MINUTES OF THE WINTER MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFTHE SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
FEBRUARY 2-4, 2007
Marriot Marquis Hotel
New York, New York
Present: Dave Nershi, Bob Dipboye, Lois Tetrick, George Hollenbeck, Lisa Finkelstein, Jeff McHenry, Deirdre Knapp, Ken Pearlman, Jose Cortina, Eduardo Salas, Leaetta Hough, Adrienne Colella, Kurt Kraiger, Janet Barnes-Farrell
Absent: Talya Bauer
President Jeff McHenry called the meeting to order at 4:33 pm.
President McHenry thanked everyone for coming, and welcomed Jose Cortina as our newest APA Council Representative, pointing out to much laughter that as the other four will finish at the same time, someday Dr. Cortina will be the senior leader of the flock.
Our goals for the evening are to launch with the Fellowship Report, then if time get into some quick action items. We have a full day tomorrow and a couple of hours on Sunday morning to wrap up a very full agenda.
Dr. Hollenbeck described in detail the process by which the committee reviewed the fellowship candidates. Each EC member reviewed the information presented on each candidate, heard the recommendation of the committee put forth by Dr. Hollenbeck, and voted whether to accept the committee’s recommendation for each individual. EC members who wrote letters of support or were nominators for any fellowship candidate abstained from voting. Two EC members who were fellowship candidates were not present during this portion of the meeting.
The EC voted to accept 26 of the 27 of the committee’s recommendations to accept or reject fellowship nominations.
Dr. McHenry recessed the meeting at 6:32 p.m. The EC then joined the conference committee in consuming vast quantities of meat on skewers (note: no vegetarians in attendance at dinner).
Dr. McHenry called the meeting to order at 8:14 a.m.
The EC and the Conference Committee held a joint meeting to discuss proposed changes planned to the annual conference program with the move to a three day conference in 2008. In attendance in addition to the EC were Dr. Steven Rogelberg, Dr. Mindy Bergman, Dr. Doug Pugh, Dr. Tammy Allen, Dr. Joan Brannick, Dr. Suzanne Tsacoumis, and Dr. Joerg Dietz.
Dr. McHenry began by stating that we have had a lot of innovation over the year, lots of great program chairs that have done a great job, but to his knowledge haven’t done a holistic look of how well the conference is fitting needs. Since we are soon making the move to the three day conference, it is a good time to think of how we can revolutionize the program and to leverage better support for the goals we have been working on in the last 18 months.
Dr. McHenry had asked Dr. Rogelberg, the incoming Program Chair, to form an ad hoc committee to take a close look at this issue and present the EC with recommendations. Our goal for the morning was to give feedback so they can hit the ground running when they leave here today. At a minimum we need to reach agreement on the principles of the changes and the general directions.
Dr. Rogelberg then took the floor. The commented that this was a really important and big effort to take a step back and a close look at ourselves, and to produce a document which is essentially a 3-5 year blueprint for the conference. Don’t want to lose sight that the idea is that in three to five years this gets done again to make sure needs are still being met. The committee was comprised of 8 people, split academics and practitioners, and in different points in their career. They met in Charlotte and had an incredibly harmonious meeting. He relayed a funny story that nicely demonstrated how practitioners and academics can play nice with each other.
Dr. Rogelberg explained that they went through several interactions of the program and tried to collect as much data as they could about the conference. They learned quite a bit. For example, many people think academic work is more or less accepted than practitioner work, but it is really quite equal. There is also a much larger international presence than ever before. Sponsorship has changed dramatically. The types of sessions have also grown immensely (from an original 3 in 1986 to 13 this year).
Dr. Olson-Buchanan and Dr. Truxillo had collected a lot of data before making the transition to the 3-day. Folks are generally happy; this is not a broken conference. We are really just trying to be proactive and make a good thing even better.
Some of the suggested changes are very micro and some are more macro. Some members will never see – will mostly just benefit the program chair. There are a number of program chairs in the room who can attest to what a time consuming task it is – would be scary to try to count the number of hours. This is an incredible service activity.
Some of the suggestions involve repackaging what we have, and some are new. The overall goal is to make this a great conference experience for everyone.
Dr. Rogelberg turned our attention to the summary report. He pointed out how their suggestions would simplify the submission process. They would like to reduce the number of 110 minute sessions, which are overused and hard to schedule. Eventually they might drop them. They also suggest fewer concurrent sessions, moving to 19. This will also help the conference planners as many hotels that previously couldn’t accommodate us should now be able to. Also, there is so much going on at once, this might make it easier to not have too much overlap. Since the conference will be longer, this allows us to maintain about the same amount of programming, to keep rates fairly stable and therefore not potentially sacrifice quality.
The next set of suggestions is toward the goal of a more programmatic and organized experience for conference goers. There will be a different identity for each of the three days. Thursday will have the presidential address for an hour to kick off. This will directly tie into a programmatic theme that would go through one line of programming all day. The president will announce it the year before and therefore be able to do more in shaping the conference for that year. This line of programming would be almost a conference within a conference. There would be invited speakers, symposia, interactive posters. There would be an effort toward academic and practitioner interest. Also, one change that sounds minor but will be helpful is that there will be two grids in the program – one by room (as it has been) and one by content area, making it easier for people to narrow down what they want to see.
On Friday, there would not be a theme, but some internally generated content. The fall consortium would have its mini track. The Sunday seminars will now be Friday seminars. There will be an EC controlled block of time – an 8 hour block that the EC can use to promote its strategic initiatives. Right now it is difficult when a committee contacts the chair wanting a session outside the review process. This will be a meaningful but manageable block of time for the EC to include what it wants.
Moving to Saturday, it will be a day similar to Thursday, but with a track determined by the program committee. The conference will end with a bang rather than a fizzle. There will be a keynote outside speaker at the end, and then a reception. Right now people dread being on Sunday and it is a day of leaving. We want a meaningful end of conference experience. After the keynote, the incoming president will announce the theme for next year’s Thursday.
The final change is to clearly distinguish content based programming time and outside of the grid time. Outside will include things like memorials, CEMA and LBGT meetings and receptions.
Dr. Rogelberg concluded that that was an overview of 10,000 feet, and opened the floor to comments and questions.
Dr. Pearlman asked if there were one or two things that drove the decision to go to the three day. Dr. Truxillo filled him in on the history of this decision, including information on how it was getting so broad, hard to find a hotel, and the program pulling people in too many different directions. Also, people really didn’t like Sunday sessions.
Dr. Kraiger inquired whether there was a reason for 19 sessions specifically. Dr. Rogelberg said that was the number that kept the acceptance rate about the same, and Mr. Nershi suggested that 19 would help with hotels, as there are many with 20 breakout rooms, but not a lot with 25. Dr. Truxillo added that we really want to stay under one roof. Dr. Kraiger agreed that the rationale for creating more hotel availability is a good rationale for this change. It would be good to have more flexibility. Dr. Truxillo said he was glad this was brought up, and relayed that in 2006 when Julie was working on the program we would have had to reject many many sessions.
Dr. Rogelberg added that this is really where it becomes a program issue – a lot of people’s funding is contingent on being on the program. Dr. Allen added that the rejection rate will still go up because the submission rate is continuing to increase, but this will keep that at a slower rate.
Several issues were discussed at this point. Concern was raised that the President would need to know what they would want to address a year ahead of time. Dr. Rogelberg suggested some flexibility could be added here, and that the President would be on the subcommittee and would have say in designing the day so invited sessions and others that day tie into a theme.
He also clarified that this speech the president will give on Saturday can be very general and they were intending only about 5 minutes. Dr. Dipboye joked that although people will be waiting with great anticipation for the final speech, what about a party? Perhaps even a band or a desert reception – something fun. Everyone agreed.
Dr. Pearlman wondered about people’s propensity to stay through Saturday night – Dr. Truxillo noted that in the survey about the three day switch he seems to recall people indicating they’d stay, but not sure.
Dr. McHenry reiterated that in the past it was hard for the program chair to know what some random president would want to insert in the program. After the Chicago strategic planning stuff, we took a hard look at the program to see how we could move things forward. Now we have some vehicles for doing that, which will be great. The EC could also see that as a third potential track – what the EC wants to promote can be built in now and we can do some cool things that will help us move our agenda forward. Dr. Hough noted that now the process for soliciting nominations for president elect requires them to put forth what they want to do as president, which gets them thinking about it sooner than they used to.
Dr. Dipboye’s biggest concern was whether having workshops on Wednesday would hurt attendance, and if there has been any discussion of what we would do to prevent disaster here. Dr. Robelberg noted that for the folks who attend workshops – that’s their big thing. They will come for that, the place we could lose those folks would be on Saturday.Dr. Brannick noted that they’ve looked into that. Her gut feeling is they will come but might not stay through Saturday.
Dr. Bergman noted that we have an important issue to keep in mind – this transition is happening with the San Francisco conference. Since we have a lot of east coast folks, we may be losing some people anyway just because of that. So, two factors will be confounding and it might be hard to judge from this first instance.
Dr. Kraiger noted another small suggestion – let’s call it something other than EC “controlled” time, which carries negative connotation. Dr. Rogelberg noted that’s a good point, though it wouldn’t be called that anywhere on the program anyway, it would have a content based name.
Some other issues were discussed, including a recognition that we need space to include awards received from APA and APS, that we have a recurring ethics session with EC credits, and the possibility of invited master tutorials rather than submitted. Also, the SHRM award should be acknowledged along with APA and APS. Dr. Rogelberg discussed there may be a timing issue, because once the grid is in place we can’t touch it. Dr. Hough wondered if there are sometimes a few free sessions in someone’s back pocket. Mr. Nershi suggested to create that the EC can choose not to fill all of their sessions right away.
Dr. Rogelberg noticed that there are a lot of good ideas floating around, and reminded the group that they didn’t want to mess with too much as member satisfaction is quite high. We can think of this as a lab for the next couple of years.
Dr. Pearlman asked if the wider range of hotels open to us would be taken advantage of by going into some new cities – maybe the west or southwest; places we haven’t gone. It would be great to be able to do this. Dr. Kraiger suggested we return to the type of themed socials we had in the past, when we did them late. Suggested we can have a wrap party at the end that gets tied to the theme of the city. Mr. Nershi suggested wine tasting for San Francisco Dr. Knapp remembered that we talked last year about having socials with activities, like a band and dancing. It would help people to mingle more and get to know others, instead of just grabbing a drink and breaking off into groups that people already know for dinner. Dr. Rogelberg added that they’ve built in a lunch break so that might also create the ability for people to get together with others.
Dr. Brannick added that similar to what’s being done at Leading Edge, the lunch could have a place with tables dedicated to topics so that people could meet and discuss common interests. Or, people could designate interests on a name tag. This could help the people who don’t know anyone to meet others.
Switching gears, Dr. Pearlman asked that if the Frontiers series has a session, shouldn’t the Practice series have one as well? Dr. Pritchard has been very proactive for the Frontiers series. Dr. Rogelberg suggested that we could change this session to be a general SIOP publications session and could be whatever major is currently happening, maybe even the SIOP Journal.
Dr. Rogelberg also mentioned that some of the stuff we’ve had reserved on the program has been weakly attended. For example, the i-o program chairs meeting isn’t as strongly attended as it used to be. It was suggested that perhaps the PhD directors council meeting, or masters directors, have a meeting off of the schedule. Dr. Tetrick pointed out that the list of PhD directors is not up to date, and Dr. Finkelstein mentioned she’s never received anything about that meeting. Dr. Bergman suggested that there be a room off of the grid for meetings if people need it.
Dr. Finkelstein reported on some points that Dr. Bauer wanted to make, but she was unable to attend the meeting. She reported that Dr. Bauer really liked the suggested changes, but wanted to ask about the different combinations of reviewers (practitioners and academics) reviewing the different types of sessions, and if that could lead to imbalance in sessions, and was there anything in place to try to insure a roughly equal number of practitioner and academic focused program. For example, might cut scores need to be adjusted to do this. Dr. Rogelberg said that they hadn’t discussed this but it was a good point and something to consider.
Dr. McHenry asked if we needed a vote or just wanted to endorse it. He thanked the committee for the hard work and outstanding document that will serve us well. Dr. Hough agreed and moved to accept this well thought out report and that the suggestions mentioned and reflected in the minutes be considered. Dr. Colella seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Report from the Conference Planning committee is accepted.
Dr. Truxillo talked about the site selection progress. A contract was signed for a really nice property in San Diego for 2012. We got a good deal, it is a good size, very pretty, and lots of space for parties.
Dr. Pugh mentioned that the spillover hotels for New York are filling up now. They are trying to find more options, but don’t want to be at risk for attrition issues.
Dr. McHenry called a recess at 9:30 AM.
We returned to the meeting at 9:42 AM.
Dr. McHenry suggested we return to the beginning of the agenda, which begins with the president’s report.
Dr. McHenry explained that everything he needs to report on is embedded in later agenda items, so we can transition on to the Financial Officer’s report.
Financial Officer’s Report
Dr. Pearlman lamented that he never got a chance to be shorter than Dr. McHenry at his report. He said there is not much to say now about the budget. We are in mid year, with not much activity. The expenses to actuals look good, and everything is where it should be.
The fall conference showed about a $40,000 surplus. Registration is higher than this time last year for the spring conference and workshops, so things look really good.
In other financial news, Dr. Pearlman said that financial information is now available on the website. Thanks to Linda Lentz, this has been up for the last couple of months. He showed the group a screenshot of what it looks like, and how information is available in a clear pie chart form.
There are a couple of proposals that Dr. Pearlman has been working on with Ms. Lentz and Mr. Nershi, including a financial reserves policy statement, financial principles, and a proposal to make a contribution to the foundation. We had a significant surplus last year, and we have now accumulated a nest egg. The question came up – what are we going to do with that? We have never had this situation before. With last year’s windfall, we have more than a whole year’s operating expenses. So, we need to put some parameters around how we think about our funds so we have a basis going forward for decision making. We have different options. We can lower fees, or spend money on different things. We currently have no roadmap at all.
Ms. Lentz and Mr. Nershi have done some research on what other nonprofit organizations do. We have never had a statement, and it is good to have one. This can help us figure out what we would do with shortfalls, or different timing issues. We can also think about funds to support strategic initiatives, or upgrade technology.
Dr. Cortina asked if there was discussion about using this money for some of the big ticket items that we have considered in the past, like for example lobbying, hiring a PR firm, advertising in business periodicals – things that in the past have been too rich for our blood. Mr. Nershi responded that what they are proposing now is to have a three part reserve – one for operations, one for technology and equipment, and one for special projects to support issues beyond the regular budget that tie into our strategic plan. So, some of the examples he suggested tie into visibility, and that reserve could be tapped for those things. Dr. Pearlman added that this policy will help those things along by having a specific mechanism to work with.
Discussion ensued concerning how the funds would get divided – Dr. Pearlman assured the group every decision would still be subject to EC approval, and clarified that the funds we are discussing are those over and above our normal contingency fund. There was some concern about how this would impact our tax status, but Dr. Nershi had talked to an attorney and assured that this is not a problem.
Dr. Pearlman made a motion to approve this financial reserves policy statement, and Dr. Hough seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Financial reserves policy statement approved.
Dr. Pearlman directed us to the next page, where the financial principles are stated. This is less binding than policy, more general words to live by. The existing principles are reprinted here, and there is something added. This is designed to provide a frame of reference for use of money and financial responsibility. they added in a statement that said that excess beyond reserves could be donated to the SIOP foundation. There is nothing here in concrete for an amount, it is just a nice idea to have a written reminder. Essentially it just states that when we have an excess of budget and reserves we just consider this donation. We are not locked into doing this. Dr. McHenry noted we need to be careful not to get a surplus just for the point of contributing to the foundation.
Some discussion ensued as to whether the foundation should be specifically mentioned, or it should be kept as more a more general charitable doanation. In the end, Dr. Pearlman made a motion to add item number seven in regard to the foundation to the principles, and Dr. Dipboye seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Will add item number 7, which reads “fill in” to the financial principles.
Finally, Dr. Pearlman suggested that this is a good year to propose a donation to the SIOP foundation. They arrived at the figure of $150,000 as a one time proposed donation. They thought at first between 100 and 200 thousand. This fits in with the excess in reserves, and we have the surplus running with the consortium. This seems to be comfortable within the suggested guideline.
It was asked if we are earmarking this for something special, or is this a general donation? Mr. Nershi says this would go to the advancement fund if not designated, but we could decide to donate to something specific.
Dr. Cortina would like to have a discussion about some of the activities they are doing that this money could be put toward. Dr. Hough also would want to know what some of the costs of activities for the strategic initiatives are going to be. Also, she feels a little anxiety about how the three day conference is going to turn out – maybe we should wait? Dr. Dipboye agreed that maybe we should wait and see how things go.
Mr. Nershi told the group that the foundation has a conference call meeting at the end of the month, and we could ask them to address some of the things we have questions about. Several points of discussion did come up. There was concern about how much we have the ability to stipulate where funds go. Some ideas included scholarships to conferences, or supporting the student or junior faculty consortium.
Dr. McHenry suggested we table this until the end of the meeting so we think a little more about this. Dr. Pearlman can take some specific ideas to the foundation board, and then we’ll fall up on this in April.
Dr. Pearlman had one final point. He said he has been in communication with the APA treasurer, Carol Goodheart, and the APA Chief Financial Officer, Jack McKay, to get ideas about the financial reserves policy, both of whom were very helpful. Mr. McKay was extremely impressed by all the good things we are doing in terms of our financial management. He said we are light years ahead of the other divisions.
Dr. Finkelstein asked for approval of the minutes of the Fall meeting. Dr. Knapp seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Minutes of the Fall Executive Committee meeting are approved.
Dr. McHenry informed the group that there were no emergency action items during this period, so nothing to review here.
He had a request from AP A that 2011 be the year the the Principles expire. This would just be a trigger date to make sure that they have the most updated form. They can then check with us. This is mostly a paperwork exercise.
Dr. McHenry pointed us to a number of reports in the book that he assumes we read. Dr. Hough moves to pass the consent agenda, and Dr. Colella seconds. Consent agenda passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Consent agenda is passed.
Dr. Kraiger brought up an issue that is not an action item but something to be discussed. There have been some concerns brought to his attention in regard to subcommittee leadership and understaffing. Dr. Tetrick said there are a couple of ways we can deal with this. Dr. Finkelstein mentioned that this is tied in with Dr. Bauer’s proposal to change the way committees are staffed, so perhaps we can hold this until then. Dr. Knapp mentioned that state advocacy issues can be made more attractive for volunteers.
Dr. McHenry reminded the group that Dr. Ilgen would be joining by conference call at 11:00 to discuss our continued participation in the Federation. Until then, we can start talking about the initiatives. We’ll go through them and think today about ownership of the initiatives. Dr. Finkelstein has done some homework on this, suggesting where they may fit in our current committee structure, or a combination of committees. We need to figure out who will be accountable for taking the initiatives forward, and this should be helpful to Dr. Kraiger to move the general governance issues forward, including what might need to be changed with our committee structure.
Dr. McHenry began going through some of the initiatives that came out of the Science and Practice group, based on recent conversations with Dr. Silzer.
The master consortium was pulled together really well with the help of Dan Sachau. Masters trained i-o professionals will be speaking. This expanded to 60 students, and now wants to expand to 80. They are trying to accommodate in the meeting space.
Dr. Colella said she thinks that the Education and Training committee is working on the consulting skills initiative.
Dr. Tetrick commented on a conversation she had with Dr. Silzer. They had a discussion about the aspirational statement. They had been thinking of this like a job analysis project. She had put her two cents in from being on the PPP exam committee. We keep arguing that we are different but not. ASPPB did a practice analysis of licensed psychologist – Dr. Blanton was one person they interviewed. It was hard to fit her answers into anything they had. Dr. Tetrick suggested we have a job analysis of what we do from both perspectives, and map this on to ASPPB. This would give us a lot of mileage for arguing against PPP for licensure. We should really try to move forward on this.
At this point a long conversation ensued about how something like this could happen. Several people had vague recollections at something like this being attempted before, with thoughts that Dr. Wally Borman may have been involved, but no one could remember the exact details. There was much discussion on what the end product could be of this type of undertaking. Originally the goal was a new, clearer statement of what a scientist-practitioner is – the aspirational statement. This seems to be morphing into a much larger goal, with a detailed job analysis as an outcome, rather than a statement. Many individuals intimately familiar with doing job analyses acknowledged that this is a lot to ask of volunteers, and that we should probably contract this out. Concern continued to arise as to what exactly we are talking about doing – is this about an i-o psychologist in general, or specifically a scientist-practitioner. There was some disagreement as to the best approach and what was most needed. It was suggested that this wasn’t really a job analysis we were talking about, but a broader occupational analysis. Dr. Knapp said she does this sort of thing a lot (i.e., occupational analyses). They would first need to find all the different specific types of jobs across the occupation, and pull together a vision. Every occupation always says you can’t do this with us, we are too different. It’s ironic that i-o psychologists would claim the same thing.
Dr. McHenry suggested that an advisory board would need to guide the work. We would need wise and different perspectives – and he pities the contractor who will have a group of i-o psychologists telling them what to do. He has confidence that with this sort of system the consultant could not skew results.
Next, people generated a list of potential names for a blue ribbon panel. The names that were generated around the table include Dr. John Campbell, Dr. Milt Hakel, Dr. Ed Levine, Dr. Elizabeth (fill in her name), Dr. Scott Tannenbaum, Dr. George Aliger, Dr. Bill Macey (since he hasn’t done anything for a month or two), Dr. Juan Sanchez, Dr. Wally Borman. Dr. Dick Jeanneret, Dr. Mort McPhail.
Dr. McHenry suggested we move forward. We need to start with naming a chair, and we have lots of potential board members named. We should also think about early career and experienced people, different work settings, perhaps international representation, and PhD and masters trained people. Dr. McHenry asked if Dr. Pearlman and Dr. Knapp could have a conversation with him about potential chairs so he could go back to Dr. Hough and Dr. Tetrick with that.
Dr. Colella also suggested the historian go back and see what’s been done on this in the past. Dr. Dipboye remembers Dr. Borman talking about this in his presidential address. Even so, he realizes that things have changed a lot and we’d need to redo things anyway. Dr. Pearlman joked that we could always go back to Dr. Sackett’s song.
Dr. McHenry called a recess at 10:50 AM.
Dr. McHenry called the group back at 11:00 AM
Dr. McHenry recalled with the group that it was about a year ago that we made the decisions to become more involved in advocacy. We decided to join the Federation for Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive scientists, who advocate with congress to get research funding. We now have to decide if its worth it to stay on with them.
Dr. Dan Ilgen and Dr. John Campbell were asked to represent us at the Federation. Dr. Campbell had to step back. Today we have Dr. Ilgen on the phone to tell us about his experience and discuss our future with the Federation.
The call was placed to Dr. Ilgen. He informed Dr. Ilgen that he had just provided a little context for the group, and now we want to hear his impression of the sort of work they are doing, what our involvement has been like, and whatever advice and guidance he might have. We need to make a choice as to whether we want to commit for a long period of time.
Dr. Ilgen said that he isn’t sure how much his experience will be able to tell them, that it seemed like they hadn’t gotten going on it right away. He had put together notes after the last meeting that he thought we had, but we didn’t. So, he described what he had put in the notes. He say that the Federation was trying to accomplish goals in the area of advocacy, education, and communication. Advocacy and Education are primary, and they are split into two groups – FABBS is the educational branch and the Federation is the advocacy branch. FABBS contributions are tax deductible. They put on activities that give exposure to psychology, and we can utilize that connection to get visibility and give us some infrastructure. The advocacy portion is primarily targeted to government agencies. They do in many cases what APA does. The Federation is smaller and more nimble than APA, so may likely be more responsible to our needs. The second thing is that we are among a group of psychological associations and he thinks as SIOP we need to maintain our psychological roots and this is a nice way to do this. We have a more applied focus than most of the other groups, except human factors is there too. Some other groups include the psychonomics socieity, computers and psychology, the cognitive group – lots of good groups to be associated with. Because of our applied nature they may look to us for increasing visibility of their group. In fact, he reported, since the meeting he had a couple of probes from them. Barbara got a call from DHS security, wanting a workshop of people dealing with organizational issues – Dr. Chen is giving them some names. We are the ones they turn to and that’s a nice advantage.
The main issue is that the Federation has a lot to offer but we really need to be proactive to contact them. Human Factors is a model within the group that we could follow. In that group they plan to try to do one kind of education outreach a year with them. Next fall they are doing a one day meeting in DC with speakers dealing with voter machines and human factors issues in electronic voting. They pick a topic of exciting work and have a one day session to see what human factors can do. Last year it had to do with the mobile soldier – they have computers, gps stuff on their back – how much can they handle and how well can they use it to make decisions? So, they use the Federation for infrastructure stuff – the hotel, invitations, etc. The Federation was very open to it.
With respect to the question of APA vs. the Federation, it is not an adversarial point of view. this is another avenue for us that is tightly tied to psychology. We would have their attention because of our applied focus, and we would not be competing with the heavy weight of the clinicians in APA. Dr. Knapp questioned that assumption a little. Dr. Steve Breckler from APA has a vested interested in keeping APA in the forefront.
Dr. Knapp said it is the same issue with APA and the Federation – unless you tell them what you want you won’t get anything. We don’t have a lot of evidence that we’ve ever asked APA for stuff we haven’t gotten. She just isn’t sure we’d have more influence with the Federation than we would at APA if we would just ask for stuff from both of them.
Dr. Dipboye asked for more information as to how human factors could be a model. What does the Federation do for them exactly? Do they pay for their meetings, or just organize them? Dr. Ilgen said he isn’t sure of the detail.
Dr. Salas added that he is on the council of the Human Factors society as well. Dr. Jerry Kruger is the representative of that group to the Federation. He contacts them, they organize everything, put the ads out, do the PR. The HF Society pays for the speakers, but the Federation helps to get the word out, and that comes from the fees we pay them to belong. Dr. Salas believes that things come out of doing this. They might get more contracts, for example. He believes that they need to go to Washington and do this sort of thing to get more respect with funding agencies.
Dr. Hough mentioned that she has recently been elected President Elect of The Federation. This will be another way for us to exert some influence! The group offered her congratulations.
Dr. Cortina mentioned that when he and Dr. Tetrick attended the meeting about a year ago, people all seemed to be pleased with what they were getting out of participation. What the EC is now wrestling with is not the question of whether they do good stuff, but rather whether they are worth the money. Dr. Ilgen thinks that you won’t really know right away – might even need to give it a five year window and during that time be proactive and ask for their services. Until we have time to see how that works we won’t know, and a year isn’t really enough
One of the things FABBS is working on is a companion book to introductory psychology classes. Some of them don’t have i-o chapters, She volunteered for that subcommittee, and now she is an editor. There are three chapters – one by Dr. John Campbell, one by Dr. Ben Schneider, and one by Dr. Paul Sackett, which are coming out next year. Publishers know about this and it will be a huge market. This is just one example of the energy and talent in this group. Dr. Susan Fiske was amazing to work with. Dr. Ilgen agreed she does a great job. Another example was an open house at the Spy Museum with a speaker on deception. On Valentines day at the Washington Zoo they are having one on love. These are the Science Café’s that Dr. Hough has mentioned before – she would also like to have one on leadership on President’s day.
Dr. Knapp said she has no objection to the Federation, but she wants to emphasize that we need to give APA a chance too. We don’t want to forget about them. She doesn’t want us to put all of our energy into just one.
Much discussion ensued about the best way to make sure we stay on top of this. Some ideas include having specific people or a subcommittee or a new committee tasked with advocacy. Dr. McHenry asked for further discussion. Dr. Ilgen said that one other issue that came up with a conversation with Mr. Nershi earlier is that the Federation provides a newsletter, and our members should have the option to get that. SIOP members should be aware of new options in funding possibilities. Mr. Nershi said the EC would vote to approve any email, which would be the format of this newsletter. Dr. Knapp said she had mentioned at an earlier meeting that APA also has a newsletter that one needs to opt in for – it may actually be written by the same people.
Everyone thanked Dr. Ilgen for his time.
Dr. McHenry recessed the group for lunch at 11:50.
The group came together again at 12:20.
Dr. Kraiger suggested we jump ahead to discuss visibility and advocacy initiatives now before the final decision, and people agreed. He said he was ready to support this now and doesn’t need to wait, but others might want to think about these issues now in making the decision.
The conversation switched gears to a task force regarding test publisher adherence to principles. Twelve fellows of SIOP wrote a letter to Dr. McHenry voicing concerns that it is inappropriate for SIOP to accept advertising from test publishers who violate test standards (i.e., the Principles). Who decides if a test publisher meets standards? Is it just tests, or other systems as well (e.g., PA systems)?
Dr. McHenry wrote them an email and agreed this was an issue. He suggested a task force be formed to see how we can approach this from an ethics perspective, legal issues, and liability issues. How do we police a policy? We can form a task force to think about this and report back, and then we can figure out where to go with it. Do we agree with this? Who should do it? What is their charge?
Dr. Kraiger brought up examples of how headhunter firms say they have a 100% success rate (because they keep going until a job is filled), and that many firms say they have the “most valid test” or a test “valid for all jobs.” There is not research to support these kind of claims. The other issue is that publishers aren’t making their data available to judge whether research supports their claims.
Dr. Knapp said that we need to be viewed as people who can help people develop good tests. We shouldn’t be in the position of chastising and penalizing, but rather helping and education. We should try to positively influence what they do – a purely realistic approach might not be the best thing.
Dr. McHenry said he understands there is a complexity to stopping advertising. There are carrot approaches and stick approaches, and we might want to consider the carrot approach. Perhaps we can craft a strong statement of what they should do – sort of a good housekeeping seal of approval. It can be less punitive but will educate people who buy tests.
Dr. Tetrick said that that on the other side, we have an obligation through APA’s ethical principles, to confront someone who isn’t behaving ethically. But – if they are not psychologists, they aren’t bound to those principles.
Dr. Hough suggested that educating the world on proper test development sounds like it should be part of E & T or Visibility. Dr. McHenry said this is the kind of thing we could plan an event around that the Federation can help with.
Dr. Pearlman inquired how we would evaluate the allegations. This is something that our own experts disagree on in court. This one aspect – the reporting of validity data – can get us into a slippery slope. This is not really an ethical violation, but a violation of the SIOP Principles (for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures).
Dr. Cortina asked if this could be as simple as drafting a statement that we send to anyone that advertises with us that they should be abiding by the SIOP Principles. We could also have a disclaimer that we aren’t endorsing companies just because they advertise with us.
Dr. Dipboye relayed that he once went to a medical conference and was looking at vendors and was surprised to see the types of booths that were there. Not many professional organizations monitor these things. What about a TIP column looking at this?
Dr. McHenry said that one thing we can do is to send this group a letter that we are delighted they are involved with us. Ethical standards are very important to us, even for people not actually bound, and we would like people to adhere to them as part of their relationship with us. Members could bring ethics charges with APA if they think someone is not conforming.
Mr. Nershi agrees it would be nice to give some guidelines, and do it in an affirmational way. He also noted that the AO watches the ads, not the TIP editor. Dr. Knapp noted this might go beyond what is in TIP to other types of advertising. But, there is only so much we can do. We can be educational and positive.
In closing this discussion, Dr. McHenry recapped that we will not go forward with a task force at this time, but will have a more general policy. He will draft them a note. We will be more clear about expectations, but we will not be a judging body. There is a mechanism through APA to do that. We will take action if they do.
We then switched gears to a discussion led by Dr. Salas on a new i-o book series.
Since the September meeting when this was first introduced, there has been some thinking on the structure, how the series will be organized, and the focus. He talked to a couple of people for guidance, and spoke with three publishers that might do this (some publishers don’t like annual book series).
The tentative title is Annual Essays on the Science and Practice of i-o psychology. It is important for the series to satisfy both sides, which is quite a challenge. Expect that half will be essays, reviews, and integrations on the science side, and on the practice side more principles, tips, and guidelines ready to be put to use. We do not want to put out a series that is marginalizing anyone.
The plan is to be structured with two editors. The practice side doesn’t have to have a practitioner editor (though could) but would need to be someone who has practice experience. Some other possible names had come up a well – such as Current Perspectives rather than Annual Essays. Dr. Salas thought Annual Essays sounded scholarly.
They considered Sage, Blackwell, LEA, and APA. LEA is not interested in annual series. Blackwell and Sage both have some interest. APA is the most interested at this point. He has had lots of email exchange with Gary Van De Bos at APA. He would give a contract just based on this description. He is being very aggressive at insuring that he can get more i-o stuff out. He wants to do more series, textbooks, etc. They are still in discussions of interest right now. He opened the floor to questions and comments.
Dr. Pearlman asked about the cost implications for SIOP for a softbound book in the 40-60 dollar range per volume. This is similar to Frontiers and Practice Books, which are actually a source of revenue. Dr. Colella asked if executives can come in and comment on what is written (like HBR). Dr. Knapp suggested something that reviews what the literature says and how things are being done. We need to link the front and back – foster the link between science and practice. Dr. Salas said we don’t want to do something that steps on the toes of the journal. Dr. Salas suggested things that talk about where science needs to go next, or what doesn’t work when tried in practice. Dr. Hough agreed important to do something distinct that doesn’t copy the intent of the journal.
Dr. McHenry told the group about the Corporate Leadership Council, who surveys a variety of organizations and what they are doing and regurgitate it back. Say the topic is personality testing. They get someone to go out and do a survey of what’s going on in organizations and consulting firms. What might be good rather than just benchmarking is a critique of what’s going on. This could be better science than just benchmarking.
Dr. Salas said he will talk to a few practitioners to see what they think, and we can return to this in April. Dr. Knapp added, from someone who is in an applied research environment, the way this sounds is that we are emphasizing the divide between science and practice. It is important to try to portray a connection across the divide. Dr. Pearlman wondered if some kind of integrated piece can tie these things together.
Dr. Colella stated that Dr. Knapp makes a good point. We should get academics and practitioners to co-author articles on these issues. Dr. Kraiger pointed out that this might be difficult with some topics. For example, an academic might be studying emotional labor, but it might be hard to find a practitioner working on the issue of emotional labor. But, they could learn about ways they could apply this research.
Dr. Salas suggested that perhaps there could be some flexibility. Instead of separate sections, maybe it would all be intermingled. Does anyone have name suggestions?
Some people suggested that the term “essays” connotes opinions; others associate it with dull long pieces with nothing to say (so Dr. Cortina said this might work!). Dr. Colella suggested “The State of i-o Psychology.”
The topic then switched to an update on the fall consortium. Mr. Nershi reported that the site will be Kansas City, at the InterContinental Hotel, right on Country Club Plaza. There is a lot of shopping, attractions, and restaurants right there – it will be an outstanding location. It will be possible to have special events off property. It will take place the weekend of October 25th.
Dr. Hough reported that they collected ratings on potential topics and came up with a tie even rounding to the second decimal. The choices are engagement and innovation. They decided to go with innovation. It is more risky and may appeal to a different set of people. She is a little apprehensive but it is exciting. They don’t yet have a science or practice chair but are moving forward on this. This will be about innovation in general, not innovation of any specific thing. Perhaps climates of creativity and innovation, or early innovators, or organizational change. It will be nice to have divergence from our two prior themes. It might be a little more science than practice compared to the others.
Mr. Nershi reported that there is a special discount for EC members wanting to attend – it will be $400 instead of $490 to attend.
Dr. McHenry recessed the group for a break at 1:50.
The group resumed at 2:00.
The conversation now turned to the visibility initiatives. Dr. Colella reported the public relations initiatives are moving along. Mr. Nershi heard from Dr. Reynolds a few days ago and he is about to push the button to get proposals from PR firms for us to consider at the April meeting. Also, in relation to public relations, visibility is working to get journalists at the conference.
The next initiative involves building stronger relationships with other organizations. Dr. Milt Hakel is going to be an advocate at APS to promote SIOP more heavily. Dr. Latham is having a lot of discussion with Dr. Deb Cohen at SHRM. Now, some of our workshops are counting towards certification credits for SHRMS accreditation program.
Our third initiative involved the development of more website content. The website is now more liked by SIOP members. We also want to make it more useful to others. The visibility committee is working on an identity brochure. Some of this will probably go on hold until we really get into the public relations project.
Mr. Nershi mentioned one minor development. On the SIOP news page, there is a new fresh content page with stories that they are writing each week targeted for members. The front page is a general portal and is more focused on the general public. The science news page has more scientific rigor and is geared more toward members.
Finally, visibility is working on one of the parking lot issues – developing metrics to know they are achieving their goals. So, overall things are going along very well.
We have an action item on the table to support the pre conference media event at the Harvard Club. Ben Datner is plugged in here – appears regularly on radio and TV. He will invite local media to come and learn more about the importance of i-o. Decided to have a lunch rather than a cocktail party. This is a great way to make a splash in New York. We can do it for $1,000.
Dr. Colella passes a motion and Dr. Hough seconds. Dr. Cortina wondered what would happen if the price exceeded this, and Mr. Nershi said we’d have an emergency action item. We also have some money in the visibility budget. This passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: The EC will allocate $1,000 for the pre conference media event.
Dr. McHenry suggested we think about the committee structure in relation to these issues. A lot is falling on the visibility committee right now. We need to think about where things like our relationship with SHRM and the website content get parked over the long term. It was suggested that perhaps we reintroduce the APS/APA relations committee, but could broaden it to include other organizations. Dr. Finkelstein had suggested a joint venture between electronic communications and visibility for the website content. Dr. Hough also suggested we contribute to APA’s website, on the workplace part – we are not well represented. Dr. Knapp said they are about to redesign their website, so it might be a good time to become more present.
Dr. Colella then mentioned that the KARE committee won an award from the American Society of Association Executives. Dr. Tetrick suggested we have a TIP article to share this information.
Dr. McHenry asked if there were any more questions in regard to visibility? Dr. Hough asked if we had any sense of how much the PR firm is going to cost to develop a plan for branding. Mr. Nershi said they had a PR firm assist in St. Louis for a very short time line and it cost $2,500. –He said it could range from $25,000 to $200,000, depending on what they are doing.
The group closed the discussion of Visibility and turned to Advocacy.
Dr. Knapp began by discussing federal level advocacy. We’ve already talked about some of this today in terms of being more proactive. Often there are opportunities for basic researchers, but we could be able to show policy-makers the sexiness of applied research and how it could be good for everyone.
Moving to APA level advocacy, she wasn’t sure if Dr. Chen has met with anyone lately. Dr. Blanton met with Dan Abrahamson, the State level APA advocacy person. He can help us be more of a force at the state level. Dr. Barnes-Farrell met with Gwen Keita, and she will keep an eye out for things we are interested in. She also informed the group that she is far more responsive to the phone than email, and that we shouldn’t have over reliance on email. She sees lots of areas where our work can fit in.
Dr. Tetrick asked how we let our membership know about all this. Mr. Nershi said that earlier he was showing some folks what Amad has been doing with setting up links to the key strategic goals, each with the status report and people to contact. The administrator can update the area. The program is called SIOP Solutions.
Dr. Tetrick asked if we can have volunteers at the initiative level. Right now it is less clear where some of this advocacy stuff is going to fall cleanly, as we have no standing committee where it all fits like we do with some other things. We may end up needing a new Advocacy committee. Right now Dr. Knapp is helping to get these things started. She said she did talk to Dr. Reynolds about what visibility can take on vs. a new committee. The issue is that a lot of these things involve building long term relationships, which take a lot of energy and time.
Dr. Knapp got a call from Suzanne Wandersman, as a result of our communications with Heather Kelly, and wanted to organize something where the science divisions could discuss our shared interests are and bring these things to the council. Dr. Knapp co-chaired a special meeting at council hosted by the Science Directorate. A key message she brought to the other divisions is that Division 14 is the second largest division (with five representatives) and that we would like to work with other non-mental health care divisions to use our influence to better advantage than we have in the past,
Dr. Barnes-Farrell was working with the APA program committee a bit. Dr. Probst is doing exactly what we wanted, cross referencing in the program so you can be listed in different areas. This could attract people from other divisions, which can help us form some more cross division coalitions. A lot of cross division action depends on who you know. There was a change in the submission structure, where they asked for a second or third possible location on the program. So, something could have originated somewhere else and ended up with us.
Dr. Tetrick mentioned an interest in putting together a joint small grant. So far she talked to Stuart from division 13 and also Trauma psychology. There is a lot of willingness out there if you look for those things. Dr. Knapp echoed that feeling. There are caucuses at the council meeting – there are people who represent other groups who are also SIOP members, so in some ways we really have more than 5 reps. For example, Dr. Neal Schmitt is the new President Elect of division five.
It is difficult to get people to commit to several other meetings during the course of the year – it’s really a practical matter. Also, if you own a taskforce you can only be on it as long as you are a council member. Dr. Tetrick thought maybe you can carry over some things – perhaps in the future we could try to get people to run only if they agree to do this.
Dr. McHenry says when looking through this, we see we really need somebody to narrow down what are our four or five things we really want to get APA to do and follow up with that. Dr. Hough asked if people should rotate off of this every few years – this is a governance issue. It may be that we need something more ongoing, not just two year commitments of people on committees. Dr. Tetrick said that it is partially about personal relationships being built with people in these organizations, but it also about working relationships. We need to educate the membership that this is another way to be involved. The APA reps are part of the structure but not the whole thing.
Dr. Tetrick said it’s a good time to ask about CODAPAR. They are calling for nominations. Dr. Camara was on it, and we should nominate another EC person. This is the Committee on Division and APA Relations. They need to attend twice a year meetings and run the division leadership conference. It is a three year office, elected by APA board of directors. Dr. Cortina said he would be willing to run.
We also need nominations for boards and committees. The ethics committee is looking for nomination, and wants someone with experience in testing and assessment. Dr. Tetrick is on the board of scientific affairs. The Council reps can nominate, and also ask for friends in other divisions to nominate. Suggested that Dr. Vandeveer or Dr. Tippins or Dr. Macey would all be good and bring a lot of credibility.
At this point the conversation turned back to the Federation issue. Dr. Cortina said this is a long term commitment - we started it and we should finish it. Dr. McHenry reiterated that we need to have a mechanism to give them something important to promote. Dr. Cortina agreed that we need to choose a workplace issue that’s a national hot button topic and get people excited. When we figure out an agenda we can pursue it through the Federation, APA, and visibility, etc.
Dr. Knapp recognized she has been the most negative about the Federation, but she really wants to move forward on whatever will work for advocacy.
Dr. Colella pointed out that it still seems like so far no one is taking ownership of this.
Dr. Knapp added that we need to require that staff at the Federation and APA work together with SIOP and not be competing – Dr. Tetrick will have to give them some parameters.
Dr. McHenry returned to the idea of picking a topic and trying something specific. He agrees with Dr. Hough’s suggestion to advocate with the public, for funding, and with other psychologists. Dr. Knapp reminded the group we really need to be specific. What are we funding? Dr. McHenry said pick a topic. Dr. Hough said we might need representatives that have terms, perhaps associated with the scientific affairs committee. Dr. Kraiger thinks scientific affairs is currently lean with projects and people. We should perhaps form a subcommittee to look at a topic and think about short and long term objectives and have them crank on it.
Dr. Salas said he has a different view on this than others. He doesn’t think this is a committee thing, which is how we typically do things. This is a moment to moment, ongoing thing. The human factors rep has coffee and lunch with people, comes up with ideas, follows Washington hot topics. We are likely to end up behind. We need a new way to be successful. It is important to know people and build person relationships. Dr. McHenry stated that he is with him somewhat, but thinks maybe we need both.
Dr. Tetrick said that congressional staffers come up with a list of what’s going on, so we could look at what’s relevant to i-o and adjust our strategy to what is hot in congress. Mr. Nershi suggested we also think beyond simply holding events to exerting influence. We might have issues that come up through state affairs for example that we want to influence.
Dr. Salas said he still views this differently. When an opportunity comes up to do breakfast with congressional staffers, we need to work fast. It’s about networking. How would we get a member there? We need someone in Washington who is serious about this. He brought up the hot button issue of patient safety. Where are the i-o types? There is so much related to climate, teams, etc? We have to do something different.
Dr. Colella suggested Dr. Rich Klimoski, as he is in the area. Dr. Salas suggested maybe the incoming president and someone else local go on a three day tour of Washington. They need to meet with people and educate them, tell them how we want to operate, give them a number to call when opportunities arise. Perhaps the incoming President and Mr. Nershi go every year to meet with APA and APS and others and promote what we want them to do for the year. They all want buzz words and sound bites. We need to plug into their system.
Dr. Salas said that Heather Kelly organized a one day tour of NSF that he went on with Dr. John Hollenbeck. They got ten minutes to talk about stuff. This is how people get invited to be on panels, which helps people to get funded. It is important to do this every year because directors change every few years. Those are just some specific things but there are others.
Dr. Knapp thinks meeting in Washington regularly for the January EC meeting would be a good standard thing.
Dr. Salas pointed out that we need people who can be eloquent, and talk in the sound bites they like.Dr. Knapp suggested we put together a list of people in the DC area and maybe have a teleconference. Dr. Hough agreed this is a must-do. Dr. Dipboye also noted that we really could set an agenda about things that haven’t yet made it to legislative action.
Dr. McHenry followed up that it feels like we need a three to five year plan around advocacy. How are we going to sequence some activities. There have been 100 great suggestions. We need a timeline of what we are going to do with them. This will end up falling on Dr. Tetrick. We have no committee in charge. They’ve talked about this off line and fear that we have 100 separate activities with no common purpose. We need to pick a couple of things. Dr. Hough thinks we can do more than one or two. Dr. McHenry doesn’t want to kill any activities, and we do need more thought on who is doing what. This is the only thing without a cluster. This is not simple stuff. We need to deal with key influentials.
Now, he suggested, we tactically need to make a decision about the Federation.
Dr. Dipboye strongly urged us to stay involved with the Federation. He made a motion to retain our membership. Dr. Salas mentioned he thinks this could become the main charter of scientific affairs. Dr. Kraiger seconded the motion, but then discussion continued.
It is very important we have champions for this – it will be useless with no bite. Dr. Chen is rotating off of scientific affairs now. Adrienne liked the idea of Dr. Klimoski being a champion. Dr. Tetrick said to send her suggestions and she’d think about it. If the right people are involved it doesn’t matter what committee it lands under. This will become part of the governance question.
The motion on the table is to fund the $28,000 in dues to the Federation for the year, and to recommend to the incoming president that we assign a person to head the committee to champion our advocacy program. The question was raised as to how we determine who is the representative – will Dr. Ilgen and Dr. Campbell be involved, or other folks? Dr. Tetrick suggested that as we explore potential folks we get a five year commitment from them – if they aren’t willing to take that on then they probably aren’t interested to the level that we need.
Back to the motion – above Dr. Dipboye made the motion and Dr. Kraiger seconded. It now passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: The EC approves dues of $28,000 to the Federation, with the expectation that the incoming president will appoint someone to champion the advocacy initiatives.
Next, we turned back to state advocacy. We need a rejuvenated state affairs committee. Dr. Abrahamson wants just one i-o psychologist to join the state association in each state – that can help a lot. We could put together an article that goes into state newsletters about what we do.
Another initiative was i-o education in advocacy. Education and Training are now developing a module about grant writing.
Dr. Dipboye asked if anyone else was feeling a sense of diffusion here. We’ve talked about resurrecting APA/APS, then we have the APA council reps, then an advocacy action group, state affairs, etc. – these are all under different clusters. Dr. Knapp agreed maybe we need one committee, and they eventually could also address concerns about nominating people for boards of different organizations.
Discussion shifted to the APA council. Controversy about interrogation has still been the big topic at APA. There is nothing really relevant to share. It was noted that in the American Psychologist special issue on leadership there were some i-o people – Dr. Avolio, Dr. Zaccarro, Dr. Vroom. However, Dr. Pearlman noted that Dr. Sternberg, who organized it, made a statement that leadership has been ignored by psychology.
The conversation next switched to the strategic membership initiatives.
As Dr. Bauer could not be present at the meeting, Dr. Finkelstein presented Dr. Bauer’s information. Things are moving ahead on several initiatives. In relation to targeting those with core values, the membership committee is contacting past members to invite them back. Toward the inclusion initiatives, work is being done by the electronic communications committee in developing a newsletter to keep everyone updated. This will work in conjunction with the SIOP calendar, announcing important dates and having links to important information. Some other inclusion initiatives will take place at the conference, including ambassadors at the registration area, and specific invitations to CEMA, LGBT, and International to attend the new member reception.
One important initiative that Dr. Bauer wanted to get the EC opinion on is a planned overhaul of the volunteer process. Essentially we are lucky that so many of our members want to volunteer. Unfortunately the process hasn’t worked so smoothly – currently interested members mail or fax a form to the AO to express interest. They want to change this by creating an electronic format that will allow for more information about the committees and the volunteers to lead to a better match. The new form would have a description of the committees who currently needed volunteers, and expected time commitments and busy periods. The applicants could also indicate special qualifications that would be of value to the committee. An active volunteer recruitment period would be established. Names will be organized from the application and given to the committee chairs, along with a statement about diversity and inclusiveness. Applicants selected and not selected would be contacted. Those not selected would be thanked and informed their form would be kept on file.
Dr. Knapp asked if volunteers for APA and APS committees could be solicited this way as well?
Dr. Kraiger brought up a relevant governance issue. Do we want to distinguish between task forces, committees, and roles? A task force is short term and lean – they do their job and disband. Maybe we need more task forces and fewer committees. There also might be room for roles of individuals. For example, the Washington guy we discussed for human factors is a role. So, we may want to consider that volunteers may want to serve in different capacities.
Dr. McHenry didn’t think we had to vote on the volunteer issue, but suggested we have Dr. Bauer create a subcommittee to move this forward.
Another proposal brought forth by membership is the formation of an Institutional Resource Group. Dr McHenry added some explanation here. This is related to the metrics initiative that came out of the membership group in September. They want to have a committee think strategically about creating and maintaining a data base. The IRC would also help determine who can have access to this data.
Dr. McHenry said that we should have Dr. Bauer set up a task force to recommend people for this initiative who have done this kind of stuff in the past. Dr. Tetrick mentioned Dr. Ron Downey and Dr. Bob Lewis.
Dr. Knapp said the description sounds like we are looking for a way to manage our data, not necessarily a group to conduct institutional research. Dr. McHenry agreed this is primarily about archival data. Dr. Knapp suggested that the word Data go into the title to make this more specific. She also suggested that Dr. Putka at HumRRO could be a possibility. Another name that came up was Dr. Cathy Higgs.
Dr. McHenry next switched gears in relation to the LGBT award. We will need to provide Dr. Pugh with some guidance for the plenary session – who comes on stage for awards and who doesn’t? Perhaps we should have a policy that only career awards go on stage – awards for specific projects can be announced, and we can show the winner’s picture and they can stand. Dr. McHenry suggested we run this by Dr. Bono and Dr. Pugh.
Next, the governance initiatives were discussed. Dr. Finkelstein reported that she is working on collecting information toward the master calendar. This will have views for important dates for the EC, for awards recommendations, for the conference, and for elections.
Dr. Kraiger reported on the governance group he is heading. Everyone he contacted is excited and honored to be involved. The names include Dr. Dick Jeanneret, Dr. Irv Goldstein, Dr. Marcia Avedon, Dr. Rich Klimoski, Dr. Jeff Weekley, Dr. Elaine Pulakos, Dr. Janet Barnes-Farrell, Dr. Jim Farr, Dr. Milt Hakel, Dr. Laura Koppes, Dr. Mickey Quinones, and Dr. John Cornwell.
There are several issues they are thinking about. There is a lack of alignment with the strategic plan. There are inconsistencies with the role of the cluster coordinators. There is a lack of international representation. There is an issue with nimbleness in responding to new issues.
The plan is to come to the meeting a year from now with specific prescriptions to be voted on. The final product will reflect what the role of governance is, how it should be constituted. All the nitty gritty will be there, including all the new committees. Mr. Nershi provided the group with a special issue of a periodical on association leaderships. Several other societies have gone through this. This committee will meet at the conference. They will look at what information they will need to be able to respond to this. They will benchmark what other similar size societies will do.
Dr. McHenry called the group to recess at 4:40 pm.
Dr. McHenry called the group back on Sunday morning at (yawn) 8:05 am.
He said we had a handful of items to cover this morning, beginning with the journal. He thanked Dr. Sackett for joining us to give a report.
Dr. Sackett assumed we all read the materials and walked us through the highlights. As a recap, over the last year an RFP went to five publishers. Even though it is seen as generally not a good time to start a journal, all responded and showed excitement, which was a good sign for what we are doing.
We want a quarterly journal that SIOP will own. We want it to be delivered cheaply. A committee was formed made up of Dr. Sackett, Dr. Hough, Dr. Pearlman, and Mr. Nershi. They reviewed and discussed the initial proposals. After a long and iterative process, they decided to take Elsevier out of the running. Also at this point they took Erlbaum out.
So, the three remaining were Blackwell, APA, and Sage.
Dr. Sackett proceded to review the relative merits of these three publishers, and provide the group with a written breakdown of what the terms of each contract would look like. He ran the numbers with the different projections provided by all three publishers to see which publisher would be giving us the best deal under a variety of conditions. At this point it got down to APA and Blackwell looking strongest.
Mr. Nershi mentioned we may want to do some promotional things, and editorial board meetings might come out of costs. There could be a staff member partly responsible for working with the editor. The EC previously has agreed to funding this with a dues increase. We are not writing a check and then working on the income side. Dr. Kraiger said this was helpful to know because when we first started to talk about the journal it was presented as a money maker for SIOP, but here this is looking like a money loser. Mr. Nershi reiterated that the cost would come from dues increases, and we would net the actual profit. SIOP has been doing more things – the dues increase will be partly to cover journal expenses but also for other things we do.
Dr. Cortina asked for an estimate of the editorial cost. This is not a traditional journal with hundreds of manuscripts to review. This is targeted, with a small number of people, but it involves the editor working closely with them. He assumed this would be less expensive than costs of a typical journal. Dr. Cortina said that even with a conservative estimate of costs, whatever the costs are, it looks from the table like we will be in the hole. It was clarified that if we take $10,000 in costs off the revenue projection, if we raise dues we will still be making money.
So, to sum up, the recommendation is for Blackwell. They have a good marketing plan, stronger presence, more uniform praises, a bit less of a risk, and clear independence with the publisher compared to with APA. Dr. Sackett did note that there is more of a chance things will go worse than better than expected. Libraries are all worried about budgets – Minnesota wanted to cancel their subscription to all APA journals!
Dr. Salas asked for a reminder of our current dues. They are $55 dollars for members and $25 for students. Dr. Hough mentioned that it was always our intention to have a dues increase. We don’t have to, but that was the intention. Mr. Nershi said we’d put ourselves at risk if we don’t.
Dr. Tetrick asked how much of the projection reflects SIOP membership. Would the bulk of revenue come from nonmembers and institutional subscriptions? Dr. Hough mentioned people would pay for downloads of articles, and that is included there.
Dr. Pearlman asked that whatever we decide here about the journal, is the dues increase part of this vote? Dr. Sackett said that we had discussed this a year ago. We could pay for this from some other method but that wasn’t the intention. But, the dues increase is not to be part of this motion.
It was asked if the bylaws would have to be changed. Mr. Nershi noted that we have already changed them to allow changes by electronic ballot. It was suggested that we increase to $70 for members and $35 for students.
Dr. Cortina mentioned that not everyone will see value in this. Dr. Hough suggested we think about a gradual increase, but Dr. Cortina says we’ve discussed this in the past and it seems to be much better to just get one increase out of the way or there would be continued grumbling.
Mr. Nershi suggested we have some time to do education before the issue needs to come up. Dr. Pearlman still isn’t sure if this is a separate decision. Does it make sense to deal with the journal as an issue separate from a dues adjustment? Mr. Nershi reminded the group that in the decision to approve the journal there was an understanding that we would decide on an amount of dues increase at a future date.
Dr. Salas asked for a refresher on the structure of the journal. Dr. Sackett is editor, and the content is largely initiated but will be reviewed and not guaranteed. We are open to contributions from people who send things in, but we are mostly creating the content. A call goes out for commentary, both open and targeted. the commentaries are reviewed as well, and a good many probably will not be accepted.
The first step to submission is a short proposal of what one wants to write. We don’t want 6 people making the same point. There will be a lot of learning as we go as to how it will work.
Dr, Dipboye asked if this is hard copy or electronic – it will be both.
Dr. Cortina asked if our model is similar to other journals that use this format. Dr. Sackett said yes generally it is, although we aren’t sure what they do with the details of the commentary review. Our goal is broader inclusion.
The first focal article will be employee engagement. We will need a mechanism for announcing to people they can read the paper in advance of publication to write commentaries. It is a little weird, because many people will have read the paper before the journal actually comes out. People could come out of the woodwork on this, it will be interesting to see. If we wanted, we could push this further so that we could have additional online commentary and blogging developing from the issues.
This will all be on the publisher website, not ours. Online usage is counted and monitored through the publisher website, and the number of downloads is used to determine information for SSCI. It is very important to go through traditional channels. The SIOP website would have to make some changes to handle the blogging stuff we are mentioning. Dr. McHenry reminded the group that a person can have two browser windows open, especially with Vista! (much laughing)
Dr. Kraiger is a little concerned – he likes the idea of online blogging but also when first talking about this, we asked if a junior faculty member publishes a commentary, will it count as a publication for tenure? Who will know the difference between a blog commentary and a real one. What if people pay more attention to the blogs and respond to them – is that science and scholarly activity? At some point we need to give more thought to this.
Dr. Cortina makes the motion to accept the committee’s recommendation to enter into contract negotiations on the 7 year contract with the 3 year extension option. Dr. Hough seconds the motion.
Dr. McHenry makes a friendly amendment that we will vote in April on a dues increase that will offset the costs. Dr. Tetrick makes a friendly amendment to make that a separate motion instead of a friendly amendment.
More discussion ensued. Dr. Salas asked about whether we have a transition plan for choosing editors in the future. Dr. Kraiger said he saw it as part of Dr. Sackett’s charge to choose the next editor. No one had thought much about succession yet.
Dr. Knapp said she remembered thinking this was a big risk at first with everything else going on, but now she is convinced we are in a position to be risk takers and we will have to convey that to the membership too. Dr. Dipboye thinks the critical discussion should be on the dues. Mr. Nershi reiterated that we can’t do this with our current operating budget.
Turning back to the vote, the motion passes with 11 in favor and one abstention.
ACTION ITEM: We accept the committee’s recommendation to enter into contract negotiations with Blackwell for the 7 year proposal with the 3 year extension option.
Between now and the April meeting some business and financial issues will be worked out, and we can look at the dues increase and editorial expenses. Dr. Sackett will be the editorial office, supported by a staff person in Bowling Green. We already approved a new hire for the AO with a communications specialty.
Dr. McHenry asked if Dr. Sackett wanted to think about his editorial term. He thinks the EC should do that – he can be part of the discussion but it isn’t his final decision. Dr. McHenry says we need to have financials tied down including the stipend and the editorial picture, including term length. Dr. Hough suggested we could use a similar process that we used to choose Dr. Sackett. It was an accomplishment record approach. They used current journal editors to get information about what is needed in an editor, got applicants, sent out an accomplishment record for them to compete in the critical areas, and then had evaluations. Dr. Hough suggested we go back to that group to get volunteers to think about this idea for the future. She will send this information to Mr. Nershi.
Dr. McHenry said we would need to put in the administrative manual how they will be selected, and who they are accountable to. We will also need a business model documented around this to help contribute to the dues decision. Dr. Kraiger said he can think about this too with governance. Dr. Dipboye thinks we will need bylaws changes around this.
Dr. Kraiger asked if there would be the potential for advertising with the journal, like on the back cover. Dr. Hough suggested that this come up in contract negotiations, in case Blackwell wants to put their own thing there. It might be valuable for us to have our own information there if we can, perhaps promoting membership or the conference.
Dr. McHenry asked Dr. Pearlman to work on the financials that would include the dues increase, and then we need to figure out if the bylaws would need to be changed when this is reflected in the administrative manual. Dr. Dipboye and Mr. Nershi will work on this together.
Everyone thanked Dr. Sackett for his hard work. Before ending the discussion, it was asked what is wrong with JIOP? It was suggested that this doesn’t allow for other journals (except, Another JIOP, or JIOP: The Sequel). Another suggestion was the Interactive Journal of i-o Psychology.
Dr. McHenry said we have five things left to do today.
The first one relates to the executive director performance appraisal process. We are working on documenting this to include all the people who will be involved. Essentially, at the end of the fiscal year the president will review the ED’s performance. The president elect will set goals with the ED for the upcoming year. We will document the number of individuals we will need to talk to to get performance information. The president, president elect, and financial officer will decide on the appropriate salary increase, based partially on salary survey information gleaned from the financial officer. We will get this process into the administrative manual. It is nice how this engages both the outgoing and incoming president, and the financial officer for his/her three year term. Also, the ED remains in partnership, helping to specify performance dimensions. We will get this in the administrative manual in the next couple of months.
Dr. Knapp suggested that ASAE has tools that might be help. Mr. Nershi thinks he is in good hands with this group.
The next items is the conference program book proposal. In a nutshell we spend an awful lot of money to send out the printed program to every member of SIOP. Only about half attend, and although we like to think they put the book on the shelf, many through it away. They benchmarked with other organizations, and many only send it to those who register.
The proposal is to mail the printed program to all who register by the early registration deadline. If someone requests it it can be sent out for a nominal charge. It is also online in two formats as well. This will save us $14,000. Even if it wasn’t for the cost effectiveness, environmentally this is a good change to make. Dr. McHenry said this essentially makes up for a one year cost of the journal if we think of it that way.
The EC endorses this, no vote needed.
The next item concerns sunsetting. It is part of our bylaws that after some period the LRP is supposed to be sunsetted. We brought this up before when we were just beginning to talk of governance changes, and tabled the LRP sunset. Again, the LRP hasn’t taken inventory of sunsetting this year. Given that we are about to take a big look at our committee structure, it is probably not a good use of time to do formal sunset reviews. If everyone is amenable, we can vote to table sunset reviews until the governance task force brings forth recommendations.
Dr. Tetrick recommended putting a date on this. In January of 2008 we should have our final governance plan. Dr. McHenry pointed out that the governance review is really like a sunset of every committee. Dr. Cortina joked that he got off of LRP just in time.
The proposal is not to do any sunsets in this or next operating year, and the governance proposal will include a plan to move forward with this.
Dr. Dipboye expressed concern with suspending the bylaws. Dr. Knapp views this as a giant sunset – in spirit we are following the bylaws. Dr. McHenry says within the letter of the law Dr. Kraiger can say that all these committees are due for sunsetting and the final decision will take place pending the work of the review committee. Dr. Cortina agreed that the bylaws don’t specify exactly how we do a sunset, so this works within the bylaws.
Dr. Barnes-Farrell made a motion that we do not sunset any committees until after the report of the governance task force in January of 2008. Dr. Cortina seconds. Motion passes unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS: No committees will be sunsetted until after the report of the governance task force in January of 2008.
The next item concerns the instant poll on the website. The AO created this for member engagement. However, the quality of the poll has been uneven. Mr. Nershi said when he’s been busier some things could slip through. The issue is, how do people feel about these unscientific polls on our website?
Dr. Pearlman said when he first saw the new website and saw an article from SHRM and a poll, he had to check his bookmark. Anything we have out there implies endorsement. What is the image we want to convey? This implies instant polls are ok and reliable. He gets that the idea is to have fun, but not sure about this.
Mr. Nershi recognizes it is more of a web toy, perhaps making people more likely to stay on the website to see what’s there. But, these concerns hit home. We don’t want to look like a dot com HR firm.
Dr. McHenry suggested alternative ideas to make the website fun and interactive, but also educational. For example, we could have some kind of quiz. Perhaps program directors could get grad students to create a knowledge item about i-o – people could click on the answer and there would be a brief explanation, and maybe credit who submitted it.
Some ideas about this circulated, and in the end since there was not time for a long discussion, Mr. Nershi said they would revise the polls and look into the quiz idea.
Our final discussion point is the SIOP foundation donation issue. We left the discussion with the option of a general contribution of earmarking for something that normally comes from our operating expenses. Dr. Hough said after the journal discussion and visibility proposal for PR, and the mystery about the impact of the 3 day conference, she has concerns about all these unknowns, as well as all the opportunities. Could we go forward with a smaller donation? The spirit will still be there.
Dr. Cortina asked if we could get the foundations thoughts about what they could do with this and discuss it more in April. Mr. Nershi suggested that from the revenue of a $150,000 donation we could pay expenses for the junior faculty, masters, and doctoral consortium –these could be subsidized. This is just one way to frame it. Dr. McHenry said we should defer this until Dr. Pearlman gets information from them about possible designated uses. Dr. Tetrick wants to know how much leeway we have to tag it for something we are doing ourselves – it doesn’t seem quite right.
Dr. McHenry had two final things to say. First, he noted this was Dr. Hough’s last meeting on the EC. He thanked her for all her mentoring and coaching. Much applause. Also, this is Dr. Kraiger’s last meeting as well, but we will continue to see him in the future with the governance committee. He was thanked for all his great contributions – much applause there as well.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 AM.
Respectfully (and exhaustedly) submitted,
Dr. Lisa Finkelstein