President Tetrick called the meeting to order at 3:12 pm.
President Tetrick greeted the group and reminded us that the number one agenda for this afternoon is the approval of the recommendations of the Fellowship committee, and that she would like to cover a few other things before we break for dinner.
We noted that Drs. Bauer and Truxillo had their flight cancelled but would be arriving tomorrow, and Dr. Barnes-Farrell should be arriving later this afternoon due to delays.
We gave the floor to Dr. Hollenbeck, who provided us with a PowerPoint presentation to review the new online process and how it proceeded this year, and told us that there were a few changes to the administrative manual, provided in our briefing books, that we’d need to vote on for approval.
Some of the things that occurred this year include a new online description of SIOP fellowship and the fellowship nomination/election process, a new online nomination process, an enlarged committee (from 10 to 15 individuals), a record number of nominations, and an online evaluation process. All of these changes have been interesting.
He reviewed the online description of fellowship status, which came out in May. He admitted it is rather long but everything in there seemed important to include. Fellowship is linked to our mission and core values. There is some history of fellowship provided as well. For example in 1982 we had about 2000 members and about 252 fellows, which is a higher percentage than now.
Next comes a description of the fellowship committee, including what it does and how it worked. There are guidelines provided for endorsements.
Given conversations over the last couple of years aimed at making fellowship more possible for a more diverse group of members, including practitioners, an attempt was made to broaden the criteria. The existing criteria were largely research based and came initially from an old APA manual. If we wanted to broaden our mission, what should we do? Dr. Jeannerett had suggested that he take a look at everyone made a fellow in the last ten years, and come up with some other benchmarks. There is now more in relation to service to SIOP, and outstanding contribution and performance in the field. Recognition does not have to be in only academic journals; the important thing is to be known and recognized, not necessarily published in academic journals. For example, making a contribution through films and training videos would fit as well. Several people commented that this was all very helpful.
The next thing reviewed was the online nomination process. This is the biggest change we’ve had in a long time. We basically followed the APA process. The process starts with a nominator. A list of endorsers immediately appears from the database, and an email is automatically sent to them. This is good in that it saves time and effort, but if the person’s email is not correct in the system (or if automatic emails go to their junk mail), this can cause a problem.
It used to be that the nominator would have to send a package by a certain date. Now that it’s all electronic, it appears many people wait until the last minute (as nothing has to get postmarked), and then if there are any technical problems, things can end up being late. Ahmad was very helpful, tolerant, and patient through this adjustment period. It was determined that no one would be rejected for fellow because of technical issues, so there was some slack given here, and lots of help from Ahmad. On balance, even with the problems, it worked.
Dr. Hollenbeck revised the administrative manual to reflect the new processes and broader criteria. He also suggested that the new fellowship chair look at this and think through the process in case he/she wanted to make any further changes.
The committee was enlarged to 15 members. The committee was very balanced in many ways – business school and psychology, practitioners and academics, men and women, different parts of the country. However, in the end, it may have been more difficult to coordinate the efforts of 15 people than 10. The next fellowship chair should think about this.
Dr. Hollenbeck also presented the number of new fellows over each of the last ten years. There was a slight increase in practitioners starting in 2007. A few years ago we had all men, and now it is getting better. We put the word out.
In addition to online nomination, we now have an online evaluation system as well. Keep in mind it’s different to sit down with a package of materials on a train or wherever you are, then signing into the SIOP website to evaluate materials online. Everyone is asked to read the new guidelines and state that they agree with them before proceeding. It is important to make sure that everyone does this and are following the criteria.
Committee members were assigned to individual candidates in such a way to make sure it was balanced. There were at least five ratings per candidate, sometimes more. They could each make a comment everyone could see, but no one knows who made it. After the first round of ratings there were clear yeses, clear nos, and some in between. Dr. Hollenbeck asked everyone to re-rate based on the comments. After this round there were still some people to be discussed. They held a conference call and had a round three rating, with many intense discussions. It may be that electronic communications and discussing things through email polarized a lot of discussions.
An observation that Dr. Hollenbeck made is he thinks when you can only see one document at a time, you may develop a gestalt based on something from the first thing (like CV or one letter) that you see, and develop fixed ideas. It might be nice to try to adapt the website to allow for scrolling through all materials.
We probably have fewer fellows than any other division; we have 8 percent fellows. We have fewer than in 1982, on a percentage basis. However, one out of 3 academics is a fellow – which doesn’t sound selective – and one out of 25 practitioners is a fellow – which does sound selective.
People disagree on whether it is better to make Type I or Type II errors; some approach it as accepting someone unless there is a reason not to, and others look to reject unless there is something really good to make them want to accept.
Dr. Latham had a philosophical question regarding why practitioners don’t seem to have the visibility many did in the past. Dr. Hollenbeck and others pointed out that there are no longer places like GE, State Farm, 3M, AT&T that employed lots of I/O’s doing lots of big scale projects that got published. The value system seems to have changed with new PhDs going into practice where that isn’t valued like before.
In looking over the bylaws changes, Dr. Latham asked why it used to say that the information was brought to the EC for “approval” and now it says “for decision.” Dr. Hollenbeck said for example there was one thing that someone would just not agree on, and so it never came to a conclusion, so we can say “take it to the EC”.
The second question was, we always call ourselves “scientist practitioners” and you put practice first, are you trying to send a signal with that? Dr. Hollenbeck said yes, he wanted to stress that practice counts. However, it also says “I/O psychologists” and not everyone considers themselves to be in SIOP.
Dr. Latham’s third question was about the wording of “preferably 10 years” since the PhD; does this mean there could be an exception for some luminaries?
President Tetrick went back to the I/O psychologist comment, and said that one thing we need to be careful of is that if someone is qualified to be a member of the society, they should be eligible to become a fellow.
At this point we received the packet with the confidential rating information. We discussed our impression of the list, and then we discussed whether we should vote on the whole recommended list or go through each person. We realized because some people have to abstain, we should go through each. This was done next. This part of the meeting is closed, and fellows will be announced at the SIOP meeting.
We then returned to the vote on the administrative manual. Dr. Colella made a motion to accept the changes to the administrative manual regarding the fellowship process, and Dr. Finkelstein seconded. Vote passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Changes to the Administrative Manual regarding the Fellowship Procedures are approved.
The group took a short break at 5:20 pm, and was called to order at 5:30 pm.
Dr. Pearlman as usual said this would be short, and the very short version is that everything is fine and we have money! The slightly longer version is that if you look at the balance sheet, you can see it doesn’t look quite as good as last year. Income is lower and there are reasons for that. But, importantly, compared to our budget we are doing fine. The fall consortium didn’t do as well, and we have some paper losses on our investment portfolio just from fluctuation.
The biggest difference right now is the conference; Mr. Nershi said we are trending about 40% below where we were last year in terms of revenue. The workshops are about 30% down, and registration is behind. This is one of the fears that the EC had about the three day because workshop attendees have to arrive on Tuesday. So, the fear appears to have some validity. The registration for the conference is behind too. But, New York was a record year, and we are similar to where we were for Los Angeles, so it could be a west coast effect.
Dr. Colella said that Dr. Rogelberg was saying there were a record number of submissions, and isn’t that typically an indicator of attendance. People thought it was, and the acceptance rate is about the same. Also, Mr. Nershi said that the hotel is already sold out for some days at the Hilton; sold out for Tuesday night and close on Wednesday. There is a very cool hotel right across the street called Hotel Nico, where the rates are comparable. There was a concern that if we didn’t fill the room block there would be major attrition charges, but that is no longer a worry.
Dr. Finkelstein noted with much enthusiasm that these were her last minutes EVER. She asked for approval for the minutes from the last meeting. Dr. Latham and Dr. Dipboye noted they had a couple of comments, and would give them to her. She noted that she made changes provided by Dr. Pearlman, Dr. Knapp, and Mr. Nershi.
Dr. Knapp motioned to approve the minutes with the changes to come. Dr. Cortina seconded them. Motion passed with one abstention (from Dr. Colella who was not present at the last meeting).
ACTION ITEM: The minutes of the Fall meeting, with forthcoming changes by Dr. Latham and Dr. Dipboye, are approved.
Dr. Salas pointed out that there is an error in that the roster says that Dr. Pritchard and Dr. Church are supposed to be editors of the book series until ’10, but they are 5 year terms, so it should say ’08. Also, this means that we need to transition at SIOP, and Dr. Latham will need to appoint new editors.
President Tetrick asked for a motion to approve the consent agenda. Dr. Cortina motioned and Dr. Finkelstein seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Consent Agenda approved.
Mr. Nershi began by updating us on the journal. Dr. Latham commented that it seems to be going really well and is exciting. They are ready to roll with the first issue in March. Mr. Nershi said everyone has learned a lot in the process, and Dr. Sackett has done a wonderful job. Blackwell is promoting the journal, and something just went out yesterday that has a picture on the cover. Kristin Ross is working closely with Dr. Sackett and Blackwell. One thing that was noticed is that the commentaries almost ALL came in on the last day of the deadline. He encourages us to take a look and please consider making a commentary. Dr. Knapp noticed the ones here mostly came from academics; has Dr. Sackett considered inviting commentaries from practitioners? Mr. Nershi believes he did that, and is open to it.
President Tetrick gave an update on the practice survey. Dr. Silzer sent her an update and there is now a specific timeline. He is trying to get the survey out in early February. He made an effort to get a lot of input on this. He wants to be presenting this in some form or another at the conference. Dr. Knapp asked if an approval process was needed. Originally it was added to the tentative agenda but it wasn’t in time. President Tetrick said she would search her files tomorrow to see if Dr. Silzer sent a draft and update us.
Leading Edge Consortium Update
Mr. Nershi then updated us on the last Leading Edge consortium. This has been successful over the three years, but there was a drop in attendance this year, and for the first time we had a financial loss. One reason may have been the topic selection. Innovation didn’t draw the same attendees that had been drawn before, which triggered a lot of things. It was harder to find co-chairs and speakers, so there was time lag in locking things in, leading to a later date to promote and advertise. However, it was very high quality and enjoyable. There was great diversity in presenters and a lot of international representation. There were 143 people in attendance, down from 229 the previous year. We dodged a bullet; because of the drop in attendance we could have been liable for attrition charges of more than $13,000, but there was a clause that if they resell the rooms we wouldn’t be responsible, and they did, leading to only a $2,500 charge. Overall there was a loss of about $15,000, mostly due to the registration drop. But, SIOP does have money to fulfill the mission of our organization, so it is seen as money well spent. Of course we don’t want that to happen all the time. It was marketed with blogs and listservs, and corporations and universities within the area. The Cincinnati location for next year should be good; there are a few universities around there that should help.
Mr. Nershi suggested that when we consider locations in the future to host the consortium, we give additional weighting to convenience of location. It also needs to end earlier; people like to leave to catch a flight. We should also have no more than one international chair; it is too difficult to coordinate more than one. We should have an advance committee looking forward to the programming, perhaps tagged on to the previous meeting. This does need nurturing and close examination.
Dr. Latham said within 10 minutes of being at the event he was bowled over. Second, when he was president of the Canadian Psychological Association, the UT Business School and CPA did a joint program on leadership in the new millennium. After talking to the Dean and Mr. Nershi, he would like to reproduce this leading edge programming on innovation with the University of Toronto Business School, and split the proceeds with SIOP. We should talk about reproducing the fall conferences with different business schools. They know how to make money, and never take a loss. People were excited about this possibility.
President Tetrick said she recalls one main purpose of the fall conference was to capture SIOP members who have disappeared on us, made up mostly of people who had been out of school for quite a while. We need to think about how to attract that audience when planning the topics. Mr. Nershi added that a lot of people stopped going to the regular conference because it had gotten too big, and the fall conference is an alternative to that, so yes we need to keep targeting that audience.
Dr. McHenry moved us on to thinking about the next fall conference. The topic will be Coaching. He has been kicking around some particular ideas about this and wanted to share. Three topics keep emerging. One is around the activity of learning through coaching. Why does it have an impact; what is the psychology of coaching? The second topic is evaluation. What data do we have, and what should we be measuring? The third is on operationalization. How to companies that employ coaches manage this relationship, how is impact tracked, how do they consider the quality of coaches?
In the past there has been a science chair and a practice chair. His inclination is to go with three chairs, one for each of the topic areas. He would love to get an academic on evaluation, a practitioner on operationalization, and not sure on the other one.
Dr. McHenry added that a lot of people at the innovation conference had mentioned they wished they had had more opportunity for interaction and dialogue about what they were hearing. How do we do that effectively? We can try to leverage some large group interaction techniques. Also, he kicked around with Dr. Sackett as a starting point kicking off coaching for a topic for the interactive journal. So far, he is thinking fewer speakers, and a push to come out with a product or a stepping stone toward a product, and a place for people to talk about their own issues, either a forum or just an open space.
So far there seems to be a lot of interest in this, though it seems to be a primary interest to practitioners. He would like to get this more in front of academics than it has been. President Tetrick said when she looked the membership database, coaching was the second most popular interest, but that might have been mainly among practitioners. She suggested getting one or two academics on the program.
Dr. Latham agreed that three groups should be represented: academics who “speak English” (not jargon), practitioners, and full time consultants. The word Microsoft has a lot of cache, so if he could get a big name person from there that could steal the show. Dr. McHenry said if they could get someone with a name who has had a coach and then have the coach come talk about the relationship too; maybe both the person and the coach.
Dr. McHenry said he’s not sure what to expect in terms of attendance; he’d like to target psychologists first, but definitely wants to sell out to the max.
Dr. Salas said he had a potentially wild idea – since we were speaking of the practice series before, could we link the conference with volumes for the practice series. Maybe the keynote speakers could do the introduction to topics. Everyone liked this.
Work and Aging Science Forum Update
Next we switched topics to a brief update on the Science Forum on Work and Aging. This is our first dance with the Federation. They are working with Dr. Ruth Kanfer and Dr. Seth Kaplan. It is scheduled for March 14. So far the feedback is that the Federation is doing a fairly good job in helping organize this, and trying to get legislatures and staff to attend the one-day event. Everyone is agreeing it’s a good and important topic for this.
There was an announcement about this in the Federation news; it would be good to take a look at this to see what else they are doing. This topic has been mumbled about in Washington. The point for us is to showcase I/O psychology relative to a public policy issue. They will send invitations to senators and representatives, and their staff will attend. Mr. Nershi said that Marketing General is going to get hooked up with the Federation on this; this is in their back yard. We want to make sure they aren’t duplicating what the Federation is doing for us.
Dr. Salas said if there are going to be staffers there it is really important that the speakers are coached to have sound bytes. If not, they’ll leave. Dr. Latham asked if the PR firm or the Federation can help with that. Dr. Cortina pointed out that that’s one of the things we’re paying them for.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell talked a little about the organization of the presentation. There will be representatives from funding agencies talking. Dr. Kanfer will kick it off, and there will be several specific themes addressed. Dr. Elissa Perry, Dr. Jan Cleveland, and Dr. Barnes-Farrell will all speak on different things, for 20-30 minutes each, focusing on what the science is with respect to the field of I/O, and where does the field need to be headed. After the agency reps speak there will be facilitated discussion. Dr. Salas agreed this was the prior model used by Human Factors. He said it’s important to have some sort of pamphlet with the SIOP logo and a bulleted summary of the presentations. Dr. Barnes-Farrell assured this was planned.
Discussion ensued about how we need to continue to more actively engage the Federation.
Switching gears, Dr. Colella introduced the study abroad proposal. E & T wanted to come up with some kind of plan about how SIOP could encourage study abroad programs. This is an interim report. She asked if we could give some feedback about whether this is going in the right direction and where it should go from here. Several people admitted they were a bit confused by what was in the report. There seemed to be several caveats about what SIOP wouldn’t do (like select course content or help select faculty), but what would we do?
Dr. Colella thought that our role would be to monitor program quality and advertise. President Tetrick agreed that having a mechanism to help people get international experiences is excellent. We shouldn’t have a role in selecting, but maybe more of a clearinghouse model. Dr. Barnes-Farrell said she thought the report made it sound like proposals would come to SIOP for us to identify those worth promoting; Dr. Colella agreed that doesn’t really fit in with the way SIOP works.
Dr. Latham said that universities in Europe are really anxious to form relationships with us and Canadian universities. For example, at the University of Rome there is a fledgling I/O program and they reached out and formed relationships with the University of Arizona and University of Toronto. This involves the sharing of money. What they want to do is get something together that SIOP will approve so they can show the deans at their European universities so that the deans will be more likely to partner with American schools. He thinks they want our blessing not money.
Dr. McHenry said, going back to grad school before the internet, if he was going to study abroad he wouldn’t care about SIOP’s blessing, he would care about his own university’s blessing so he could get credits. A lot of undergraduate programs have affiliations with schools without any organizations like us having a say. What he can see SIOP doing is hosting a meeting of some kind and inviting universities to come together, but they wouldn’t have to have agreements with each other.
It was decided that Dr. Colella would write back and say that it sounded interesting, but not enough meat on the skeleton yet. Dr. McHenry added that as a matter of principle we do not want to be approving classes.
President Tetrick called a recess for the evening at 6:30 pm.
President Tetrick called the meeting to order at 8:09 am.
Governance Task Force Update
We began with the governance task force report from Dr. Kraiger.
By and large the recommendations there are very similar to what we saw in September, but there is a lot more detail in here. Three recommendations changed with deliberation by the task force after the September meeting. In September, the EC wanted to keep the financial officer position. In September, there were nine officers with portfolios, the new recommendations eliminated one officer position (coordinating with the AO), and retained the financial officer and called it Financial Officer/Secretary, which is approved by APA. Most of the Secretary stuff will be done by the AO, but there will be some official reporting by the Financial Officer/Secretary. So, two new recommendations are the reduction from nine to eight positions and the change to the Financial Officer/Secretary position.
The third one was the APA rep vote. We spent a lot of time talking about this. The task force discussed what was covered in the last EC meeting, why they should vote and should not vote or have a certain number of votes, and then the task force voted and all but one member voted for the APA reps to be ex officio non-voting members of the new executive board. That one person in the end was fine with this decision. Instead of going through all of this since we have done that before, let's open it up to questions and comments. If we are comfortable with this we then need to talk about how to do the bylaws change, and have some discussion about the best way to educate and inform.
Dr. Latham asked how this makes the practitioner community happier. Dr. Kraiger said it may not be embedded in the structure so it might be more in how the message goes out about the changes. A key deliberation in July was whether or not to have all constituencies specifically represented. So, for example, we would be sure to have X number of practitioners. We decided ultimately not to do this, because we really wanted to organize governance around the business of SIOP. Had we done it the other way, we may have had more satisfaction from practitioners, but possibly a less effective structure. There is really not a good answer. There is one, and possibly two officer positions clearly likely to be filled by an academic - Education and Training and Scientific Support, and one clearly likely to be held by a practitioner. So, in terms of what is likely to be set aside, it is relatively balanced.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell said that someone had previously raised the issue that we have a lot of council representatives, and how big is the EC body going to get. The other point was that many of our members are not APA members so to some extent a large proportion of SIOP membership may not be having their own interests represented by a large group of people. Dr. Latham asked, have there been complaints about this? He is concerned about why people would want to be an APA representative, and how he will entice them to want to be, if they will be required to come to EC meetings but told they can't vote. They would want to know why, and he won't necessarily know how to convince people that it is a big deal and an invaluable service to SIOP. At the last meeting we said rarely would it matter in a vote, but yesterday we saw that it mattered.
Dr. McHenry said, if he remembers the conversation right, if the APA reps were voting they would have a third to quarter of the votes. Dr. Cortina said he wasn't clear what problem real or imagined would be addressed to have APA reps not vote. Dr. Pearlman said that not many people are cognizant of how we work. There would be an overrepresentation of their vote because of the fact that all SIOP members are not APA members. This is just a fact. Even if there isn't a perceived problem, there is an awareness on the part of people who do know how it works. It probably won't have a huge practical effect.
Dr. Salas asked how we can get back to 5 or 6 reps, now we are going to have four. We encourage the members to vote but they don't always. This reduces visibility, exactly what we don't want.
Mr. Nershi pointed out that the APA reps run for an APA position, not the EC. Dr. Latham said that the membership should reconsider and go back to join APA. It behooves anti-APA types to remain members, just to be inside the house of influence, and people need to realize this. This can be a stimulus to remind people to pay their dues to keep APA from doing things we don't like.
Dr. Pearlman sees this as a separate issue. Dr. Cortina asked why we don't make sure the percentage of voting EC members are the same as the representation from APA. President Tetrick says the number fluctuates a lot. Also, this gets back to the representation issue; if we have to have so many people from every group we pretty soon could get paralyzed.
Discussion ensued about how many people were APA members, and again it was emphasized that the numbers fluctuate a lot.
Dr. Dipboye said that he was opposed to the idea of no APA rep vote. He can't fathom the rationale of no vote, and would rather have one vote. Other people belong to APS, etc., but there is no mechanism for them to vote. He has heard people moan about going to APA as a council rep, but he thinks it's a wonderful opportunity to educate the largest board of psychologists about what I/O is.
Dr. Knapp asked Dr. Kraiger if the group considered a compromise, like we took a straw vote on at the last meeting. Dr. Kraiger said there was not much enthusiasm for that; it was full votes or no votes. A lot of time was spent on this in July and in September. Drs. Farr and Cornwell drew up a memo, circulated it among the committee, send out an email that said they needed to have a viewpoint on this, here are the options. There were no strong feelings, no emails for a couple of weeks, and then everyone on the task force voted against them having a vote. This suggests to him that this is not something that the task force is particularly passionate about. It doesn't really have a big impact on what happens at meetings. He does agree with Dr. Latham that perhaps it will have an impact on getting good candidates to run for APA council.
Dr. Latham is afraid over time we could end up with one representative if we do one vote. He asked, if you were the president elect, and you had to get reps, what would you do?
Dr. McHenry pointed out he thinks we are all in agreement that we would like them to have votes. Dr. Colella pointed out that a lot of APA reps have been practitioners, and it could be perceived as getting rid of a practitioner role. Dr. Knapp agreed; right now she is the only one but that is rare.
President Tetrick said she sees a good basis to maintain the status quo at this point. So, Dr. Kraiger asked, is there agreement on this?
Dr. McHenry put a motion on the table that we accept the recommendations of the governance task force with the exception of the APA reps losing their vote. Also, we had the other concern about the requirement that the president would have to have been in an elected office or a committee chair. He is very concerned that this could look like an effort to keep entrenched powers in place, even though that is not the intention. President Tetrick had thought about this too, but the president elect would have such a high learning curve without any experience. In reality we may not be apt to elect someone who hasn't had experience, but perhaps we shouldn't have this requirement for running.
Dr. Pearlman asked if it would change the way we think about elected positions now that we will have officers with portfolios. A more diverse array of roles could provide experience for those positions. Dr. McHenry still worries about people getting upset, and Dr. Bauer said she agreed. Dr. Colella asked Dr. Kraiger how this one came up. Dr. Kraiger said that they spent a long time talking about the onboarding process and learning curve. He had suggested back in September instituting a two-year President Elect cycle and first, and also discussed bringing in committee chairs at the January meeting to start orientation. This was initially rejected, but it reflects how this is complex. When all of the changes get communicated, we want to find a way to identify high potential people and bring them into the system. Most presidents say it takes much longer than they thought to get going, and it would be harder for someone with no EC experience.
President Tetrick thought it might be advisable to bring the election cycle up so that the President Elect can attend the winter meeting. So, President Tetrick made a friendly amendment, and Dr. Latham seconded it. Dr. Kraiger agreed it wasn't a deal breaker.
Dr. Pearlman asked if we can think of a way to have criteria but not this. Dr. Knapp said that maybe we don't want to try to embed so many things in the rules, but just have them as good practice.
Dr. McHenry added this friendly amendment to his own.
Mr. Nershi pointed out that right now it isn't the case that anyone can run. We do have an election committee. At any time they can decide to not let someone on the ballot. Typically this is by number of nominations, but other factors could come in as well.
Dr. Pearlman asked who is going to take notes at the meetings. Mr. Nershi said a staff member will do it. Dr. Kraiger pointed out that the in the administrative manual, the secretary has more pages than anyone. Are people ok with a non-EC member taking notes? Dr. McHenry said he doesn't like the idea of being recorded, and Dr. Latham joked that having Dr. Finkelstein taking notes is worse than a tape recorder. Dr. McHenry said the members should be able to be focused on the business and not on typing; he feels like we lose Dr. Finkelstein to typing.
Dr. Knapp made an observation that the external relations officer will be in charge with some of the relationship with APA and the research and science officer will have the relationship with the Federation. You have to go into APA and the Federation if you want them to do anything; they won't do it unless you ask. She wants to make sure this split doesn't mean that we will look only to the Federation for our advocacy needs. President Tetrick agreed that once of her questions was that advocacy seems to fit into many different places. Is it cut and stone yet as far as what goes where?
Dr. Kraiger said he'd like to have some kind of separate and fairly small transition team. This team will help who is selected secretary and member at large choose a portfolio, help to map the specific functions on to different portfolios. It will be close to what we have here but perhaps not exactly this.
For example, he sees the professional practice officer as more inwardly focused. Part of the role of the 8 officials is to think more strategically. They know what they are supposed to do, but can be more strategic than the clusters were. The officers should be in a better position to do this and bring ideas down to the committee level.
President Tetrick asked for any other amendments, as there are now two on the floor. Dr. Salas asked for clarification - now we will have 17 vs. 13 voting members.
The action item is that we approve the plan minus items 2 and 4. Also, there is a suggestion to move the elections up so that they are complete in time for the president elect to attend the winter meeting.
As a point of clarification, Dr. Dipboye pointed out that there will need to be a bylaws change and a member vote, which was agreed.
Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: The Governance Task Force plan was approved with the exception of recommendations 2 and 4, and the vote will be moved such that the President Elect can attend the January EC meeting.
Dr. Cortina asked Dr. Kraiger to communicate to the task force that we agree completely with the spirit of item number 2, and with number 4 there is no evidence that the council reps vote would be problematic.
Dr. Kraiger agreed to do this, and said he wants to now have a discussion about the bylaws change process. We said that it would be voted on at the conference, but now we have the language in the bylaws to do an electronic vote. Several practitioners he talked to were concerned with how that would affect us. There are different ways of communicating the changes to members. One thing obviously would be to describe this in a TIP article, but also we could use the web to have something more substantive available than just the bylaws changes. We could have a place for comments and questions. This could raise a lot of negative discussion, but to the extent we feel comfortable it would make sure people know what we are voting on.
Dr. Latham suggested this would also fit in with the town hall meeting, but would take away the option of having the vote at the plenary. Dr. Knapp suggested we use our electronic newsletter to communicate this too. President Tetrick suggested the newsletter lead to more information on the webpage, and an invitation for interested people to come to the town hall meeting.
Dr. Truxillo said we can add FAQs on line, a list of things to give more clarity. Dr. Kraiger said that would be good but he envisioned something more interactive. Perhaps having the FAQs first could head off some problems first.
Dr. McHenry suggested someone put together a timeline and communication plan; a calendar for who does what when. Dr. McHenry suggested with have Kristin head up the work administratively and work with a member at large, and Mr. Nershi agreed.
Dr. Kraiger summarized that what he's hearing is there will be some communication via email and newsletter, and we would also push people toward the town hall meeting at the conference. Mr. Nershi made a logistics point that in the past there was just one plenary, but now it could be at the end of the conference. Or, it can be used to let them know the electronic vote is coming. President Tetrick asked Dr. Kraiger to be a member of the group to lay out the timeline and he agreed, and said that was it.
Everyone thanked Dr. Kraiger for all his hard work.
Next, we switched gears to hear about the ANSI TAG meeting from Dr. Truxillo. The meeting, which took place in Vienna, was held to begin the development of international test standards. Dr. Truxillo said his fears were allayed immediately; he and others were concerned this would cover the development of tests and psychometrics issues, but it will primarily focus on test administration. There was a focus on the definition of assessment, as it can mean anything. What will be the guidelines for administration of different assessments? They divided into discussion groups, and talked about issues concerning things like the relationship with the client organization, the administration process, and giving feedback after the process. Feedback is the most controversial issue now. A number of non-US representatives believe we should be providing detailed feedback with all assessment. Most people agree in spirit but it is just not practical for some people in the US.
Everyone on the American TAG left feeling good after the meeting.
The permanent member of this group is Dr. Tippins, and she will be attending the meeting in March. Hopefully the group will be able to develop standards that are acceptable to all parties.
Dr. Knapp asked since this is the first one with a SIOP representative, what was the impression about whether it is a good thing we are at the table. Dr. Truxillo said it was a good thing - there are a lot of consulting psychologists from lots of countries. President Tetrick if we weren’t there we would have been noticeably absent. President Tetrick also said that if anyone had comments they should get them to Dr. Tippins quickly, as the next meeting is in March, she should have them together by February 15.
Dr. Knapp agreed that the impact of feedback is a really important issue. In some places they almost sign a human subjects-type waiver form. If they sign it, they should be willing to accept feedback and should know what they are getting. President Tetrick said this is a little reminiscent of ETS and people wanting to know all the questions they missed and what the answers were. We can’t give up test security. Dr. Pearlman said it is hard to discuss this without knowing what level of feedback we are talking about. Dr. Truxillo agreed; is it just that people know pass or fail, or something more. He thinks the group will insist on some kind of feedback, but it will probably be something that everyone can live with. Dr. Barnes-Farrell pointed out that there are so many job applicants that get nothing besides ”we got your application and we don’t want to hire you”, or “you don’t fit our needs.” Dr. Finkelstein said sometimes they don’t even get that, not so much as an acknowledgement, and Dr. Truxillo agreed. He said they spent hours discussing definitions, and feedback was one of them.
The group thanked Dr. Truxillo for attending this meeting while on sabbatical in Italy.
Legal Consultation Proposal
Next, Dr. Nershi talked about a proposal concerning legal consultation. In our briefing book on page 10, there is a letter from Dr. Tom Ramsey, asking whether the EC would consider a legal consultation plan. There is a flyer in the book about attorneys contracted with Pennsylvania Psychological Association. Dr. Colella asked if this was a private group, and it seemed to be. Dr. Barnes-Farrell was confused about how this was presented. At first it seemed like a proposal for us to contract ourselves to provide a service to members needing legal service. Also, are we proposing these specific individuals in the flyer? No, this is more of a concept for us to consider.
President Tetrick asked if there was sentiment in this group to pursue this, and if so we can turn it over to professional practice to explore further. Dr. Bauer pointed out that there is standing room only at legal issue stuff at SIOP, so there is at least interest in the area. Dr. Knapp said maybe this is another clearinghouse model again, with access to attorneys.
Next, Mr. Nershi passed out the conference survey. We had some general discussion about this. We are at about 80% of peak right now. The EC meeting will be 8-5 on Sunday, with the reception that night. SIOP will cover the stay but people will be free to leave it they want to. On page 33 there is a report from Dr. Pugh about the conference. Everyone is doing a great job. The program committee commended the new system, and Dr. Rogelberg did an incredible job. On Saturday there will be a plenary at 4:30 and a reception at 6:30. There will be receptions on Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday nights, with Friday being left open. There may be some issues with how much work people can take off and how much their companies will pay for.
APA Model Licensure Act Update
President Tetrick gave the group an update on the APA Model Licensure Act next. We gave comments to the APA task force and there were also strong comments from several other sources. Even the board of practice affairs did not support the revisions. So, what happened is they are slowed down but they are not dead. They are trying to address all of our comments. At this point she has not personally received a direct response from the task force. We need to think about whether even if we don’t change SIOP’s position on licensure that we can at least support the members who want to be licensed. The big stumbling block is getting supervision, in addition to the exam. We need to formulate what we can do for our members who feel they want to be licensed, and be more proactive to support them.
Every state is potentially different. We haven’t been very active in state associations. Those who have been have found an ear to hear them. At the local level they want to know what we think, if they know about us. So we need to draft strategies that are concrete, not just words. One way is more involvement in state associations. We need more involvement in APA. There are people out there that can help professionals develop a certification board. What should we do? One choice is that we certify I/O psychologists. This won’t necessarily get us around any state licensure laws. We need to think broadly and not get too caught up with the current system. We can’t get too held up on the baggage of what has existed for the last twenty years.
There are people who have strong sentiments that they want to be licensed and they are psychologists. The louder noise level comes from those who say no we shouldn’t and don’t need to be licensed.
Dr. Knapp asked, wasn’t Dr. Tippins going to lead a group to look into this? President Tetrick said that there was a lot of flying around after the April EC meeting, with the APA task force and working on those comments. The conversation was getting very divisive, and she and Dr. Tippins decided to table that task force. We do have a time slot on the conference program where we can talk about that and other related issues.
Dr. Cortina asked what “it” we are discussing here – licensure or certification? President Tetrick clarified that APA is suggesting that they would define in the domain of psychology things like interviews and training, employee opinion surveys, etc. Even if people are mainly in academe, if they are doing this they must be licensed. Dr. Latham suggested it is very unlikely that could be enforceable. SHRM will intercede; they are not going to be able to tell everyone in an HR position that they need to be licensed psychologists. President Tetrick reiterated that this train has slowed down but it is not going away.
Dr. Cortina pointed out the problem that this is going from nothing to everything. Maybe compromise is a process that we can control. Maybe we can start thinking about a first step.
Maybe we don’t have to tackle changing our stand, but work toward the specific issue of the problems our members have getting licensed. Dr. Knapp pointed out that things don’t all have to be controversial. We have been supporting the state affairs committee becoming more influential with the states. We can point to that and say we are doing something. It is hard to imagine even those adamantly opposed to this objecting to that. Having a presence in the state will have advantages beyond just this issue. Also, can we work toward identifying our competencies, so we lay the groundwork if we end up getting to the point of certification. Right now we really don’t have anything to stand on.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell turned back to the original point of the supervision requirement. Can we make things a little more concrete? We need here an a, b, c, d of what is appropriate for supervision. Maybe state affairs can work on this. President Tetrick said that if we could come up with some alternative ways to do supervision, she thinks the APA task force would be receptive.
Dr. Colella asked for the level of urgency on this, and Dr. Cortina agreed we need a timeline. President Tetrick said she anticipates this coming up in the August council meeting. Dr. Cortina said he is feeling this is going to happen whether we like it or not. We can try to influence the process, we can ensure if we are part of the licensure umbrella that it applies to us better than it does now, and this is also a way to make it less likely that people who are not I/O psychologists are practicing I/O psychology. The rationale for the model licensure act is quality control. We can’t say quality control is important keeping others from doing our work but it isn’t important for us.
President Tetrick said we still have no name to replace Dr. Tippins. Can state affairs handle all of these efforts? There will be a revision coming up. Dr. Cortina would like for us to be in a position to say to the task force that we are moving in a direction to allow us to fit in with this better. President Tetrick agrees that perhaps we can designate I/O programs in a way that is not onerous. We would be saying in our eyes someone from this program is competent to practice or can sit for a test.
President Tetrick said a national register was explored. There would be no site visit. Programs would put forward the curriculum. This doesn’t deal with the business school issue. Dr. Knapp said people can deal with it if there is paperwork, and it will be something specific to point to that we are doing.
President Tetrick said we have our graduate education guidelines from E&T – could we have programs go through this and describe how the students get the various competencies. If something isn’t met, then we can provide guidelines on what needs to be done in order to be blessed.
Dr. Latham asked if what if a big block of research scientists, our natural affiliates in APA like human factors, social, etc, and say we have great respect for the healthcare people but that’s not us. Could we go to the Federation for some help? It will be helpful if we all sit together and come up with a great idea, but also thinking of the power of all these reps standing up together with a collective position. There is a CASAP phone conference coming up, so maybe we can think of how to do that then. So, Dr. Latham said, we should pursue both CASAP and the Federation. President Tetrick proposes the council reps work with CASAP and she will start a dialogue with the Federation.
Dr. Salas asked Dr. Cortina why he thinks this will come up in August. That was actually President Tetrick who thought August, and she said she thought it was postponed for about 6 months, so it should be then, but she isn’t sure. Dr. Barnes-Farrell and Dr. Knapp saw that it was more likely to be a year from now. Something new would have to be in place and they don’t think it will be there in time for August.
Dr. Cortina said that we need to move on from being able to say we are thinking about it. Dr. Salas brought up a logistical issue, that in August 4 reps rotate out and Dr. Cortina will be on his own. That will be bad for everyone. President Tetrick said she’d talk with Dr. Blanton to see if she can get those that are active in the state associations working on this. Dr. Latham mentioned Dr. Scontrino as a balanced person on this issue, and she agreed.
President Tetrick called a break at 10:18 AM.
President Tetrick called the meeting back to order at 10:32 AM.
The next thing on our agenda is an update on our new PR firm, Marketing General. Mr. Nershi pointed out the report from Dr. Reynolds and the visibility committee. We went back and forth quite a bit with them; at first they wanted a monthly retainer, but now it is a statement of deliverables capped at $70,000. They get a small monthly retainer and a project budget. They are working on a promotional plan for San Francisco, and an outline of a plan for our branding process. They work with Cliff and Kristen in the office. They are looking at the top 25 submissions based on media interested, culled the list down, and come up with 5 stories that would be great news stories. Shopping around to develop a hit list for San Francisco. They have also been working on promoting our Science Forum in March; they think there is great potential to promote work and aging.
They are also looking for a couple of foundational articles to shop to the national media. One topic they wanted to look into was executive turnover, and another was B-schools vs. psych departments, but there was some concerns that would be controversial so it is sort of on hold. They really want to develop stories for the media but they need some guidance. They are in communication almost daily, and we all want tangible results by the time the conference rolls around.
Dr. Bauer asked how good the reviewers are really at determining what will be of media interest. Cliff says it helps to vet it, but it’s just a jumping off point.
Mr. Nershi said another related item is that the press lunch will be in NYC again, not in San Francisco. A lot of writers are in New York. It will be in March 7 in New York at the Harvard club.
Annual Book Series Update and Proposal
We turned now to Dr. Salas’ presentation of the update on the book proposal. He reminded the group that last time he had proposed a contract with APA but people thought it was premature. He got in touch with Oxford Press on this, working with Dr. Koslowski. They think there is a market for an annual series.
Dr. Salas said if we are going to launch this let’s move forward now, if it is going to die let’s stop. This will be an annual book series, based on science. We had a discussion last time about the practice side and evidence based management. We have talked about this before, with the Solutions series. They had a contract and all kinds of topics, but Jossey-Bass backed out and the group couldn’t get enough practitioner authors to get it off the ground. It is possible we can rethink this evidence based management approach and use that to try to relaunch the Solutions Series. Dr. Colella suggested we connect the Solutions Series to what Dr. Latham has been working on with SHRM. Dr. Salas suggested that we table the solutions stuff for the discussion right now and first focus on the annual review.
Dr. Bauer asked if we have tapped out authors and will this be a problem? Dr. Salas said as a reminder this will be 5-7 chapters per volume, with different topics staggered over the years. The Academy launched something similar, with Dr. Art Brief as editor, it is annual essays. There is also an international review series that is similar. But, they don’t sell a lot over here; it’s very European and very expensive.
Dr. McHenry asked again how this is distinguished from the journal, and Dr. Salas said that he has discussed it at length with Dr. Sackett. The difference is that the journal has very specific topics, cover controversial issues. This is just review. This will be made accessible for students. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, Dr. Salas said he is not interested in editorship.
The handbooks get outdated quickly, and this will be a way to keep more up to date. Dr. Bauer asked if the topics would come in three year cycles, and Dr. Salas said some might generate more quickly than others.
Dr. Salas urged us to make a decision (finally) on this. Dr. Pearlman said he likes the idea. Dr. Bauer suggested we should get proposals from each publisher to get a better detail. Maybe the editor can drive the RFP process. Dr. Salas reminded the group that he is out of the EC meetings soon, so this is the last chance. Dr. Bauer said he was very responsive to what we asked for last time.
Dr. McHenry made a motion to accept this and task Dr. Salas would continuing negotiations with the publisher. There was a discussion about how to select an editor. We handle the book series editor through presidential decision, and then with the journal we used a big formal process. What will we do here. People agreed the journal process was a sound one. Since this is a volume every year, it is a lot of responsibility, and we might want a process like this.
Dr. Bauer asked if these would be more meta-analyses or narrative. Dr. Salas said the editor could help shape that. Dr. McHenry amended the motion to say that we accept the idea of the book series, task Dr. Salas with negotiation with the publishers, and launch an editor selection process like we did with the journal. Dr. Finkelstein seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Annual review book series idea is approved, Dr. Salas is tasked with publisher negotiations, and an editor selection process will be launched.
Update on SHRM and International Society Relations
Next, Dr. Latham said that SHRM is really excited about going forward with an agreement with us. He would like to have a meeting at SHRM headquarters in Alexandria. He would like a group to be there including Mr. Nershi, President Tetrick, Dr. Cortina, Dr. Knapp, Dr Klimoski. They’ll sit down and put the nuts and bolts of a proposal together with Dr. Deb Cohen. He would also like to have another meeting at SIOP in April a day or two before the conference starts.
He said EAWOP and IAAP are also enthusiastic about agreements with us. He has had correspondence with their Presidents, and would like to meet with them a day or two prior to the conference in San Fran with the same cast of characters, and then another one in Berlin (check this) with more EAWOP people and a good gang from SIOP who might be there. He estimated with Dr. Pearlman that the cost would be $5,000 or less with the cost of flights and refreshments.
Dr. McHenry asked Dr. Latham if he could articulate the goals we have with this (and Dr. Pearlman quipped that Dr. Latham doesn’t know anything about goals). One goal would be an immediate increase in membership. We can come to some agreement around the dues to be able to belong to all of them. Dr. McHenry said that maybe as a practitioner he understands our SHRM leverage point, to see our research carried out in action and practice. What is fuzzy for him still is what we are trying to accomplish long term with these international organizations.
Dr. Latham said we’d be looking at a global increase in visibility. Size matters in terms of attention with the media, and it will help to have the three groups together. Dr. McHenry is supportive of all of this, but would just like to see more specific deliverables.
Some people have suggested we do a whitepaper on one major issue on the global workplace, and then all the different political systems come into play. President Tetrick agrees on trying to move this forward. She does, however, get nervous about any kind of dues sharing. We need a careful projection. Also, she was a keynote speaker at EAWOP, and they paid, so they would expect it to be that way the other way around.
Mr. Nershi suggested that it would be great if the groups can work on something that has tangible benefits to members. For example, there could be a discovery joint conference to develop research agendas on big social issues, or cross cultural methodology, or networking to form research groups. President Tetrick agreed this could serve a function to help with research collaboration. Dr. Latham asked for a motion to provide the $5,000.
Dr. Colella made the motion and Dr. Bauer seconded it. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approval of $5,000 for travel and refreshments for the meeting.
One more question for the group: we have a memo of understanding with SIOP South Africa, and have been communicating with the British Psychological Society on this. Should we do with the Brits what we did with SIOPSA, and then at a later date start figuring out what we will do as a general policy on this? Dr. Colella suggested we unite our leadership with the sister organizations’ leadership at SIOP. A couple of years ago Dr. Hough had a reception with leaders of different group, some other identified people, and the EC. Maybe we could do something like that again. We do have an international reception.
Webinar Proposal from E&T
Next, we moved on to a proposal for a Webinar. This is being aimed toward undergraduates as a way to explain I/O psychology. The cost would be $3,000 or less to do this.
It would be the kind of thing where people would call in to an 800 number wherever they are. Dr. Colella said this could replace the ambassador’s program, as no visits have taken place. The cost isn’t bad, and it would help to have creative technology.
Dr Pearlman asked if this was a one shot price to host the event. And, will it be recorded and available on line after. People would register in advance, but wouldn’t expect it to sell out. It would be easy to register and then not call in. Dr. Knapp suggested we talk to other organizations who have tried this, to see if we could maybe make them pay a small fee to register.
Dr. Cortina suggested that psychology department chairs be contacted and have this be part of the introductory psychology section, or as extra credit. It was also suggested that Psi Chi be an avenue to pursue. These are the students who are really engaged. President Tetrick suggested a Psi Chi group could get together and all call in as one conference call. A call was made for a motion to approve up to $3,000 for this. Dr. Cortina made the motion and Dr. Bauer seconded it. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approval of $3,000 for the Webinar.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell suggested we go after the groups on the lists that we were going to go after with the ambassador’s program. This should be more effective and flexible. President Tetrick said she would go back to Dr. Heggestad and see how the ambassador program could fold into this. It was also suggested that Dr. Heggestad send out an email with the when and where of the program directors meeting before SIOP.
Next we had an advocacy team update. Last time we talked about maybe getting a group of SIOP members who were really interested in advocacy efforts together. She was thinking of people who were already in the DC area and thus cheap dates. But, now President Tetrick is rethinking this because those same folks in that area are always being asked about this because they are there. If anyone had desire to work on this, they could make contacts and advocate from their home base. We should put together a cadre of people who can work on their own. We can get the Federation to help with this. More discussion ensued about getting our money’s worth out of the Federation. Maybe they can also help us get in the news.
Dr. Knapp pointed out that we need to use APA, APS, and the Federation, and we need to know what we want to advocate for. President Tetrick said it is interesting, when she talks to SIOP members a lot of them don’t think we need funding. We don’t currently have a mechanism in our present structure for figuring out what the members would like to advocate for. Visibility and advocacy sometimes gets blended. Maybe if the work and aging event goes well, we can do more of those, and more science cafes that agencies and congress will pay attention to.
Mr. Nershi added that he attended the Federation meeting in December and there were two really worthwhile things that came out of it. One is that he had concern about the dues, and came away with valuable information that cut our dues by more than half and still playing by the rules. The other is that other groups want to collaborate with us. Dr. Colella asked on what, and this needs to be fleshed out. There are groups like human factors, the society for mathematics in psychology, decision-making, neuropsychology. We could work together to showcase topics for legislature.
Dr. Colella asked how we are assessing what we are getting from this, and although this has arisen before, President Tetrick said she’s not sure we can easily tap into it. It is a long term thing with a lot of process stuff, and what we are trying to influence is political.
Dr. Salas said with the Human Factors Society, they see it as one brick at a time. It is a long term thing. For example, you might get first dibs to bid on funding. The key is sustainability and paying attention to what is going on. Dr. Truxillo agreed there should be someone for whom this is a primary focus, like a new committee chair. It has to be someone’s job to do this. People thought Dr. Hough would be great, but she is currently president of the Federation.
We wanted to find out who had federal grants and from what agencies. We got only 8 responses. Did people just not read our request, or is it that low?
Dr. Salas reiterated we could follow the human factors model of what Dr. Kruger has been doing. He attends everything, writes reports, hosts panels, and things get done.
Maybe we should go back and think about who was around the table in 2006 at the strategic planning meeting. It wasn’t just DC area people. Dr. Knapp and President Tetrick will work together to try to identify a team.
It was pointed out we have to approve the reduced dues for the Federation. Dr. Cortina made the motion, Dr. Salas seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approval to pay the reduced dues to the Federation.
President Tetrick called a break to eat the lunch that arrived. During lunch, conversation ensued that there isn’t anyone so far that wants to head up the IRC. Dr. McHenry suggested Dr. Bob Lewis at Microsoft.
We were informed that Dr. Silzer is working with Questar on the practice survey. Dr. Bauer is going to chair the search for who will do the next member survey. She’ll have about 5 people on the committee, and will have Dr. Lewis if he agrees to do the IRC.
Next, we turned to the APA council report, from Dr. Dipboye. There will be a meeting in February in Washington, and will talk here about some past news and what’s coming up. There were elections for boards and committees. Of the 40 positions, we got CASAP representation in 18, so that’s good. There will be some opportunities to gather new names for new positions coming up.
Dr. James Bray is now the president elect; he’s been running for a long time, belongs to every caucus, and was one of CASAP’s choices. He’s a clinical psychologist.
The usual assortment of social issues came up at the meeting. There isn’t too much on the agenda. There is a proposal for a 57th division, the division of Qualitative Psychology. Most people are against it not because they don’t like this type of research, but the way the proposal was written came across as very anti-science in tone. For example, it stated that validity and reliability are concepts only relevant to some areas. Also, there is a methods division already, with some qualitative oriented people on it. A statement did come out from that division (5) that seemed opposed to it but didn’t make a strong conclusion.
Looming on the horizon is an ad hoc committee to look at the organization of the divisions and push to get more representation for the state associations, which could dilute our power on the council. Each state would have a rep.
There is another issue to create a task force about evidence-based practice in psychology, led by Dr. Kurt Geisinger. We should try to get someone on the task force. Also, it’s nothing to get alarmed about but it might soon be time to update the CRISSSP document again.
CASAP is an effective group and one of the more visible task forces. There is a new board; Dr. Knapp is on it now, and Dr. Dipboye is an election officer. There will be a phone conference soon.
The social psychologists are trying to get money to support their website. They want $60,000 to support the social psychology network and this is up for a vote now. Their rationale is that despite the name this is a pretty general site.
Also, the current president Dr. Alan Kazdin called her out of the blue, and basically asked how he could be of help to I/O psychology. Dr. Knapp asked the group what sorts of messages they would like communicated to him. We could give him a cheat sheet of messages we want to communicate more broadly.
Dr. Latham said if he were here today, he would have two things to tell him. One is that he be able to truly understand and articulate how we are similar but different from clinical and counseling. The second would be to turn the tables; how can SIOP help APA in a way that could catapult us as people who need to be listened to. Dr. Kazdin has an MBA and I think that would be a fruitful discussion. Business schools make millions a year on executive programs. If SIOP could put on programs under APA and have book contracts under APA we would be seen as different from others. He is more in our camp that others have been, and he gets us more because of the MBA. Just sitting down to meet with him could help. He has three presidential initiatives, and the third one is some kind of grand challenge. At first it was going to be global warming but it didn’t go that way. If there is a grand challenge that we as a group see, like globalization, that would get us on his agenda as well.
Dr. Cortina said whenever psychology in the workplace comes up, we should make sure he mentions I/O psychology. When he is talking to people about this, I/O should be part of that sentence, and President Tetrick added even better yet, not just I/O but SIOP.
Dr. Knapp suggested we push for ideas for Monitor articles. One could be our international outreach issue. President Tetrick said given his background we can inform him of contributions to the work/family literature that I/O folks like Drs. Shelly Zedek, Tammy Allen, and Lilian Eby have done. Also, Dr. Barnes-Farrell suggested speaking to him about the science forum on work and aging.
Dr. Dipboye added that at IAAP the issue is poverty, maybe we could link to this idea and what we could do relative to this issue.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell said one other issue is how can we benefit from the experience that APA reps get in council. Should we see if people are willing to do second terms. Also, a lot of people belong to multiple divisions, so maybe those who served on other divisions can get voted in, or our former reps could be voted in under other divisions. Some names mentioned were Drs. Bill Strickland, Mary Kralj, Rodney Lowman.
At one point in time it was common for reps to be past presidents. We are seeing more energy happening now in council, and you have to be active there to get up the APA ladder. We should keep the junior/senior balance in mind. You are more likely to get on caucuses if people get to know you and you become more credible.
Also, when we put announcements in the monitor for what’s happening in the division, we usually make it pretty impersonal, but maybe we can try to highlight some members to get their names out there. Also, the science director is going to host a town hall meeting, which could be another opportunity for all of us to get more familiar.
KARE/Emergency Response Team Update and Proposal
Dr. Truxillo presented the state of the emergency response committee. This started this summer. How should SIOP respond with future disasters like the KARE committee did. We need decide how we should go about we should respond to future disasters. Dr. Bauer asked for clarification: is this just supposed to be for natural disasters? What about something like mass layoffs. Dr. Truxillo thought it was designed to be physical crises – either natural or something like 9-11. So, Dr. Truxillo wants to replace KARE with an ERT and has some ideas in the report for making this more streamlined.
The way KARE was initially established was that people volunteered because they wanted to help. Currently the chair is Dr. Tracy Rizzuto. New Orleans projects are at a stopping point.
We could have a website where people could volunteer to be ready to go.
In terms of being first responders, we are first responders in the sense like we are the first to help our members find new office space, etc., but we really should go in later when people are ready to rebuild. We are not the Red Cross. Dr. Bauer suggested then we should be a disaster recovery response team, not an emergency response team, which has more of the flavor of what is being suggested. People agreed with DRRT.
Dr. Vandeveer is the Division 13 liaison. This started as a joint committee, and we’d like to continue to work with them. We need to agree on who puts up what resources and maybe start with a limited amount of time. This will require SIOP AO time, real money, and other resources.
In terms of what’s still happening, the NOPD is still working with KARE and would like to continue, and the SPCA would also like to work on new projects. This doesn’t have to be through SIOP or KARE. LSU just got a 22 million dollar donation for a crisis response center, so Dr. Rizzuto can work with that group to continue these KARE projects.
The biggest issue is that the partnership with Division 13 was always informal, and something more formal might be in order. President Tetrick agrees that it’s good to partner with other groups and this seems natural, but how formal we want to make it is an important question. Also, APA has money each year that it will give to joint projects across divisions, so if we could tap into that we could recoup some of our AO time.
Dr. Colella said that speaking of money, what happens to the money that is now associated with KARE. Mr. Nershi says he thinks it’s pretty minimal and perhaps we could earmark it for future use.
Dr. Bauer made the motion to disband KARE, and Dr. Colella seconded the motion. It was asked if that motion includes the implementation of the new committee, and that is coming second. This passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: KARE is disbanded.
Next Dr. Bauer made a move to approve the new DRRT, and Dr. Salas seconded.
There was some discussion. Is this ad hoc? It’s not just a SIOP committee. To whom would they report? It doesn’t seem to have a home in either society. Dr. Cortina asked if it would be okay if a member at large was a defacto supervisor if a short term disaster came up. If this was longer term, it would have to be subsumed under one of the new 8 or 9 positions.
Then there was some discussion about how formal this should be.
Dr. McHenry said that our foundation board is a stand alone entity, not part of SIOP. Could that be a model for this? Mr. Nershi suggested that it might be good to have some control over what they do. It could fit in with the external relations officer in the new structure.
Back to the motion, DRRT will be activated as the need arises. An EC member named by the President can activate it. But, Dr. Truxillo said if we are allocating some resources, like AO time for the webpage, we should approve that. Dr. McHenry says by definition it becomes a standing committee then. That’s the conundrum we have.
Right now there will be some maintenance to retool the website from KARE. Dr. Truxillo said that even if this does become a standing committee, it needs to be much smaller, like maybe even just 3 people.
President Tetrick asked if it would be realistic to ask if Division 13 can front half of the money. The money that was obtained for services for KARE might be inappropriate to use for administrative services.
Dr. McHenry asked that the task force come back with a proposed memorandum of understanding from division 14 and 13 on how they are going to operate and we will vote on this in the next meeting. He made a motion and Dr. Cortina seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: The disaster relief response committee is approved and will return to the committee with a proposed memorandum of understanding between divisions 14 and 13 on the specifics of how they will operate together.
Mr. Nershi proposed the idea that we cut a check to a charitable group, like a job retraining center, with the leftover KARE money, and everyone loved this idea.
Dr. Bauer turned the discussion to an update on the online volunteer process. Ahmad has been working on this and they should be ready to test it sometime soon. She would like this group to look at it, and at the EC meeting in April we can train the chairs in how to use it.
Mr. Nershi went to a seminar recently about how to utilize volunteers. They suggested a president’s advisory group. The volunteers not matched to a committee can be on this, and can receive emails and communicate ideas to the president.
Website Content Discussion
Mr. Nershi also had a quick comment about the website content. Recently Cliff put up an article about personality that got a strong reaction, in good SIOP fashion. As an interim procedure, Dr. Zickar will be looking over content, and they are going to ask the electronic communications committee to help the AO decide on the process, procedure, and roles for getting information up there. They have been ramping up the content, but don’t want to step into too many scientific controversies. They want to keep it simple, but they need help.
Electronic Library Proposal
Moving to the last item on the agenda. Mr. Nershi said right now we are capturing audio at the conference and video at the plenary and the fall consortium. He is proposing an electronic library. There would be a search engine where you could search by content or presenter, across all meetings and years. Over time we’d have a very valuable resource.
We could have a few things up there to give a taste, and then a subscription to get everything. We can give a discount to those who attend things. We could also make this available for instructors to use with students. They could get a CD or log in and view the session, or even download to an ipod.
This could be a great research tool and member benefit. He is asking for approval of the concept, and then he’ll ask the emergency action committee to approve the specifics. Everyone loves this idea. Dr. Latham made a motion for approval and Dr. Salas seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Concept for electronic library approved.
Dr. Pearlman asked if subscription will be available to nonmembers. We’d need to determine this over emergency action. Another issue is whether the presenters would know or have to approve it.
Before adjourning, Dr. Bauer asked what happened with the fellowship discussion and if we need a committee to further discuss the process. Dr. McHenry says we do have a standing committee and we will have a new chair. There is agreement among our group that Dr. Hollenbeck’s idea to go back to 10 people is good. Would also suggest that everyone vote on everyone, and that people respect the criteria and if they aren’t something can be done about it. The fellowship chair needs to realize that’s an option.
Dr. McHenry suggested it might be a good idea to go back to the committee meeting face to face, although he doesn’t know the feasibility of that. A first step might be full attendance at teleconferences.
President Tetrick adjourned the meeting at 1:49 pm