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

Program Committee Goals and Progress Report Form

Committee Chair Name:  Tammy Allen

Date:  August 29, 2006 

o  Goals Report 

x  Progress Report


Committee members, email addresses, and subcommittee assignment  

Program Goals and Progress to Date 

Goals Report   

The overall goal for the 2007 SIOP program is to have an organized and high quality program.  Specific goals for the program committee are outlined below.  


1.  Continue to improve program formats.  


A.  Modify the Call for Proposals incorporating feedback from previous program chair. 


Complete.  Lillian Eby and the Call subcommittee thoroughly reviewed the existing call and incorporated suggestions from Julie Olson-Buchanan based on 2006. 


Major changes made to the call include:  

·        Diversity of affiliations requirement applied to practice forums as well as to symposia

·        Content areas reviewed, modified and updated

·        Clarification of “Rule of Three” guideline

·        Required CVs and learning objectives to be included with Master Tutorial submissions

·        Submitters provided opportunity to indicate if they want their submission automatically considered by APA (applicable to Posters, Symposia or Roundtable) if it not accepted by SIOP

·        Link provided to sign up to review at end of submission 


B.  Review comments from the recent SIOP member survey for suggestions and ideas on how the program can be improved.   


Complete.  Kim O’Brien (USF doctoral student) completed a content analysis of all open ended comments pertaining to the SIOP program.  Themes such as the desire for more speakers outside of SIOP, are being incorporated into invited sessions.  The content analysis results have also been shared with the Conference Chair.   


C.  Evaluate the success of the adjustments made to the Community of Interest sessions.  


COI subcommittee Chair, Boris Baltes, collected feedback from the 2006 COI conference subcommittee chair.   Here is his report:



            The turnout was much better then last year with 162 people attending the 11 sessions.  However, there was quite a bit of variation with some sessions attracting 30 people and 3 sessions not attracting anyone.  The successful sessions were all pre-defined (3 emerging topics sessions were not pre-defined) and the two most attended (Executive Development and Executive Talent) were based on the main topics of the Fall consortium.  Providing beverages seemed to help attendance as well. 



1)      Need a room with better foot traffic (the room this year was totally separated from the rest of the conference).

2)      Try and keep the sessions between 10:30 and 4:00 if possible.

3)      Make sure “known” facilitators are used.  Best attended sessions had better known facilitators (for the most part).


Actions for 2007:


Boris and his committee have developed the following COIs for the 2007 conference (confirmed or potential facilitators listed in parentheses) – 


1. Issues in IRT (Steve Stark & Sasha Chernyshenko)  

2. Justice (Robert Folger, Jerald Greenberg or Jason Colquitt) 

3. Issues in Multilevel Research (Rob Ployhart and David Hofmann)  

4. Work-Family Interface (Ellen Kossek and practitioner) 

5. Conditional Reasoning (Larry James, James LeBreton, or both)  

6. Executive Assessment & Selection (Dick Jeanneret and Robert Silzer)  

7, Leadership Talent Management (Bob Kaplan and Rob Kaiser )  

8. Aging (Harvey Sterns and/or Lisa Finkelstein)  

9. Cross-Cultural Research (Marcus Dickson who has said yes and he will ask

another facilitator to join him) 

10.  Entry level selection (John Arnold) 


Where applicable and feasible, we are attempting to include an academic facilitator paired with a practice facilitator (note:  addresses SIOP strategic goal 4).  We have decided to not have the emerging COI sessions this year as they were very sparsely attended.  I plan to write an article for the January TIP highlighting conference sessions such as the COI to give them exposure. 


D.  Make an effort to bring in speakers from outside of I/O psychology.  


Several of our invited sessions will feature speakers from outside of I/O psychology.  Session details are still being worked out, but some speakers for our globalization sessions on Sunday include Randall Schuler from the global strategic human resource management area and Brian Glade who is SHRM's Vice President of International Programs.  Efforts are underway to also include an economist.  The regular program invited speakers include the possibility of someone from NIOSH and Tima Bansal has been confirmed to do a session on corporate citizenship.  Credit goes to Sunday Theme subcommittee chair Stephanie Payne and Invited Sessions subcommittee chair Deborah Rupp for their hard work pursuing outside speakers. 


2.  Continue to improve the submission process.  


A. Review the website and make suggestions for improvement as needed. 


Done in conjunction with changes to the Call for Proposals.


B.  Review existing content areas and make changes as needed.   


Done in conjunction with changes to the Call for Proposals. 


3.  Continue to improve the review process. 


A.  Examine the criteria used to determine who is an expert reviewer and continue efforts to increase numbers.   


This has been completed.  Wendy Boswell and her Review Process subcommittee discussed the issue of how expert reviewers should be identified.  Additional discussion with the program committee and with Larry Nader from a system programming perspective have resulted in a weighting system of the existing criteria being implemented with a cut score of >12 determining expert status.  This system appears to yield a greater number of experts from the reviewer pool.


B.  Review and consider changes to the existing rating form.  


Completed.  Minor changes have been made to the rating form.  We have also implemented a new process to recognize submissions that should be not be accepted due to violation of the diversity of affiliation and word limit guidelines. 


C.  Review how rating data is used to make acceptance decisions and modify if needed.  


Done.  It was determined that no changes need to be made.  We will continue to weight all rating categories equally. 


D.  Refine content categories (see 2B).   


Done – see above 


E.  Review and revise reviewer guidelines and emails as needed.   


In progress.


F.  Brainstorm ideas for recognizing reviewers.   


Completed.  Reviewers will be asked to stand at the plenary session. 


G.  Continue efforts to increase or at least maintain number of existing reviewers.   


Completed.  Several efforts have been implemented to address this goal.

·        An incentive to review has been added by including all reviewers in a raffle for SIOP prizes.  This information was conveyed in the initial reviewer recruitment letter. 

·        Additional recruitment efforts such as personal contacts are underway by the Review Process subcommittee.

·        A link was added at the end of the submission process that takes submitters directly to the sign up to review page.   This serves as another reminder to review.


4.  Explore ways to further improve the scheduling process.  


A.  Expand meeting time in Tampa with past and incoming program chair from 2.5 days to 3.0 days   


The Tampa scheduling meeting has been planned accordingly.


B.  Continue to identify ways to minimize content overlap during the scheduling process.  


To be done – discussion to be held during first Tampa meeting to assign reviewers. 


5.  Identify ways to align program with SIOP’s strategic goals.  


A.  Use invited sessions and Sunday themed sessions as mechanisms to further strategic goals.   


See below.  


6.  Develop written documentation designed to aid future program chairs and create a history of program activities. 


A. Continue to work on initial timeline document provided by past program chair.  


In process. 

B. Ask subcommittee chairs to provide final summaries of their activities for the year and tips for the following year that can be passed on.   

Subcommittee chairs have been asked to provide a brief report at the end of the program year.   


Strategic Planning Goals: (Please highlight committee goals related to the advocacy of SIOP’s Strategic Planning Goals)  


1.      Goal with brief description: Use invited sessions and Sunday themed sessions as mechanisms to further strategic goals. 




·        The Sunday Theme for the 2007 conference is Globalization.  This theme and the sessions developed around it can help facilitate the exchange of ideas between I/O professionals around the globe (strategic goal 4).  

·        One of the invited sessions in development is a panel discussion involving scientists and practitioners (strategic goal 4). 

·        One of our invited speakers is a VP from SHRM.  This fits with our globalization theme and also represents outreach to related organizations (strategic goal 1).  

·        Other efforts underway but not confirmed include a speaker from NIOSH and an economics professor (strategic goal 1)  


Note:  Sessions accepted outside of the regular review process reviewed with strategic planning goals as criteria.  The accepted sessions address strategic goals 1 and 2.   


2.  Goal:  Overall goal of program is have an organized and high quality program 


Action:  All actions are geared toward this objective, which addresses strategic goal 3.  An interesting, high quality program should enhance members’ enjoyment and satisfaction with SIOP membership. 

 Updates or Comments From Chair: