Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology
Winter Executive Committee Meeting Minutes   

APA Offices and Hotel George
Washington, D. C.
January 28 & 29, 2006 

Present:  Dr. Janet Barnes-Farrell, Dr. Adrienne Colella, Dr. John Cornwell, Dr. Jose Cortina, Dr. Robert Dipboye, Dr. Lisa Finkelstein, Dr. Leaetta Hough, Dr. Deirdre Knapp, Dr. Kurt Kraiger, Dr. William Macey, Dr. Jeffrey McHenry, Mr. David Nershi, Dr. Eduardo Salas 

Absent:  Dr. Fritz Drasgow

Call to Order
President's Report
Financial Officer's Report
Secretary's Report
Consent Agenda
Approval of Fellowship Committee Recommendations
Visibility
Advocacy
Membership
Conference Update
Scientific Affairs
Call to Order
Adjournment

President Hough called the meeting to order on January 26, 2006, at 8:29 AM. 

Dr. Hough opened with appreciation for being at APA and having the opportunity to connect with our colleagues.  This is our first meeting since the strategic planning session, and although it didnt all go as planned at that meeting, we got a lot of good products from that experience and the agenda for this meeting is organized around our strategic goals.  Dr. Hough expressed being open to alternative ways to do the agenda, as well as other ways to keep our strategic goals at the forefront of our mind. 

Presidents report 

After her opening remarks, Dr. Hough moved to the Presidents report. 

She began by reviewing the strategic goals in the areas of visibility, advocacy, membership, and science and practice.  Some of the things that we are doing that fit into these goals include the fall conference, the new journal, and our advocacy training. 

Dr. Hough discussed the success of the Fall Consortium.  The ratings were very high, and the speakers were regarded as experts. In fact the only low rating was for the meeting room. They are working on a DVD of the conference, which is expected to be ready in February.  The price will be $49.95, and it will be an edited version of the conference. The conference was a financial success, and the DVD will continue to add to that. The plan for this consortium was institutionalized at the last meeting and it is coming along. 

Dr. Hough transitioned into a discussion of FABBS and the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences.  Drs. Cortina and Tetrick went to the Federation meeting since our last EC meeting (more on this later), and Dr. Hough joined FABBS, which she believes will help our visibility.  They are putting together a companion book to accompany Intro Psych. texts, which will be one way to address our goal of having more I-O in intro books.  She has already persuaded them to include at least one chapter on I-O.  The committee has many good members and Dr. Hough believes that this will be a very helpful group. Discussion ensued as to whether SIOP could join FABBS as a Society rather than just individuals, but it appears this would not be worthwhile as we might pay more money but not get more out of it.  It was clarified that FABBS is the education branch and the Federation, which we are considering joining as a Society, is for advocacy and lobbying. 

The other big project going on with FABBS is the Museum and Science Cafes, where there will be events in museums (starting in DC, but perhaps eventually spreading across the country) that will publicize the contributions of various behavioral sciences.  

The next topic was the KARE committee. The most recent thing that is happening there is a creative proposal where theyd set up a MASH-style tent at APA in New Orleans this fall to offer services to business owners and others who needed help due to the hurricanes. Apparently more than one division has suggested some kind of effort, and the APA Executive Management Group will be talking about it this Tuesday.  This could be very interesting and useful, as well as an opportunity to get everything we do in front of our colleagues at APA. 

Another priority for Dr. Hough has been international involvement with SIOP.  Dr. Nik Chmiel, president of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP) will be attending the conference in Dallas, (he contacted Dr. Hough as a result of the KARE initiative, offering to help anyway they or he could).  A Bylaws amendment has been proposed to allow EAWOP as a qualifying membership organization for applicants to join SIOP.  Dr. Hough has also been working with Dr. Sharon Arad and Tanya Delany as well on these issues. One thought is that Dr. Chmiel might be one of our brief speakers at the plenary session.   

Turning the subject to visibility, Dr. Hough said George Watts was at the fall conference, and wanted names of people to be on his radio show.  Already a couple of members have appeared, including Gary Latham {Note:  It was later clarified by Gary that he did not appear yet but is scheduled to do so}.  We should come up with a systematic way to get names to him.  

We are moving along very nicely on the interactive exchange journal.  Dr. Paul Sackett will be our founding editor.  Dr. Hough reviewed the process.   Many current editors submitted the characteristics of an individual that would make a good editor.  A content analysis of these responses yielded 11 characteristics.  Each of the candidates was asked to submit information about their qualifications in relation to each of the characteristics.  Dr. Sackett was chosen, but there were very other good candidates.  It is expected that some of them will be working with Paul in some way with the journal. An email will be going out soon with an announcement of the new editor and with a call for proposals. 

Dr. Hough asked for a motion to approve this email. Dr. Macey made the motion and Dr. Cornwell seconded.  Passes unanimously 

ACTION TAKEN:  Email to the membership to announce the new editor of the interactive exchange journal and to make a call for proposals is approved. 

Dr. Hough went on to describe the format. This email will include an invitation for focal article proposals.  Dr. Sackett will give feedback at this point with encouragement or discouragement and specific ideas.  At that point the focal article can be written, which will be reviewed by the editors and board.  This will then be put on the SIOP website and anyone then can submit ideas about what they would say about the article.  Dr. Sackett then gives feedback and then the actual commentaries are written. These are also then reviewed. The entire process will be online.   

Questions were raised concerning the time frame and the ambitious nature of the format.  There is a time frame in place of 12 month turnaround, starting every 3 months which could be expanded if it turns out it is needed - and much enthusiasm for this model, which would allow for something different than Personnel Psychology and JAP. Different names are currently being considered. 

This ends Dr. Houghs Presidential report.  

Financial Officers Report  

Dr. Cornwell pointed out that typically there isnt much to talk about this time of year and negative net profits are nothing to worry about, as weve spent for the conference but havent recovered the money yet. This year we had a bit more because of the strategic planning expenses. He also pointed out that the fall conference turned a profit this year, which he is quite pleased with. 

Mr. Nershi pointed out we moved to a less expensive employee health care, which was made possible because 5 employees are now enrolled.  

The next step is to plan the budget to present at the meeting in May, and this planning is underway.  Everything is done at the spring meeting except what will be budgeted for the conference.  Important information, such as good estimates of costs, is available after meeting with the hotel, thus, it is better to wait until the fall Executive Committee meeting to budget for the spring conference. 

Mr. Nershi added one thing: at the last meeting we approved an investment policy that specified the percentage of funds that should be invested in cash equivalents and equities. By way of update, as of January 25th we have 37.25% in cash and equivalents and 62.5% in equities, which is within the range prescribed in our investment policy). The P & L statements are provided in the packet. Dr. Hough recalled at the last meeting we talked about the investment fee charge. Mr. Nershi reported that the fees had been negotiated to a lower rate and were within the range requested by the Executive Committee. The value of investments is $7,000 ahead of where we were a year ago. 

Dr. Hough asked for a motion to approve the Presidents report and the Financial Officers report.  Dr. Cortina made the motion and Dr. Macey seconded.  Passes unanimously 

ACTION TAKEN:  Presidents and Financial officers reports are approved. 

Secretarys Report: 

Dr. Finkelstein asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the fall Executive Committee meeting. Dr. Hough made the motion and Dr. Colella seconds. 

ACTION TAKEN:  Minutes of the fall Executive Committee meeting are approved. 

Consent Agenda:  

Dr. Hough asked for a motion to approve the consent agenda (items requiring Executive committee action, but no discussion) before we begin further discussion.  Dr. Cornwell moved to approve and Dr. Dipboye seconded.  Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION ITEM:  The consent agenda with all cluster coordinator reports is approved. For the record, the following items were included:

A.     Report on Emergency Action Items

B.     Credit Card Processor

C.     I-O Encyclopedia (Logo and info to be included in upcoming Sage Publication)

D.     Cluster Coordinator Reports (Written reports requested. Items requiring EC action will be considered under Item 6. Other Matters.) 

1)      Communications Cluster: Fritz Drasgow

2)      Membership Cluster: Jose Cortina

3)      Professional Development Cluster: Adrienne Colella

4)      Science and Practice Cluster: Kurt Kraiger 

Dr. Cornwell made a suggestion for all committees to use a standardized format for reports to use to make them easier to follow, and all were in agreement. 

Dr. Hough suggested we move on to talk about the products of the strategic planning meeting. 

Dr. Macey began by stating that although we had some frustrations at the meeting, we can look back and say we were successful.  Our core purpose and values and goals and objectives are in the report, which also appears in TIP. 

He reviewed our four goal areas:  visibility, advocacy, membership, and science and practice.  These didnt seem to be a concern, but the mega issues we had were ranked from 21 issues we generated, and the ones that narrowly won were SIOP governance, our role in psychology departments, credentialing, marketing, and visibility.  Members will be asked to comment on the importance of those objectives and if they are being met through the Membership survey.  In asking about the governance structure, people are being asked to make suggestions if they are displeased with the current structure.  

Discussion ensued regarding the need for some kind of metric to measure our progress and how that is a challenging task.  It was thought that initiatives around the strategic goals might be more motivating than metrics, but everyone also agreed on the necessity of metrics.  There was also a lot of energy expressed around tying back all of our committee activities to our strategic plans, perhaps even utilizing our planned new standardized goal sheet to ask directly for that connection.  We need to be accountable to the strategic goals and get the membership involved. 

The discussion turned to next steps in the procedure. Some ideas considered were convening another big group in September, assigning people within the committee structure to each of the four topics, or devoting part of our Spring EC meeting and new chair training to these issues.  Everyone agreed that we need to think hard about what we want to come out of this, and how we generate organizational commitment around these things, particularly when there is so much turnover on committees.  There was some debate about whether we need to narrow our focus down before going out with these ideas to committees and chairs, or if they should be involved in the process of focusing our energies.  Most people agreed that we need to continue to focus on the goals between now and May so that the new chairs can hit the ground running. 

Several related matters were discussed, including whether the focus should be on the process and structure or problem solvint, the need to have clear definitions of values and goals, and the desire to be inclusive in this process. 

Dr. Hough called for a temporary close on this discussion, but for everyone to think and talk more about this among themselves throughout the evening, and we would return to it on Sunday morning. 

Approval of the Fellowship Committee Recommendations 

Dr. Hough went over the procedure for approving the fellows.  A candidate who has been recommended for fellowship can be turned down, but the Executive Committee cannot approve a Fellowship for someone who hasnt been recommended by the committee. 

Dr. Latham informed the group of the makeup of the committee there was a balance of academics and practitioners. We were given all of the information on the candidates and the Fellowship Committee ratings and comments.   

After reviewing each candidate, a motion was made to support each recommendation.  For each, Dr. Cornwell made the motion and Dr. Dipboye seconded.  Each motion passed unanimously, with the exception of two abstentions from members who wrote letters for those candidates. 

ACTION TAKEN:  Fellowship recommendations are approved. 

Some discussion was raised around the lack of practitioners being nominated for Fellow, and how the criteria for Fellow status for a practitioner was more vague the metrics are less clear than for academics.  Dr. McHenry stated that in his presidency he would like to continue to push for more practitioners to nominate themselves.  

Visibility 

An update on the Website redesign project was presented by Mr. Nershi.  He worked with Dr. Jim Beatty and the Electronic Communications Committee, and sent RFPs to 22 web design companies.  Six made the initial cut, and went through a second round that included a teleconference and online meeting.  Three were identified as the finalists.   Teraeon Consulting of Dearborn, Michiggan, was selected and their work begins in January, and should be ready to roll out in April.  An agreement is currently being finalized.  The Visibility committee will contribute to the look and feel, and Dr. Cortina will work to make sure the content is tied to strategic goals.  Teraeon has solutions to help integrate existing ASP applications into the new Website.  We will have a public section and a members-only section.  Also, we can define certain groups who can go to certain areas.

It was mentioned that this company will be very cost effective and we will have the ability to change the site ourselves rather than have to rely on the company to do it, which will allow us to develop new applications in the future.  The group was also assured that we are in line to have this rolled out in April to get some buzz around this at the conference. 

Dr. Hough informed the group that she, Drs. Ann Marie Ryan and Shelley Zedeck were at the APA Science Leadership Conference in December 2005 where they agreed that they would ask first authors to write a media paragraph for their article.  Drs. Jim Farr, Deniz Ones, and Neil Anderson perhaps can do this too. This should make it easier for us to get some more media attention. 

Dr. Hough presented the KARE committee update she reminded us of the earlier plan she presented the brainchild of Dr. Vicki Vandeveer to have a MASH-type unit at APA in New Orleans where people could come and get help on a variety of things, such as interview training, selection issues, etc.  This would be available throughout the conference and different people could man the tent at different times. At first, APA told us it wouldnt fit into the program as it was 8-10 hours every day. As a result of our significant lobbying to influence the outcome of our APA proposal, the APA Executive Management Group (EMG) will discuss our proposal on Tuesday during their meeting. It is possible that a combined effort involving several divisions will emerge. 

Dr. Hough turned to a discussion on our international connections.  Last year Dr. Hough met Aletta Odendaal from SIOPSA- SIOP South Africa. Recently, Dr. Hough was invited to South Africa to be a keynote speaker at their conference.  She is unable to attend and would like someone else to represent us; we need to figure out who that might be.  

Next, Dr. Kraiger talked about the International Caf proposal. The International Committee would like to have something in addition to their social hour.  They would like to host a one-hour International Caf from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on Friday of the spring conference.  International members would be identified and send information packets ahead of time.  At the caf, they could talk about their issues andengage in Q & A with international and non-international members.,.  It would be a semi-structured event.  One focus of the caf is how to best experience the conference.  The International Committee is also asking for money for coffee service. 

Some other ideas that might help our international members have a better conference experience were suggested, such as possibly getting some international students to be available for translations. Bilingual SIOP members might be willing to help. 

Dr. Kraiger moved to accept the proposal to host the International Caf at the SIOP spring conference and spend money for coffee service with an understanding that it is a one-time trial, although we will encourage them to consider making it a permanent feature.  The expenses approved will not exceed $500.  Dr. Salas seconds the motion.  Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION ITEMS:  Proposal for international caf is approved for this year, and coffee service up to $500 is approved. 

The next agenda item under visibility was the FABBS report, which was discussed somewhat earlier. She suggested we may need volunteers for the Science Cafs. The Science Cafs would begin in DC; the general public is the audience.  Events planned would include speakers on different topics.  One of Dr. Houghs ideas was on Presidents Day we could have a caf on leadership.  The question was raised as to whether these would be formal presentations -  Dr. Hough said it could be, but not an academic presentation.  Dr. Hough suggested maybe Dr. Latham needs to be called in for entertainment purposes. At this point it is really open. Another idea was a movie that could be put together that could run continuously during the day.  Others recalled a traveling exhibit from years ago that was very interactive that could be a good model.  

Mr. Nershi reported that the Visibility committee had a conference call on Wednesday. They discussed their involvement in the Fall Consortium since the Visibility chair will be a member of the committee, it will be a permanent connection.  Now we have some templates and formats in place and it should be easier to promote, as it is a known entity.  We intend to use the fall conference as a platform for enhancing visibility. 

The topic for next years Fall Consortium is Attraction, Development, and Retention of Talent.  Its moving along and sounds quite exciting.  The dates will be October 27 and 28 at the Park Hotel, in Charlotte, NC.  Dr. Hough pointed out that senior SIOP members were very pleased with last falls consortium Leadership at the TOP;  practitioners were especially thrilled.  Others pointed out that they heard some grousing on the academic side not just from the price tag but from the content.   

It was pointed out that one of the objectives was to bring science and practice together.  We also have to look at what our offerings look like as a whole - we need to look at the balance.  Dr. Hough agreed saying that one of her criteria for success will be whether there are linkages between academics and practitioners after the conference, that shes working on generating research projects involving academics and practitioners who attended the consortium.  It was asked how many academics attended 40 of 188.  There were also a lot of nonmembers, many who said theyd join SIOP; others said theyd rejoin. 

A concern that was raised is that a lot of early career and mid-career faculty are doing the research, and many couldnt afford to attend the consortium. We need to think if there is something we can do to address this concern.  It was assumed that some of the complainers werent actually there, because there was actually a good mix. Perhaps in the future we could consider some kind of scholarship to let young academics attend.  Also, if people could get on the program they may be able to access travel funds from their department.  There was a bit of concern that growing this too much would take away from the intimate nature of the conference, one of its attractive features. 

Next, Dr. Hough suggested that we need to talk about participation in APA committees and boards. We should acknowledge the people involved so more people will get excited about getting involved.  Others discussed the importance of having more liaisons on APA boards.  It was suggested the APA/APS liaison committee be more involved in getting people nominated.  We also need to find out more about who is involved in other APA divisions now and figure out if we could connect divisions on initiatives. 

At this point, 12:09, we broke for lunch. 

We reconvened at 12:39. 

Advocacy 

We began by spending some time discussing the Advocacy workshop for the SIOP conference. We realized it will be important to clarify exactly what we would like to be part of that shorter workshop.  Dr. Knapp volunteered to take the lead, along with Dr. Salas, to work with APA on this.  Several points came up, such as whether this would be focused on lobbying, or more general advocacy skills that could be important for many members in a variety of contexts.

We transitioned to Advocacy in relation to the Federation.  Drs. Cortina and Tetrick went to the meeting and they got a sense of what they do. They have 3 full time staff members whose job it is to lobby the feds for funding on topics that are central to the members of the Federation. At this meeting there were talks given by funders none of which were I-O related, but at this point its understandable.  All those with whom they talked raved about the work of the Federation and said how much their opportunities immediately increased and that they are very helpful in all parts of the process.  Dr. Cortina mentioned that weve been talking about doing this stuff forever and never really knew how to it sounds like they are very good at it.  There is a 2-year trial membership when available.  For the first year it is $2.75 per member, and double that the second year, and then the price is $11 per member.   

Much discussion and debate emerged around whether we should join the Federation on a trial basis.  One central question was whether we would have to pay if APA is paying and we are a division of APA, and many of our members are APA members.  It appeared that the rate might be flexible somewhat, but that most other organizations that were members also were affiliated with APA, so that probably wouldnt get us out of the fee.  

The group wasnt entirely clear on exactly what the Federation would do for us.  Dr. Cortina gave some examples, such as setting up a lunch with Congress members who are on committees relevant to our interests. Essentially they have the contacts and the skills that allow them to pull off stuff that we might not know how to do. 

The question was raised as to whether this was strictly focused on getting funding, or if there are other focal issues.  Dr. Cortina believed they are involved with anything to do with national funding.   

After more back and forth discussion of how we need a strategy with many prongs, and how important it should be to take the Federation as a learning opportunity, and that this could actually be a good visibility opportunity for us with the other groups, it was determined that one option could be is that we could approve the trial membership for a one-year period, but that after a year, the funding would need to be approved.  

People were still concerned that we dont have enough information on this organization.  Dr. Macey asked the question what would happen if we didnt do it, and many people talked about lost opportunity and loss of respect as scientists if we stagnate and dont move forward with this goal.  Thus, he made a motion that we join the trial membership and Dr. Dipboye seconded. However, others were concerned we needed some more information. 

Dr. Macey changed his motion that following distribution of whatever information we can have in one week, we have an electronic vote.  Dr. Dipboye seconds.  Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN: After we have gathered and distributed more information to the Executive Committee members, we will conduct an email vote about joining the Federation for a one-year trial membership. 

{Secretarys note:  The electronic election was held and the motion to join the Federation passed.} 

Membership 

The first issue discussed was the bylaws changes.  Our job was to determine if it is OK to present this to the membership.  There will be a vote at the plenary session.  In the future we can vote electronically, but since electronic voting is one of the changes we are reviewing, we just want to notify people of the changes by email but vote at the plenary session. 

First, well change references to APA and APS to include CPA and EAWOP.  Dr. Hough pointed out that APS is now the Association for Psychological Science and we should note that. 

It was also suggested that the international committee should work on identifying other possible groups and bringing them before us. 

One other change is suggested that currently we require other organizations to notify winners of awards and fellow status, and we cant really make other groups do anything. 

One of the bylaws requires the Executive Committee approve nominations of all awards for other organizations, but we are changing this such that the awards committee can do this on their own without EC approval. 

Dr. Macey makes a motion to approve these changes to our bylaws and present them to the membership for a vote.  Dr. Cortina seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN:  Approval to present the change to the bylaws to the membership for a vote. 

The next amendment was to close a loophole regarding whether someone who served more than 18 months would be ineligible for running again.  Dr. McHenry moves to present this change in bylaws; Dr. Cortina seconds. The motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN:  Approval to present the change to the bylaws to the membership for a vote. 

The third amendment is that we communicate through email and have voting for no more than 30 days. 

Dr. Dipboye moves and Dr. Cortina seconds.  Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN: Approval to present the third change to the bylaws to the membership for a vote. 

The fourth amendment will allow members to vote on bylaws amendments electronically and for notification to occur at least thirty days prior to actual voting.  Passage of amendment would require a majority of voting members to approve the change, not a majority of members. 

Dr. Macey moves; Dr. Cortina seconds.  Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN: Approval to present the fourth change to the bylaws to the membership for a vote. 

Finally, the fifth change eliminates reference to a SIOP Foundation Committeeas they have their own board. 

At this point, Dr. Cortina asked about his responsibility as cluster coordinator for the Foundation.  Dr. Cornwell said the Foundation needs to still have a connection because they dont have their own separate budget.  Dr. Nancy Tippins right now is the liaison and will remain liaison.  It was clarified that Dr. Cortina doesnt have to report Foundation activities as part of his cluster responsibilities.  However, further discussion ensued about whether we need a communication channel with the Foundation. We decided to talk to the Foundation about this. 

Dr. Dipboye moves and Dr. Cortina seconds.  Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN: Approval to present the fifth change to the bylaws to the membership for a vote. 

The next vote was to add the committees we already have using their proper names. Dr. Cornwell made the motion and Dr. Kraiger seconded.  Motion passed unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN: Approval to present the sixth change to the bylaws to the membership for a vote. 

Next we reviewed the new online directory.  Dr. Macey suggested that we need language on the first page for limitations of uses.  This is in our print directory and we can use that language. Mr. Nershi went on to show us the different searches we could do, etc. He mentioned that the elimination of the print directory would be a great savings in staff time and money. He mentioned that the online directory will be constantly updated, as opposed to the print directory, which is outdated almost as soon as it is printed. 

Mr. Nershi asked for a motion to send out an email to inform the members of this and that it will be replacing the print directory and it will be positioned as a membership benefit.  We will remove people that dont pay dues, but they will be put on if they do. 

Dr. Finkelstein makes the motion and Dr. Cortina seconds.  Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN:  An email will be sent to the membership to inform them of the benefits of the new online directory. 

The membership survey will be sent out next week.  The goals from the strategic planning meeting have been added to the survey. 

The next discussion is about transparency of governance. Dr. Hough is bothered that only the Executive Committee can view reports on the website.  She thinks that these and the minutes should be available to the membership. 

Discussion ensued regarding the minutes and how this should be done.  A lot of people said these were very helpful to them in looking back at certain discussions.  Other organizations have more summary type minutes. 

In the end it was determined that the SIOP secretary, Dr. Finkelstein, would create miniature minutes to be approved next time and to be posted on the web. However, she would still hold on to the more detailed Secretary notes if anyone on the EC needed to look up more detailed conversations.  

Next was the election update.  This time it was for President, Financial Officer, and Member at Large. There is a separate election conducted by APA for council representative positions. The website poll closes next week; candidates are then informed of the results. The official announcement is at the plenary session. 

We took a break from 2:59 to 3:11. 

Dr. Cortina moved on to talk about the LRP sunset report.  Rather than go through the sunsetting process with members at large, he asked other members to respond to this since as a member at large he headed the Long-Range Planning Committee (LRP).  The recommendation is to continue to have a long-range planning committee. The problem is that LRP often gets tasked with things that arent long-range planningthe percentage of time LRP spends on LRP is less than it should be.  We need to think about the need for the LRP to focus on this, and also, because committee membership turns over and LRP responsibilities are nebulous, the ongoing LRP activities are not always consistent. Looking for some sort of structure where senior member at large sees something through.  He asked for some suggestions.   

Many suggestions and concerns were raised here. For example, the LRP often gets focused on short-range problems and cant devote thought to long-range issues.  Also, The Executive Committee as a whole really should be involved in the long-range planning process for the society, and is in fact what we are doing.  Some raised the question of the distinction between long-range planning and strategic planning. Dr. Macey suggested that LRP was there in order to make sure things progressed as they should and things didnt keep going that shouldnt. Others have thought of it as synonymous with strategic planning.  Dr. McHenry suggested it is sort of like the President having a Chief of Staff that coordinates things. 

Another concern is because there is so much member turnover on LRP, it is hard to do long-range planning. LRP has done well with special projects; LRP is more about carrying out special tasks.  Discussion ensued around what to do now, and if we get rid of the committee, how do we make sure that we are really doing long-range planning? Although it might be the Presidents job to head it up, there is even more turnover in that position.  After more general discussion, it was decided to table this issue for now with plans to return to this at the next meeting. 

Dr. Hough makes a motion to table this for now, and Dr. Cornwell seconds. Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN:  Decision on the sunset of LRP is tabled until the Spring EC meeting. 

Next we discussed three awards issues. The first was a request from the Awards Committee that the administrative manual be changed to reflect the fact the Awards chair no longer has to bring nominations for awards outside of SIOP to the executive committee first.  This is in the bylaws change and the manual will change to reflect this. 

Next, we engaged in a discussion encouraged by the Awards chair concerning whether mentoring should be considered in the Distinguished Teaching Award.  Many points came up around this.  For example, being a great I/O teacher in the classroom can help I/O gain visibility, and should be rewarded.  This award is new and was generally designed to recognize individuals for teaching. Even though mentoring and supervising students is a sort of teaching, it was decided that we should keep the criteria of the award as is. 

The next issue was about an LGBT award proposal:  Dr. Mikki Hebl and committee spent a lot of time working this out.  There was concern that there havent been enough papers thus far to justify this, because its such a small area. This could encourage more research or send the signal that this is important.  Although there was some concern that we dont have an award for research about race or disability - should we do all underrepresented groups -  Dr. Cornwell reminded us that the bottom-line was LGBT was something separate and they advocated for themselves and so they shouldnt be punished if the other ones havent organized.   

Discussion ensued about the feasibility of specialty awards and a desire to have awards be all worth the same dollar amount.  There was some concern over not wanting awards to seem tiered.  Also, if the papers have been scarce on this topic, there was concern over whether there would be enough good papers to consider.  On the other hand, it was pointed out that winning this sort of award could help researchers in this area justify the importance of their work within their own departments. The group believed that it was important to send a message to the foundation that we do support the mission of this proposed award, but ultimately it will be their decision. 

Dr. Cornwell proposed we do this for three years and then we will reconsider it after that point in time. They need to raise the money from the foundation or other sources. Dr. Kraiger seconds this.  Dr. McHenry suggests that we should go to the awards committee to make sure they are comfortable with this.  People expressed some concerns about the evaluation of criteria for the award.  It is suggested we add to the motion that we express support and turn it to the award committee.  There are nine yeses and three abstentions. 

ACTION TAKEN:  We support this proposal for an LBGT research award for three years, and agree to pass the issue on to the Foundation and the Awards committee for decisions. 

The next issue is in regard to the licensure exam in California.  A new test has been created whereby it only tests clinical skills and I-Os wouldnt be able to get licensed.  Dr. Hough suggested that we send the letter in the briefing book. We all read it and agreed it would be good to send the letter, but we should direct the reader specifically to the SIOP toolkit on our website.  Many people agreed we should mobilize our California based I-O colleagues in addressing this issue. Some people mentioned included Drs. Ben Schneider, Rodney Lowman, Judith Blanton, and David Peterson. 

Dr. Macey makes a motion to send a letter on SIOP stationary, and Dr. Dipboye seconds. Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN:  We will send a letter in opposition to the California Licensure test on SIOP stationary. 

Conference Update 

As of Dec. 12, 50% had been booked. Current activities include working on the technology to work out personalized programs and audio streaming for CE credits.  The three-day format was supposed to start in New York, but due to a lack of available space at the hotel it will start in San Francisco. So far, 565 people have registered for the conference, 131 for workshops; 54 sponsor booths have been sold. We are doing well.  Interdisciplinary issues will be a focus on Sunday sessions and workshops. Dr. Hough said they have done a great job; it will be a successful conference. 

There was an issue brought to the committees attention regarding whether papers presented at IOOB counted as a conference, such that they couldnt be presented at SIOP. This was discussed and it was decided that since it was a different audience (no faculty), it could be seen almost like practice, and they should be able to present at SIOP.  

Scientific Affairs 

Dr. Kraiger told us that they would like input on activities.  We had decided earlier that we would have them come up with a list of potential funding agencies as well as issues for the Federation. They want to broaden their charter to advocate with multiple constituencies. 

The next issue brought to our attention is that Dr. Robert Perloff and his wife have begun to build a database of measurement tools.  Theyve asked for money from DDI to fund the inclusion of I-O measurement instruments. They are willing to provide some funding and allow us to put our name on it.  So, it would be DDI/SIOP database. Are we interested in this kind of branding? 

Discussion ensued regarding what types of instruments are out there, and at this point it wasnt clear, although it includes instruments available through other sources.  People had some concerns that if we had our name on this we might be seen as being associated specifically with DDI on a business venture.  Other concerns were that we would not have control over content that we were perceived to support, and we would be liable for misuse of these measures.  Dr. Kraiger agreed to find out more information before we make a decision.  

Last topics:  I-O ambassadors:  E&T came up with this and its funded with SIOP foundation putting together a data base of people willing to be guest lecturers at schools that dont have I-O.  We decided to go on record saying we support this. 

Dr. Hough called the meeting into recess at 5:09 pm.  

Dr. Hough reconvened the meeting on January 29 at 8:29 

We returned to the agenda, beginning with Dr. Macey, who informed us that we kept our five seats through the apportionment vote which is great at one time we couldnt get more than three. Dr. Hough thought perhaps we could try to get the membership even more involved in the future.  There was some concern that a lot of it has to do with timing and the email coming very soon to when the ballot reaches peoples desks. We do still have a lot of people assigning all their votes to Division 14, which is great. 

Next, Dr. Macey informed the group that we have a few days if we want to respond to the Human and Animal Studies Division proposal.  He said it is not necessary that we respond either way, and it is probably not recommended that we take a stand in either direction.  

Dr. Cortina motioned to accept the APA report and Dr. McHenry seconded.  Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION ITEM:  APA council representative report is accepted. 

Dr. Hough told the group that Dr. Thayer wants permission to send out an email to the membership soliciting funds.  After some discussion it was decided that a mass email may not be the best approach, and maybe we could just make sure there is information on the web and a way to make online donations. 

Switching topics, Mr. Nershi reminded the group that he had suggested a tuition assistance plan for employees of SIOP. Ms. Linda Lentz gathered info to benchmark what others were doing, and that is provided in our briefing books.  Someone at the September meeting had suggested that there be some kind of loyalty provision.  What they suggested here that if the employee left within a year they would have to refund the money.  Mr. Nershi explained that he didnt want something written saying that theyd have to stay a specified amount of time, because that could imply that we are guaranteeing employment.  Since the organization has a commitment toward advanced learning, this is important. We want to retain our key employees.   

After some discussion, a few changes were recommended, including that there was an expectation for at least a B grade for reimbursement, and that there be a cap on the maximum amount to be awarded. 

Dr. Knapp proposed the motion to approve the educational assistance program as modified with a required B or better and a maximum cap of $10,000.  Dr. Cortina seconded.  Motion passes unanimously. 

ACTION TAKEN:  Approve the educational assistance program to SIOP employees as modified with a B or better in classes and a maximum cap of $10,000. 

Mr. Nershi switched gears to talk about change in travel agencies. Janet at Millstream has done a fine job, but this change to Atlas will give us better service at a cost savings, including the ability for SIOP officers and committee members (with the proper authorization) to book tickets online that will be charged to SIOP). 

Next, we turned to Dr. Koppes request for us to discuss a current situation with TIP.  A manuscript was submitted that might be seen as controversial; it accused certain test vendors of not upholding SIOPs principles. Although the group thought this was very important issue and we do have principles to uphold, not everyone agreed on the manner in which it was presented. Much discussion ensued here about what would have to be taken out of the article for it to go forward. 

Dr. Cortina made a motion to approve that it can be rewritten with removal of specific references and the word misrepresentation.  Dr. McHenry seconds.  Motion passes with 9 affirmative votes and three abstentions. 

ACTION TAKEN:  A recommendation will be made to Dr. Koppes to allow the author of the article in question to rewrite it with removal of specific references to companies and the use of the word misrepresentation. 

After passing this action item, more discussion continued about this idea more generally.  For example, questions were raised as to which groups are involved with our standards.  There was some concern expressed that we may be bashing people who just are not aware that there is big science behind testing and that they dont understand it.  Although it would create additional competition, it seems important to educate those individuals. 

Dr. Kraiger mentioned that how we handle this depends on whether we see this as an ethics issue (where we should work through APA), or a science issue concerning what needs to be communicated about tests to the general public.  He mentioned that he is also on a human factors committee, and they have the ability to put together large panel sessions of scientists that are multidisciplinary, and they get a lot of money to support large-scale studies.  We could point out to this group of people who would be excellent panel members for a project on testing. Because they are in the National Committee of Sciences, they sometimes make policy recommendations to Congress.  Dr. Hough expressed excitement over this possibility and asked Dr. Kraiger to see what he could do to make this happen.  Dr. Kraiger clarified that the earliest there could be discussion would be their summer meeting in July or August.  The earliest a project could actually start would be January of next year.  He suggested we explore multiple avenues, as there may be something we could do more quickly.  Also, the human factors group might find this too I-Oish and not want to go forward with it. It was thought that Scientific Affairs should work on this as well. 

Dr. Macey came in to discuss gate-keeping issues.  He suggested that there are things happening in the marketplace like screening over the internet, thus happening in an unproctored setting. The decisions are no longer in the hands of people that interpret tests. For example, applicants may take a test on line, and this test is packaged with the applicant tracking system. One of his major concerns is that there are I-O psychologists that might misunderstand their role in this decision. Dr. Knapp adds that this also relates to credentialing issues. There is a lot of seat of the pants testing going on.  IT has been doing some kinds of certification testing for a while and we havent been part of that and they dont want to change. As a profession we arent very knowledgeable about this whole other industry. 

Dr. Hough now turned the group to strategic planning and to set some goals for the next couple of hours. Dr. McHenry suggested three potential goals for the remainder of the morning.  One is governance; how to set operations over a fiscal year, and determine the business rhythm, who does what, what might come up at different points, and how to assign work. Second is the four strategic areas. We could try to define those more clearly, and then we could go forward in May, and decide what we would want our chairs to know about this in all these, and try to come up with a from to document. Third option is initiatives, meaning the more specific action areas that we think might drive these. After some discussion we decided to go with option two spending some time thinking about our core mission, values, and goals. 

The question was raised:  Do we agree that it is our core purpose to advance the science and practice of psychology at work?  Everyone agreed.  There was also general agreement on the values and the vision statement. However, there was some question about whether we are adopting or endorsing these.  It was acknowledged that we should adopt them but also make sure it is clear to membership that this is a plan that will continue to be developed and honed based on membership endorsement and feedback.  Also, the idea that we want to adopt a model whereby our decisions as a committee will be impacted by our strategic plan was reiterated from yesterday. 

Some discussion emerged as to whether ethics was stated clearly enough in the values statement.  We had some discussion regarding the wording of integrity vs. ethics, and intellectual integrity vs. other types of professional integrity. A more direct statement regarding commitment to higher ethical standards was agreed upon to be added to the values. 

Dr. Dibpoye put forth the motion to endorse our core values and purpose, and Dr. Macey seconded the motion.  However, at this point more discussion continued. 

For example, some discussion occurred as to how this will get communicated to membership. Some ideas included email, the website, and the conference. 

It was pointed out that of our strategic goals, the first two are externally focused and the next two are internally focused.  We began our specific discussion with visibility (and were referred to tab 5 in our briefing books). 

It became clear that there is overlap between some of the specific bullets relating to visibility and to advocacy.  For example, promote the value of I-O psychologists is related to both.  We agreed that these are distinct areas, but that they do have overlap.  For example, advocacy is a way to promote visibility.  Likewise, visibility could enhance our success about advocacy.  Dr. Colella pointed out that advocacy is promotion of change, where visibility may be more related to how we currently are. 

A few more wording issues emerged.  For example, some statements are in outcome form and some are not.  Rather than spend much more time with the wording details, it was decided that Dr. Hough and Dr. Finkelstein would work on the wordsmithing following the meeting and get back to everyone for more input. 

It was suggested that we should stress that there is a concerted planned effort toward advocacy going on now. Weve always had people advocate, but this is a specific planned effort that can be differentiated. We also need to make sure legislation is included under that umbrella. 

Dr. Colella asked why under membership it says I-O professionals, and not I-O psychologists.  Most recalled that it may have to do with students, international affiliates, Masters-level folks, etc., who all may not actually be psychologists.  Dr. Colella suggested we use the term professionals in the field of I-O psychology, which keeps it in the field but doesnt limit us to those who can call themselves actual psychologists (licensing issue).  It was also suggested that we need to recognize membership as a category isnt just (or necessarily) more members, but being of value to our members.  Others emphasized the importance of the psychological origins of our science represented in our membership criteria. 

It was also pointed out that although having fun may seem like a silly goal statement, it truly is one of the reasons why many people stay with SIOP. 

Next the science and practice area was discussed.  Everyone agreed that it was important to be proactive about continuing to bring these perspectives together.  Some words such as synergy and integration were discussed to describe the relationship. 

A question was raised as to whether we as individual members of SIOP are scientist-practitioners, or is this an organization made up of both scientists and practitioners? Even though there is a difference in how we all spend out time, most SIOP members will view themselves as scientist-practitioners. However, some of the wording we have seems to imply two different groups.   Dr. McHenry suggested I-O psychologists work in academic and organizational settings are aligned and the group all seemed to love that.  We want to have the scientist-practitioner model captured well in this category. 

Some discussion emerged about the perception that there are camps in our field and perhaps some misperceptions and sometimes lack of respect of each other across those camps.  We all agreed its important to continue to talk about this. People shared some experiences regarding times where the groups seemed divided. We agreed we want to continue to come up with initiatives to break down this division. Some ideas include academic-practitioner highlights at the conference, new collaborative efforts coming out of the fall conference, a combined Frontiers-Professional Practice volume, TIP articles highlighting important things about practice and about research. Dr. Cornwell said we should think about how all of our activities reflect how we are respecting the model.  It will help to have the new committee goals sheet with a place for people to explain the connection. 

Dr. McHenry asked us to go to the five specific initiatives that were there, so we could see we had a start on the science and practice issue.  Dr. Colella suggested that she investigate what all the committees are doing right now and then mapping them on to our categories to see where we stand with what we are doing.  Dr. Hough agreed to work with her to sort the activities into the four categories. Dr. Hough said she would really like to have something to present in May for her Presidential Address and she wants to know that the membership is onboard with this.  It was suggested that while everyone is still around the table, we should take advantage of our last half hour to see how much we can accomplish. 

Dr. McHenry asked if we could take our four categories and assign an EC person to each, and have them prepare a 10-15 minute presentation for the May meeting in these areas that might inform the importance of this area and where we think it would go, using the membership survey and any other data.  Then, we could have breakouts where we could dive deep into each, and what comes out is a dashboard specific measures in each area where we can start tracking progress.  Then, maybe we could come back to the initiatives we had in September and see if this is right and how we are going to get things assigned to chairs.   

We summarized here that Dr. Cornwell is helping Mr. Nershi put together the annual goal sheet for committees, and Dr. Colella is going to investigate who is currently doing what in committees that is related to our strategic plan, and we are now going to assign people for the Monday meeting in May to give presentations. 

Mr. Nershi said he will send out more of the notes from the strategic planning meeting. 

The assignments are:  Dr. Kraiger for science and practice, Dr. Cortina and the new member at large for Membership, Dr. Colella and Dr. Drasgow for visibility, and Dr. Knapp, Dr. Salas, and Dr. Dipboye for advocacy.  

Dr. McHenry recapped that the goal here is a 10-minute presentation that sums up the issues and tees up a conversation with some examples of ideas, any initiatives coming from Dr. Colellas research into current things committees are doing.  We are thinking about the gap from where we are today and where we want to be. 

After thanking the group for their hard work, Dr. Hough adjourned the meeting at 11:44. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dr. Lisa M. Finkelstein
SIOP Secretary 2005-2008