief Effort (KARE) project in New Orleans held in conjunction with the APA 2006 conference. The second was on August 21st, and was approval of $4,000 to fund the Organizational Frontiers series editorial board meeting.
Anything else listed under consent agenda was set up as separate action items, and thus Dr. McHenry was quite proud that this section took less than one minute.
Strategic Focus Areas
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE:
Dr. Salas introduced a new book series proposal – an annual review of I-O psychology. There was some talk of this when Dr. DeNisi was president and much enthusiasm around it but nothing happened, and so it is getting revisited.
In the initial stages of these talks they are thinking 6-8 topics covered per year, and that they would be big literature reviews. APA has some interest in this and Dr. Salas believes if we approve they would pick it up immediately.
Dr. Colella inquired if other areas have their own reviews. Dr. Salas knows that clinical launched one. It was mentioned there is currently an International Review series that might be some competition. Dr. Salas mentioned that the differences with ours is that it would be named differently, perhaps more accessible to students, and less expensive – he estimated that one is close to $120 dollars and ours would be closer to $60.
Some alternative names thrown around include Essays in I-O psychology, the Science and Practice of I-O psychology, and the Annals of I-O psychology.
If the EC has some interest, Dr. Salas said he would bring a formal proposal next time. Drs. Finkelstein, Bauer, and Colella all expressed interest, and noted that the Handbooks are getting dated. Dr. Tetrick would be eager to see a proposal.
Dr. Macey said he can see why it would be good to partner with APA, but wanted to make sure we weren’t missing something. Dr. Hough said that she’s been learning a lot about the publishing process from shopping around publishing our new journal, and was wondering if there would be advantages to packaging those together.
Dr. Salas said that so far some of the publishing houses he spoke with weren’t that interested, including Erlbaum and Sage.
Dr. Macy asked if we would be irritating any publishers by not asking about their current interest. Dr. Hough reiterated that Mr. Nershi would be great to talk to about this, as he knows good angles on approaching these things. Once again we reflected about how we missed Dave.
Dr. Pearlman wondered how it came about that APA might be the publisher, and raised the issue of potential pros and cons to this.
Dr. Salas concluded that he would put together a formal 2-3 pager with focus and details, talk to other publishers, talk to Mr. Nershi, and then we could return to this at our next meeting.
Dr. Pearlman asked whether there might be a problem launching this the same year as we are launching the journal – would we be spreading our resources too thin? Dr. Knapp had a related concern: Annual is a big commitment. Would there be any wiggle room if that couldn’t work out?
Dr. Salas agreed but noted that there are a number of annual review types of things out there; if it is planned carefully and the engineering is in place, it should be fine. Dr. Hough clarified that every single issue wouldn’t be covered every year; it would be alternate topics like in the Annual Review of Psychology. She also noted that she has been stunned by the differences across publishers in what SIOP would make on the journal and the quality of the editorial staff.
Dr. Kraiger mentioned that he would be surprised if we really could sell this book so cheaply. How would we break even? His other concern was if you use science and practice in the title, be sure that a clear practice perspective really comes through. The content would need to reflect this series serving multiple needs of the society. Dr. Salas noted that he thought it would be more of a science than practice emphasis. Dr. Knapp reflected that in some ways these books do all the students’ work for them in terms of reviewing recent literature. The students might learn more from a practice spin. Dr. Kraiger suggested that in addition to some traditional science topics like job satisfaction, justice, or training, we could have more applied topics like appreciative inquiry. We still could have theoretical models and case studies that could be pulled together around topics of interest currently to practitioners.
Dr. McHenry noted that SHRM has something now where they contract with I-O psychologists and publish a “what do we know about…” series to take the research literature and translate it for practitioners. These are mostly written by academics but might be a good example of practice translations – this might be something to think about for an Annual Review. Dr. Salas agreed that would be worth some thought.
Dr. Pearlman really saw a lot of value and appeal of a “one stop shopping” to catch up with the literature, as there isn’t much out there that does that anymore. He can see great value in this if it is done well.
Fall Consortium Update
Dr. McHenry reported that a little over 100 people had registered 3-4 weeks ago to attend. Last year there were about 180 in attendance. Dr. Hough pointed out that as long as we get 200 we will break even. Dr. Macy thought we were up to 130 at this point.
It was noted that the site has been very cooperative, and everything is coming along great. The speakers are well known within the I-O world and it should be a great session that gives people opportunity to dive into the topic. There will be even more time for conversation than last year.
Dr. Hough gave a brief update, letting us know the first issue is set to be published in 2008. We have 5 proposals from publishers, and a lawyer is now involved to help with the details. Dr. Dipboye asked if there has been any more conversation regarding the title, but there hadn’t. All of the variation among publishers was discussed.
Dr. McHenry asked if the EC will be voting on the publishing contract, and Dr. Hough imagined that is the plan, and noted we should check with Mr. Nershi to be sure. The timeframe is expected to be January for a decision. If the decision is made by the committee before then, we could have a conference call and an emergency action vote as not to hold things up.
Dr. Bauer asked if students would get this with their membership, and Dr. Hough thought it was just full members and wasn’t sure. Dr. Bauer noted if it is students, that is another 2000+ people that advertisers would have access to.
Dr. Kraiger noted that it could be a complicated decision to choose the publisher and it could be a fast timeframe, so it will be important for us to have this scheduled for January or sooner over a conference call if needed.
Dr. McHenry switched gears to talk about some challenges brought up by Tammy Allen concerning the conference. The space is nice but there is less of it in than in Dallas. One of the issues concerns the special conference speaker (Dr. Jeff Pfeffer). The idea of a keynote has been kicked around for a few years and is finally taking place. Dr. Pfeffer was delighted to join us. One of the challenges, though, has been carving out time in the program, since we don’t want anything else scheduled simultaneously. The options still in the running are to do it immediately after the opening session – the pros being that we are all there and the room is set up, the con being that it is a long time to sit in one place hearing speakers. The other main option is to push it to the end of the day on Friday. We would lose 20 hours of programming time to do it though.
Dr. Macey asked if it would be difficult getting people to the location, but Dr. McHenry thought the set up would accommodate that fairly easily.
Dr. Bauer asked if Thursday night would be considered, and some discussion ensued. For example, it was asked if symposia submissions could be turned into posters to save time and space, but that would be too difficult at this stage and would be resisted.
Dr. Pearlman asked for clarification with the alternatives and how we are losing time. It sounded like the second option wouldn’t cut any program time if we are starting earlier. Dr. McHenry reasoned that if we are shutting down 20 rooms we’ll lose it but playing with the timing can help to alleviate this. Dr. Kraiger mentioned that this might just be the cost of doing business.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell wondered if we’d lose attendance at the main plenary session if it were to be back to back.
Dr. Colella suggested that we do awards on Thursday night at the welcome reception, and then just announce them at the main session and do the pictures at an announced time. Then, we could save time at the plenary to have Dr. Pfeffer speak at it. There were mixed reactions to this – some thought it would be seen as insulting to award winners, some thought we could bring more excitement around the awards and the Thursday night event.
Dr. Kraiger and Dr. Finkelstein had concerns people would leave at the end of the day. Others had concerns about squirminess during back to back sessions. Dr. McHenry thought the plenary could start 15 minutes earlier, and be shorter with some of the other fillers eliminated, which still could allow for a break.
Dr. Macey asked why it couldn’t be Saturday, but Dr. McHenry was afraid there would be less attendance Thursday or Saturday as compared with Friday. Dr. Macey also noted that it’s really hard to get coffee at the coffee breaks because they put it out earlier – this came from sponsors wanted to get more time out there when they were sponsoring them. Now, not necessary to do this. Dr. McHenry made a note to speak with Tammy about the coffee breaks and how to time them. Dr. Finkelstein pointed out that Larry’s grid was very difficult to make changes to at the last minute for the computerized programming, so if any timing was going to be changed it had to happen fast.
In the end, Dr. McHenry agreed to talk to the conference committee about this, but it sounded like right after the plenary might be the most preferred option.
Awards Recommendations (note that these are confidential at this stage and so no names are recorded in these minutes, only the motions)
Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award:
Recommendation was put forth by Dr. Bono.
Dr. Knapp made a motion to accept the recommendation, and Dr. Finkelstein seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION TAKEN: Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award winner approved
Distinguished Professional Contribution Award:
Dr. Bono discussed that there were different decisions depending on whether average rating, average ranking, and times ranked first were considered. There was a lot of discussion in the committee and they went with a majority vote.
Dr. Colella asked if two awards had been a possibility. Dr. Bono said that this was discouraged when awards are not time limited.
More discussion ensued about the ratings, also leading to a discussion about when members of the committee might have a conflict, when they should bow out of decisions, and how the small numbers on the committee can make a big difference in decisions.
Dr. Kraiger made a motion to accept the recommendation, and Dr. Hough seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION TAKEN: Distinguished Professional Contribution Award winner approved
Distinguished Service Contribution Award:
Dr. Bono relayed a discussion concerning the issue of lifetime achievement…should we only be considering someone who is, for example, 60 years old? Should lifetime achievement be advertised as a criterion in the nomination? Most of the awards committee felt it was ok to weight the length of a career in the decision, but there shouldn’t have to be a cutoff point.
Dr. Kraiger wondered if when people were nominated for a second time if they did not win the first time that they might prepare the package differently, highlighting how they had the level of impact of someone in the field for a longer time.
Some discussed the issue of people starting careers later in life – they may have a distinguished career but may not actually have 20 years in it.
After more discussion, it was determined that reasonable people should have a sense of what lifetime means and how to consider that without requiring specific cutoffs. Dr. McHenry quipped that it is like pornography, we know it when we see it.
Dr. Bono pointed out that last year we did add the lifetime language to awards because there were so many new people being nominated for teaching awards. She tended to like keeping it a bit vague, but others might want more structure.
Dr. Kraiger suggested changing language from “lifetime achievement” to “achievement over a career”, which seems less age focused.
Many agreed this was a good idea, and Dr. Bono said she’d go back to the committee with this and they would draft the specific language and bring it back before the EC.
Dr. Colella made a motion to accept the reward recommendation, and Dr. Bauer seconded. Motion passed with one abstention due to conflict.
ACTION TAKEN: Distinguished Service Award winner approved
Distinguished Teaching Award:
Dr. Bono described how this was close and went through a second round of consideration. Some questions were asked about mentoring vs. teaching, which we’ve discussed before. Both are considered with this award.
Dr. Finkelstein made a motion to accept the recommendation and Dr. Bauer seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION TAKEN: Distinguished Teaching Award winner approved
Dr. Hough made a request that across awards, the rating scale stay in the same direction, so, for example, a 1 is always the highest and not the highest in some and lowest in the other. Dr. Bono said she would address that.
Rains Wallace Dissertation Award:
Dr. Bono discussed how 12 were in consideration, narrowed down to three, and a clear winner rose to the top.
A request was made to put first names and titles of dissertations on the review sheet next time.
Discussion also ensued about the make up of this committee. Was it just past winners? Were the dissertations all psychology dissertations? These topics were debated, and Dr. Bono suggested she would make a recommendation to the chair to put a consideration in as to whether these were psychology dissertations.
Dr. Knapp made a motion to accept the recommendation, and Dr. Bauer seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION TAKEN: Rains Wallace Dissertation Award winner approved
Dr. Bono said that the decision here was reached in one round, as all were I agreement. Dr. Dipboye asked if a portfolio was submitted for judgment, and Dr. Bono clarified that it could be a publication or technical report.
Dr. Dipboye made a motion to accept the recommendation, and Dr. Kraiger seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION TAKEN: Myers Award winner approved
Dr. Bono reviewed how this was evaluated, and mentioned that they didn’t decide to do an honorable mention.
Dr. Finkelstein made a motion to accept the recommendation, and Dr. Bauer seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION TAKEN: Owens Award winner approved
Early career award:
Dr. Bono had to excuse herself from this conversation as she was one of the nominees.
Some discussion ensued about the recommendation to have two award winners this year.
Dr. Tetrick made a motion to accept both recommendations, and Dr. Hough seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION TAKEN: Early Career Award winner approved
The awards discussion concluded with a conversation around the make up of the committees to determine the award. Dr. Tetrick mentioned that she knows of a few people who have filled out committee forms and never been asked to be on a committee. Others suggested we could have bigger awards committees with a wider variety of people and backgrounds, as often people on the committee know the nominees. It was decided we would return to this discussion during the Strategic Planning meeting, particularly in the context of governance.
After the awards votes, we returned to the discussion of the conference. The next topic revolved around scheduling the receptions for LBGT, International Members, and CEMA.
Dr. McHenry relayed that everyone would rather have their reception earlier in the conference. As that is not possible, Dr. Allen would like to know how to proceed with this. One option is to encourage one of the groups to have a reception on Thursday night. There is a nice 16th floor area with glass windows like a greenhouse, looking down on Times Square. We may be able to offer this to one group as an enticement to have their party on Thursday.
Another issue that came up with the Program Committee is that this year the committee sent an email to all committees to see if they needed program time and for them to send a proposal in for what they wanted. Not everyone asked for this within these parameters, and Dr. McHenry thinks maybe they should have. He wanted to know if we as the EC should try to organize something to get these committees to do this.
Dr. Kraiger mentioned that we have this implicit model of what the conference looks like, where the primary function is a mechanism for new ideas.
We have been wanting to make sure SIOP feels accessible and that everyone feels as though they have a voice. If those are things we should be tackling, we may need to think about a different model. Some of the issues that have come up is whether the program is “of the people and by the people” – entirely out of member submissions – or if there should be a balance of other things as well.
Some other issues of changes that could be made were suggested. For example, Dr. Kraiger described how his wife’s veterinary conference is color coded by practitioner/academic. Dr. Tetrick wondered if that is different than what the scientist-practitioner model would support.
Dr. Bauer suggested the idea of roundtables or cafes where people could meet and talk about issues of interest to different groups but it wouldn’t be a part of the regular program slots
Dr. McHenry told us he is coming up with a task force and is hoping for them to have ideas for January, and the EC and conference committees could overlap and talk about these issues. It was suggested that this taskforce have diversity in terms of practice/academics and perhaps have international representation.
Dr. Knapp also suggested that more fun and social things be injected into the conference. Dr. Bauer agreed and said that her membership group was going to discuss this at the strategic planning meeting tomorrow.
Dr. McHenry told us that he is working with Dr. Ashworth on the idea of an electronic newsletter. This would be nothing that competes with TIP – it would be something regular that goes out to members to update them on key things, like dues, conference registration, announcing new survey results, etc. It would be just a screen length overview, but they could dive further into links related to each point. If anyone had any specific recommendations about this they could go to Dr. Ashworth.
Dr. McHenry told us there is some concern about how we get content in to the site. Eventually we may need to get an editor to keep track of it. Right now there is a topical article on the front page, but it is challenging to get fresh information. Right now the AO staff are working as the editors. Dr. Hough noted that as this is our face to the world, we need to think about how we can make this the best it can be. This might be something to discuss at strategic planning tomorrow.
Dr. Colella explained that since we last met not much has gone on, aside from APA. Dr. Rogelberg founded the committee last year, with the idea that SIOP members would provide pro bono consulting to Katrina victims and help other I/O psychologists affected by the storm.
Since we aren’t first responders, there wasn’t too much to do at first. But, now that rebuilding is occurring, people are becoming more concerned about things like stressed out employees.
Dr. Vandaveer spearheaded the APA event. About $18,000 was raised, and four workshops took place on selection, diversity, stress, and organizational change. About 40 people came to talk to the KARE representatives about issues they were facing.
There are also 5 projects going on. For example, Dr. Hough is working on one with the New Orleans Police Department. There is one with the LASPCA, one with the Audubon society, one at a high school, and one with the Arch Diocese of New Orleans.
Most of the expenses went to hiring a public relations firm who were fantastic in publicizing the event, greeting people there, etc. This gave tons of publicity to SIOP members. They even explained on regional TV what an I/O psychologist is!
At this point Dr. Rogelberg has stepped down as chair and Dr. John Fennig took over. He is involved with divisions 13 and 14. The issue that is being faced now is, what should KARE become? Should this be an ongoing committee to deal with disaster and tragedy in the future? It is great to give back to the community, a really fulfilling experience for those involved, and gives the profession visibility.
Dr. Colella also mentioned there is a similar organization called Second Wind that is made up of small businesses working on some of these issues. Perhaps we could cross post with them, and do more business work and less mental health work.
Dr. McHenry suggested that we think broadly and that we have to figure out if this should be a standing committee with a structure handled the same as any other committee. He recommended that Dr. Truxillo investigate this issue and come back with a recommendation as to how to set this up and whether KARE should be folded into a new, broader committee.
Dr. Dipboye then made a motion to create an ad hoc committee for creating a long term strategy for dealing with disasters and other emergency situations. Dr. Macey seconds the motion. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: An ad hoc committee is approved to create a long-term strategy for dealing with disasters and other emergency situations.
Conversation then turned to a proposal to pay half of the dental premiums for AO employees and 1/4 premiums for dependents. The entire dental policy was provided for the EC to review. Dr. Hough made a motion to approve it, and Dr. Salas seconded the motion. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Dental policy for AO employees approved.
Dr. Hough then told the group that both Dr. David Hoffman and Dr. Mike Burke won the APA Decade of Behavior award, and will be part of a congressional briefing on October 5th. Dr. McHenry requested a motion to approve 2,500 toward this event. Dr. Finkelstein made the motion and Dr. Kraiger seconded. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: $2,500 approved for Decade of Behavior event.
Dr. Hough then informed us that the new staff person at the Federation is a Masters level I-O person who was selected through JobNet and is wonderful.
FABBS is putting together a companion book to accompany introductory psychology books. There will be 18 chapters, and 3 of them will be written by I-O psychologists, including Dr. Paul Sackett, Dr. Ben Schneider, and possibly Dr. John Campbell. Also, the science cafes put on by FABBS have been very successful.
In January, we should have something on the agenda about how we should plan to move forward with the Federation.
Dr. Macey gave a report on APA. He said there wasn’t much going on in relation to us (a lot of discussion about the role of psychologists in interrogation). There was a continuing discussion of accreditation. The resolution last spring was sufficient to cover our concerns. Dr. Macey then announced this was his final APA report, with palpable relief.
Dr. Knapp mentioned she was the only one there right at the end and they did vote for adding a committee on SES, and as employment and employability is part of that, it is something we should pay attention to. Dr. Bauer suggested that Dr. Connie Wanberg may want to be on that committee.
Dr. Pearlman then reported that the Foundation board met at this same location. It was mainly business as usual. We are at 1.2 million, and want to raise up to 2 million, so there were some new approaches to fund raising discussed.
Dr. McHenry ended the meeting with a plan for the next day’s strategic planning meeting. There would be a fairly brief kickoff with a brief history of strategic planning at SIOP, and then the groups would get together and drill into their detailed plans. He wants each group to come back to the large group with 2-3 well thought out ideas.
Dr. McHenry adjourned the meeting at 8:07 PM.