Minutes of the Spring 2010 Executive Board Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
April 11, 2010
Members Present: Tammy Allen, Joan Brannick, Adrienne Colella, Milt Hakel, Scott Highhouse, Kurt Kraiger, Ed Locke, Debra Major, Mort McPhail, David Peterson, Doug Reynolds, Lise Saari, Eduardo Salas, Lori Foster Thompson, Suzanne Tsacoumis, Howard Weiss.
Members Absent: none
CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS
President Salas called the meeting to order at 8:12 a.m. After introductions of those present, President Salas welcomed the new members of the Board: Drs. Joan Brannick, Adrienne Colella, Lori Foster Thompson, and Milt Hakel. He instructed them to sign the conflict of interest statement and explained the agenda for the day.
Dr. McPhail reviewed the financial report. The financial state of the society is good and getting better. The conference had 3,938 attendees, which was much larger than projected, so we should have a balanced budget this year. We may not have to take any money out of reserves, including money from investments. We had 296 registrants for workshops, which was a little under but close to projections.
The projected preliminary budget for this year is only marginally higher than last year, so we are keeping our expenses under control. We have recovered a substantial portion of our losses from the economic downturn. At the request of the board, we sent five RFPS to investment firms. We received four proposals, but have not been able completely analyze them yet. We will have a recommendation in the fall as to whether we should go with a new financial advisor.
Dr. McPhail stressed that the preliminary budget is preliminary; we will not have final numbers from the conference at this time, so final budget will be voted on in the fall. We have $1.16 million in reserves. Our policy goal is one year’s operating budget, which means we have about 72% of our goal. Most of that is invested in long-term investments (mutual funds, national and international.) We have segregated funds into cash and reserves to more easily track our reserve amount. We have a diversified portfolio, and our investment goal is moderate to conservative.
Dr. Locke asked how often SIOP is planning to meet with the financial advisor. Dr. McPhail explained that he receives monthly statements and that he has a conference call with our investment advisor every quarter. Dr. Locke recommended that SIOP ask the advisor in advance when money will be entering the market and when inflation could be a problem. Dr. McPhail said the advisor has placed a tenth of SIOP’s investments in international funds (non-U.S. investments). The advisor said he doesn’t see any sign of tipping points in inflation at this time.
Dr. Colella requested the return of the last quarter. As of February, we had net earnings on our investments of $25,600. We have taken $2,000 out of that for the conference costs. We investigated Merrill Lynch, Huntington Bank, PNC (the successor to National City), and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney for the RFPs.
Dr. Kraiger moved to accept the financial officer’s report, which includes the provisional budget. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Accepted the financial officer’s report, which includes approval of the provisional budget for the coming year.
Dr. Reynolds motioned to accept the consent agenda. Dr. Locke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. (ITEMS MUST BE LISTED)
ACTION ITEM: Accepted consent agenda.
COMMITTEE CHAIR MEETING AND ORIENTATION
Mr. Nershi explained what the chairs and chairs-in-training will be discussing during their meetings and orientations. They should submit a list of committee members by June 1 as well as their committee goals for coming year. Progress reports are expected prior to each board meeting, one in September and one in January. A final report is due prior to the conference.
Dr. Kraiger explained that the information is also available on the Executive Board and Committee web site as well as in the committee manual. President Salas reminded the groups to remember his presidential goal of uniting science and practice.
(Breakout for 45 minutes into portfolio clusters to discuss committees and duties of chairs.)
Dr. Reynolds asked if it would be helpful to reintroduce the template for committee reports. Mr. Nershi told him the template has always been available but not always used by chairs.
Foundation for the Advancement of Behavioral and Brain Sciences (FABBS). Dr. Kraiger introduced FABBS Executive Director Paula Skedsvold. She has been very helpful this past year. FABBS monitors advocacy issues that are going on that we may want to be a part of. Paula Skedsvold also works to bring SIOP members to Washington, D.C. to introduce SIOP to top decision makers. Skesvold said FABBS represents 22 scientific societies. There are a lot of policy decisions being made that affect the workplace, and we are trying to get SIOP members involved. One issue we worked on this year is that the federal government is thinking of overhauling its selection process. To get SIOP involved, we wrote several congressmen a letter saying SIOP members should be involved in this. Skedsvold summarized other efforts over the past year and discussed goals for the coming year, including issues of executive coaching and the healthy workplace initiative. We are trying to get members of congress and decision makers to come to SIOP for guidance.
President Salas asked Dr. Skedsvold to elaborate on what FABBS could do for SIOP. Dr. Skedsvold summarized some initiatives she believes could be accomplished over the next year. Dr. Rich Cober asked if there was a way to build more awareness amongst decision makers of SIOP and I-O psychology. Dr. Skedsvold said she will be working with the External Relations Committee on this. The Committee will decide what to say and who will help say it. Dr. Kraiger said the Committee is meant to be a liaison between the President of SIOP and political/public groups.
Dr. Locke said he has concerns about some government actions and SIOP should be cautious of aligning itself with the government. Dr. Kraiger said he thinks the Committee’s role is to find those policy makers who are dealing with issues that we work with. It’s less about taking a position about what the government should be doing and more about explaining to them that there is a science behind their work that we can help them with.
Dr. Colella asked if there is anything SIOP can do to get our knowledge out there more quickly and not wait until the issue is decided. Dr. Skesvold explained that the degree to which we can answer this question will determine how successful we are in our work together. Dr. Colella said any answers we can develop ahead of time would be helpful. Skesvold said we could give this to the External Relations Committee.
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
Dr. Olson-Buchanan said our final attendance was 3,938, which was much better than we had hoped for. We think we are in good shape financially, although we can’t promise anything right now. The registration process went much more smoothly. The ambassador program seemed to go well. We were happy with attendance overall. The closing plenary had its highest attendance ever and the closing reception was a success. The post conference surveys will go out soon, and we will also have a survey for those members who didn’t attend.
Dr. Weiss asked about what Dr. Marcus Dickson said regarding our fastest growing segment of attendees being students at online universities. Mr. Nershi said we could get the official numbers after we get back to the office. President Salas commended Dr. Olson-Buchanan for all of her work on the conference.
Fall Leading Edge Consortium.
The 2010 LEC will be October 22-23 in Tampa, Florida. The agenda is made, and we will soon finalize it. We will be discussing the details in the coming months.
President Salas commented on the practice of the Past-President organizing the LEC. In September we will discuss creating an outline of who will help organize the LEC so that it isn’t just the Past President.
Profession Practice Series Books from Leading Edge Consortium.
Dr. Kraut is proposing that it is a natural to have a Professional Practice series book based on the Leading Edge Consortium. The idea is to take the LEC and use it for the foundation for a well-structured book. We would need to tell the presenters that they need to come forward with a formal proposal and citations so that we can move this to print. We had trouble in the past getting someone who would want to serve as editor.
International Affairs Committee Proposed White Papers Project.
Dr. Alex Alonso, chair of the International Affairs committee, said we envision a series of white papers that bring together multiple perspectives across the globe. Dr. Kraiger said we envision a series of short papers (10-20 pages) that would be written by a representative from SIOP, EAWOP and IAAP. Dr. Alonso said the idea would be to build a common vocabulary for I-O. It would continue the collaborative efforts between these groups.
Feedback from the Town Hall Meeting.
President Salas said there were no people there. Dr. Locke asked if it is wasted to have a town hall meeting at all, since people never attend. Dr. Weiss said there were more people last year. He thought there were forty. Dr. Hakel said he thinks it’s nice to have an event that is face-to-face. Dr. Kraiger said it tends to be either older members of SIOP who attend or the very young members. He said it would be desirable to have a better time slot. Dr. McPhail suggested marketing the sessions more thoroughly. If people understood the opportunity that is being offered, they would be more likely to attend. Dr. Erickson and Dr. Foster Thompson said they think it gets lost in the program.
Dr. McPhail suggested that the name of the session doesn’t communicate the purpose. There was discussion of whether people are intimidated to go to the session. Mr. Nershi said people don’t seem to go to the session whether we market it or not. Dr. Cober asked if we could make it the same time as a coffee break so people don’t have to leave the Theme Tracks. Dr. Weiss noted he thinks it could be a good sign that people aren’t attending because they have no grievances with SIOP.
Dr. Kraut suggested relabeling the session “Coffee with the President.” Dr. Olson-Buchanan suggested making it a brown bag meeting, where you bring your own lunch. President Salas suggested the program committee work on this issue.
Committee Sunset Review Assignments.
Dr. Kraiger explained the sunset reviews and the process for getting them complete. We are in the middle of our three-year catch up from not completing them for several years. We have eight reviews this year. They will be done at the winter meeting in January. We have samples to help. This is just to let everyone know this is coming. We may also have a ninth review, for Education and Training coming as well.
Dr. Reynolds said the purpose of this tool is to provide a component of the SIOP Web site that allows user-generated content. The impetus for this was the practitioner survey. We wanted a place for practitioners to be able to share content. This could also be used for certain groups who need a place to share information. We have found a platform that is reasonable and works for our needs. We will be using EditMe.com. We have a demo site up now. It is only a shell without content. We now need to frame out the content for the practice wiki component. The practice wiki is the first one we are building and we are going to work on a process for setting up new wikis for other groups. We will have a standard procedure for this soon. The Electronic Communications Committee and Dr. Charles Handler will take the lead in developing user polices. We thought we would start with encouraging presenters from the conference to upload their documents and other information to the site.
We do need to work out the registration procedures. Right now it is open to everyone, but we envision making it open to only SIOP members for editing and open to the public for viewing. We will also be working with Professional Practice for content.
Dr. Dickson mentioned the Teaching Aids Wiki, which has been up and running for several years. They have a lot of experience in getting the community to contribute material. He encouraged the ECC to communicate with the Education and Training Committee regarding their experience. There was discussion about whether we have the option to tag things for review or let people know that something is unreliable. Dr. Reynolds said we don’t have anything yet, but the challenge will be getting content on it, probably not editing it. Social Psychology has the SPN, Social Psychology Network, we could also review. The people in this site indicate the areas they are experts in. Dr. Reynolds said we could add this to the benchmark list.
Dr. Kraiger explained he would us like to concentrate first on building out the practice wiki. He would like the committee to think about how the Science and Practice wikis will be connected. This could be a mechanism for letting the groups find each other.
Dr. Kraiger summarized what occurred regarding dues at the January meeting. According to our bylaws, if we ask for more than a 15% dues increase, we have to have a members vote. If it’s 15% or less, we don’t need a vote. There was strong consensus at the beginning as a board that the increase was justified due to our services and costs of comparable societies. A post was placed on the SIOP Exchange inviting commentary. We advertised for comments, including an e-mail to members. The comments are primarily negative, but the key is that we only had ten comments over two months, which isn’t very many. If these are a good sample of member reactions, to me they say we didn’t do a good enough job of conveying the value of SIOP membership. So, if we do approve the dues increase, we need to do a better of communicating the value of SIOP.
Dr. McPhail explained that our dues have not changed between 2001 and 2008, when they went from $55 to $60 for members and $25 to $30 for students to help cover the IOP journal. The total revenue expectation from the proposed dues increases is $48,000 in the first year and perhaps as much as $49,000 depending on membership growth. Arguably, because of our good turnout at the conference this year, our budget will balance without this, but we are just at the edge of balancing out budget each year, our dues are substantially lower than comparable organizations, and this really is a small increase.
Mr. Nershi said his concern regards the journal. We only increased the dues $5 when we launched the journal, but we pay $12 to the publisher for each professional member and $6 for each student member for the subscription to the journal.
Dr. Allen asked if the members can opt out of the printed copy of the journal and save money. Mr. Nershi responded that members do have the option to get a digital copy, but we still have to pay the publisher the same fee, so there is no savings to SIOP.
Dr. Hakel moved for approval of the dues increase. Dr. Locke seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved an increase in dues for SIOP members by 15% beginning the next dues year as well as an increase in student and retiree dues by 15% beginning the next dues year.
Report on International Collaboration Efforts. The Alliance for Organizational Psychology. Dr. Hakel, who will serve as the first president of the alliance explained the work that has been done so far and what will be coming up. The Alliance will probably be formally approved in May a year from now at the next meeting of EAWOP. Once the Alliance is official, we will be inviting other organizations outside of the founding three to join.
President Salas asked how we can reach out to those who wish to join the Alliance. Dr. Hakel said we have listings of other international groups we will reach out to. One of the challenges is the difference between organizational structures. Some of the organizations have difference levels of membership that don’t match across groups. So we want to establish policies for collaboration and membership.
Dr. Highhouse asked if we are diluting SIOP’s international presence since I-O psychologists abroad might not join SIOP if they are part of the Alliance. Dr. Hakel said the questions we would need to answer is, “should SIOP itself go global?” “Would SIOP ever host or operate an event outside of North America?” Our dues are much smaller than for other organizations, and our effectiveness is much higher, but we also can’t be imperialist. Dr. Highhouse asked, does it make it less necessary for an I-O in another country to join SIOP, because that is something we should worry about. Dr. Hakel said that with the reciprocity of membership, where we are offering lowered dues, should encourage people to continue to join. Dr. Kraiger elaborated on the issue of how the Alliance could cost SIOP. Dr. Kraiger said he believes the benefits will far outweigh the costs. We will have a far greater influence as an Alliance, we will be able to share speakers and events, collaborate on white papers, etc.
Dr. Locke asked Dr. Hakel if he perceives any other practical benefits of the Alliance. Dr. Hakel said it will foster collaboration and learning opportunities. It will also be helpful in terms of licensing to be involved in collaboration. Dr. Kraiger also mentioned the research incubators as a benefit.
There is a Web site established for the Alliance right now. It will be possible for us to inform all members of the Alliance through the Web site, wikis, etc. We have talked about creating a wiki space for the Alliance.
Dr. Kraut said he saw Dr. Hakel present the case for the Alliance and one of the effects is that it will increase the visibility of SIOP to the international community. Last year, a quarter of our new members were from outside the U.S.
Dr. Weiss suggested putting members of the Alliance on the editorial boards of our two book series. It might be a nice gesture and it would help the books themselves. Dr, Kraut said his editorial board has twelve people on it, five from overseas. Dr. Hakel added that the intent is also to have more speakers coming to our events from overseas.
President Salas said we want to have a relationship with APS. He and Dr. Kraiger had a meeting with Alan Kraut about ways we can strengthen our relationship. Dr. Kraiger will write a feature article on SIOP and I-Os. We will continue our work and sometime this year go back to Washington. As things become more concrete, we will come back to the board with more information. President Kraiger said APS would be willing to provide an offer of no dues for one or two years for SIOP members. Dr. Gary Latham had a great meeting with APA former president James Bray, but the meeting with the APA president Carol Goodheart last year was not as successful. She wasn’t very informed on what we do. The other potential benefit of APS is having someone who understands us better. Alan Kraut will probably be in Chicago for the next conference. President Salas explained the proposal for short, empirical journal articles for a journal with APS. This is under discussion and we will come back to it later.
Dr. Colella asked what APS is expecting from us. Members, said Dr. Kraiger. One option would be that we promote APS membership to our members. It may be nothing more than that, but we can’t make people join APS. Dr. Weiss commented on the loss of student members who do not transition to become full members due to the cost of having to be a member of APS. But, if APS gives SIOP members a free two years of membership, this may encourage more student members to upgrade for professional membership. As far as APA goes, the cultivation of relationships with presidents and goodwill don’t seem to be helping us.
Dr. Hakel said that since the presidents turn over every year, it can be difficult to develop meaningful relationships, but it would be in our interest to cultivate relationships with those who are going to be around awhile in their positions at APA. President Salas also added that he is now on APA’s Board of Scientific Affairs.
Dr. Kraiger he thinks APS will be happy to hear what we are offering as soon as we have decided. Dr. Highhouse said that the dues option of free two years should be brought up at the meeting with APS. Dr. Major said that it would be a good idea to make sure Dr. Deirdre Knapp from External Relations Committee is on board. President Salas said she will be.
(Break for Lunch)
APA Council Representative Report.
Dr. Weiss explained what happened at the last APA Council meeting. They met in January. A major topic was the Model Licensing Act, which will be discussed later in the meeting. APA has a budget of approximately $90 million. Last year there was a projection that they may be close to $10 million in the red. They made a lot of cuts and they are no longer in the red. They made a decision to reduce the dual membership discount of those who are members of both APA and FABBS.
The representatives for the divisions of APA cycle over long terms, so they don’t cycle off as quickly as we do. APA has a very complicated structure. In our case, you learn a little in a few years and then you are off. One of the things we were thinking of doing was trying to come up with some sort of system where there might be more continuity. Maybe those who are going to be APA council reps could agree to run for one or two more terms. There is a tendency for some of our APA reps to be opposed to APA. I think we need people who have a sense of what APA can do for SIOP. I don’t think we are well served by having people with such a negative opinion of APA being representatives for SIOP to APA.
President Salas said he thinks part of the problem is that we have no agenda. We go there to listen and see how they may affect or hurt us. For example, part of what was in MLA would have disenfranchised school psychologists, so they organized and made educational materials and papers and it worked. We don’t do anything like that. If everyone who is connected to APA can be informed, that would help. Dr. Major said Deirdre Knapp and the External Relations Committee could help this.
Dr. Weiss said a good deal of APA’s budget comes from publications. He thinks about $70 million of their $90 million budget is from publications, the science side of APA, and yet it’s something they don’t seem to appreciate or understand.
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE (continued)
APA’s Newly Approved Model Licensure Act.
Dr. Locke said he doesn’t believe APA is serving SIOP’s interests at all. APA doesn’t seem to affiliate positive traits with us and they would not care if we left. Even though Bray did vote for us (in the MLA matter), he did not speak for us or say one word on our behalf. We put in a request for clarification that they would restrict licensing to those doing counseling.
Dr. Locke explained several reasons he believes the Model Licensure Act (MLA) is a threat to SIOP. The MLA is not law, but they are hoping it will go to states to accept. The problems with the MLA start with what the practice of psychology is. One of the specifications is those who use psychology to change people’s behavior need to be licensed. What person in the world doesn’t use psychology to change behavior? They make a distinction between those who provide services to individuals and those who provide services to organizations. The problem is that organizations are composed of individuals. How can you separate the two? That is their way of “letting us off the hook,” but it is really a meaningless distinction. They require a national training council, which we will be subject to. They also require national education guidelines. To get a license you have to be a psychologist in the U.S. or Canada. They also have curriculum requirements that may not apply to psychology. You also have to have two years of supervision by a licensed psychologist in order to get licensed. Since only 2% of SIOP’s practitioners are licensed, what will happen to those who want to become practitioners?
Dr. Locke said his suggestion is to put together all of the affected groups, put together letters, and tell them they cannot get away with this. Dr. Anna Erickson asked why the exemption for those who work with organizations is not useful to SIOP. It seems like it would apply to most of our members. Dr. Erickson stated she felt the distinction is useful since I-Os work with individuals but their actual clients are organizations. Dr. Weiss explained that clarification would be useful. Our proposal said I-O psychology should be exempt, but the staffer who was a chairman of the taskforce said explicitly that our proposal was irrelevant because of the exemption for those who serve organizations. Dr. Locke said APA would have to change the wording of the MLA. Our recommendation was to say that everyone was exempt except personal practitioners who deal with counseling. Dr. Peterson noted that the exemption does not hold because in order for those to be exempt for serving organizations, they must not provide direct services to individuals. Those services are listed in the MLA, and we perform many of them. Dr. Major said she is worried that the distinction is a false one and needs to be clarified.
Dr. Weiss said he thinks SIOP is spending way too much time on the MLA conversation because individual states are going to decide how to respond. Many are going to say, thank you but we have our own laws already in place. We would be better off making sure I-Os are on the boards of every state licensing agency. We aren’t going to have much of an impact unless we are on the state boards. Dr. Erickson added her personal experience in the difficulties of getting I-Os involved in these boards.
Dr. Kraiger reminded the group that this is a revision of the previous act and that this is an improvement. This particular law would be an improvement for I-O psychologists than what is on the books of about 40 other states. President Salas said we are in the process of appointing a taskforce on this. They could look at Dr. Locke’s suggestions for taking legal action or other options. Dr. Kraiger said he wants to get some smart people who understand this domain to start working on this and come up with a reasonable, well thought out response to MLA.
Dr. Locke discussed how occupational licensing has become a “plague” on society. People aren’t going to see the MLA and not do anything. The desire behind this is not to protect the public; the desire is for power and status.
Preservation of Conference History Data
. Dr. Saari explained that the historian and Administrative Office spent a lot of time collecting history information for this SIOP conference. However, we need to start keeping this information. Mr. Nershi said it would be nice to have all of the conference posters online to share with everyone and that we could start doing something like that every year around the conference. Dr. Saari moved that the Administrative Office follow the procedures that have been outlined for keeping these SIOP conference history records. Dr. Highhouse seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Accepted a motion that the Administrative Office follow procedures for keeping SIOP conference history records.
Dr. Erickson said that this year we will be having two awards for early career practitioners. Right now the Distinguished Early Career Award is for science or practice, but in the past it has always been academics winning it so this next year there will be a science and separate practice award. She welcomes anyone who wants to help develop the criteria for the practitioner award or who would like to serve on the committee.
Practitioner Mentoring Program.
Dr. Joan Brannick gave an overview of the Practitioner Mentoring Program, and an update on the speed mentoring event held at the conference. The speed mentoring program is one of three different types of mentoring in the program. There were seven topics at the speed mentoring event. We collected evaluation information and it was a big success. The only complaint from the mentees was that they wanted more time, which isn’t a bad complaint to have. We plan to have another event like this at the LEC in Florida.
President Salas said he thought the program was great and that he looks forward to seeing it continue. Dr. Brannick also thanked Mr. Nershi and the Administrative Office for their work with this.
5K Run Name.
Dr. Paul Sackett had an idea to rename the 5K FunRun in memory of Dr. Frank Landy. Dr. McPhail moved for the 5K FunRun to be renamed in memory of Dr. Frank Landy so that it will now be called the Frank Landy 5K Run. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Renamed FunRun the Frank Landy 5K Run.
President Salas concluded the meeting at 1:58 p.m.