Foundation
Jobs
Meetings
Members
Membership
Partners
Publications
Resources
Services

 

Placement Committee Goals and Progress Report Form


Committee Chair Name: Mindy Bergman & Larissa Linton
Date: June 15, 2007

 Goals Report
Progress Report

Committee Members:

Goals and Results:

[Items 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 might be of interest to the EC.]

(1) Placement Advance. Mindy is in the process of collating responses from current and past chairs about the transition to the 3 day conference. Goal is to have a draft by NYC meeting; finalized following the SF site visit in June. We need to work especially closely with Dave Nershi to see what effect the additional hours in Placement might have on Placement budget/profit.

RESULTS: 

  • We have identified recommendations for Placement Center based on the transition to a 3-day conference format and suggestions for continuous improvement. These recommendations addressed hours of operation, need for volunteers vs. temporary workers, computer requirements, electronic vs. physical mailboxes, and programming of Placement Center website.
  • We sent the placement advance to Dave Nershi and Doug Pugh in May. 
  • Mindy Bergman attended the San Francisco site visit.  

(2) Pricing of Placement. SIOP’s Placement is still a relatively inexpensive option compared to other conferences. (Liberty Munson did some benchmarking in 05-06.) We raised the price for employers last year, from $185 to $200 (per four postings). We kept the cost of job seekers at $40, because it is meant to be a “nuisance fee” to keep people from signing up just to look (although it does contribute to profit). Given the move to 3-day and any potential additional costs of further hours of operation, we should consider whether the cost of Placement should go up. Further, is this the time to raise Placement costs again (3 years in a row—the cost also rose in Dallas—and in another coastal and expensive site), or should we wait until a relatively less expensive year (New Orleans, Atlanta)?

RESULTS: 

  • Decision on cost increase is pending the results of San Francisco site visit and analysis of conference costs.

(3) Continue making connections with local area groups and international groups. It may not be tenable to see high participation from Europe in SF 2008; however, there are groups in Asia/Australia/New Zealand that we may be able to reach.

RESULTS: 

  • No action.  We plan to promote Placement Center to Asia/Australia/New Zealand in fourth quarter of 2007.

(4) Use brief survey results from April 2007 to determine whether there are other ways of spreading information about Placement.

RESULTS: 

  • No survey was administered in April 2007.

(5) Assign new Placement Chair before SF 2008 conference. It will be useful to have the next chair shadow in the Placement Center before taking on duties.

RESULTS: 

  • No action.  We plan to identify new Placement Chair in first quarter of 2008.

(6) Electronic (not physical) mailboxes for Placement? This is a question that comes up in our constituency every year. Is this feasible? Is it a good move?

RESULTS: 

  • Electronic mailboxes: Although there has been much interest in electronic mailboxes in recent years, we believe that it is not the best use of SIOP resources to pursue electronic mailboxes. The ubiquity of email accounts and cell phones has made communication prior to and at conference relatively straightforward.
  • Physical mailboxes: Several of the professional recruiters stated that they are not using the job seeker mailboxes for communication. However, we believe that it is too early to abandon the use of the physical mailboxes, especially the employer mailboxes. Continued monitoring of mailbox use is needed to make sure that Placement is efficient and cost-effective.

(7) Determine whether there are jobs for committee members. Currently, Placement is 2 chairs doing the work. Does Placement want to expand its role? If so, some issues that have come up in the past:
 (a) Creating sample resumes on the SIOP site (a flash presentation) to give examples of what a good resume looks like, and also what a good resume for Placement looks like. [Some resumes do not convert well when uploaded into the database.]
 (b) Creating on-line presentations on good interviewing skills.
 (c) On-line presentations of what can be expected at Placement Center.
 (d) Increased communication with local groups to drum up interest in Placement.
 (e) More opportunities for members/affiliates to get involved, and also to create a pipeline of people who have experience in Placement and with the conference in general.

RESULTS: 

  • We believe Placement Center requires a committee in addition to the two chairs.  We have identified roles for committee members and plan to send information on these roles to SIOP member volunteers who indicated an interest in Placement Center.

(8) Continue with our usual business of updating information. Many of last year’s goals will again appear in 2007-2008 as we continue to administer Placement.

RESULTS: 

  • We have identified opportunities, including compelling online presentations, to enhance information provided to job seekers and employers on how to make the most of Placement Center.

(9) Pricing of JobNet. Similar to point 2 above, is it time to change the JobNet price?

RESULTS: 

  • Decision on cost increase is pending the results of San Francisco site visit and analysis of conference costs.

 

Questions/Comments or Concerns contact us at siop@siop.org
© 2006 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. All rights reserved