CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS
President Salas called the meeting to order at 3:12 p.m. EST. He welcomed Dr. Thayer to his first meeting. He acknowledged the last meeting for Dr. Kraiger and thanked him for his service on the board. He also congratulated Dr. Reynolds for his recent election as president-elect of SIOP. He also gave a brief summary of the presidential coins initiative. A few board members have passed out coins and need to send their choices to him with the reasons they gave the coins.
Dr. McPhail explained the financial report. SIOP’s assets have increased this year. Part of this is because some of our reserved funds in the operating budget were put into investment reserves. At the September meeting, the board approved an asset plan and we are almost finished implementing it. Our income is down $10,000 dollars from last year. That’s due to changing our membership due date. The annual conference represents 40% of SIOP’s revenues. We are $3,000 ahead in conference ads because eShow’s model encourages people to pay for things sooner. Regarding the Leading Edge Consortium (LEC), our revenues from 2008-present have gradually decreased. We came in $30,000 under projected revenues in 2010. Mr. Nershi was able to bring expenses down so we only had a $15,000 loss. There was some discussion as to the reasons LEC attendance is down and possible solutions, which will be discussed later in the meeting.
Dr. McPhail explained a proposal for a new budgeting process. Our current budget cycle puts us six months behind the curve. We don’t have a final budget approved until September and sometimes not even then because of changes. Our fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, so we should have a budget in place by July 1. We now require committees to submit budgets in April. We allow people until August to change their budget proposals, but in the meantime we are already in the budget year. This new budget cycle proposal puts pressure on people to get budgets in quicker. This puts a premium on zero-based budgeting because people have to justify what they want to spend for the year. We would look at the preliminary budget in April and vote by e-mail or web to approve the budget by July first.
We would tell the committee chairs to look at this new budget process. Dr. McPhail said we would push them to ask for more money, if necessary, earlier. Dr. Reynolds noted that right now we have about half the committee chairs turning over around the time the estimate would be due. These new chairs might not know what they need for the year. Mr. Nershi suggested virtual training for chairs by placing things online and tracking to make sure they are used. Then we would have training in April. Incoming and outgoing chairs also need to talk to one another. Dr. Reynolds said the portfolio officers should play a more important role, too.
Dr. Thayer asked if we have ever considered a January 1 budget year. Dr. McPhail said we can look into it. Dr. Weiss mentioned that we need to be careful we aren’t overly punitive on the budget due to negligence of committee chairs. Could everything that was not budgeted get put into a pool in case the chairs think of something throughout the year? Dr. Tsacoumis said the portfolio officer should step in if the chair doesn’t submit a budget. Dr. McPhail suggested creating a contingency fund, but first seeing if the chairs will look at their budgets. Dr. McPhail moved to accept the changes in the budget that would include looking at the preliminary budget in April and voting by e-mail or web to approve the budget by July first.
Dr. Tsacoumis seconded it. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved the new budget process that would include looking at the preliminary budget in April and voting by e-mail or web to approve the final budget by July first.
Dr. McPhail said he will train the incoming chairs in April on the new budget. Dr. Kraiger suggested we put the training materials in a document to keep track of it. Mr. Nershi said the SIOP office will do this. President Salas also mentioned that Dr. Bill Byham is in RH Magazine. This is something we should cover for SIOP members.
Dr. Kraiger moved to accept the consent agenda. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved the following in the consent agenda:
- Approval of two corporate resolutions to open a checking account and Money Market account
Board went into executive session at 3:50 p.m. to discuss Fellows recommendations. Board came out of executive session at 4:57. Dr. Tsacoumis moved to approve the recommendations of the fellowship committee. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed with one abstention.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved recommendations of the Fellowship committee.
STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS UPDATE
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
SIOP Response to APA on MLA Issue/CRSPPP Update. Dr. Brannick updated the board on the SIOP response to APA on the MLA. There is a letter to send to the APA. There was discussion of specific changes to be made. There was discussion about whether the letter clarifies that I-O psychologists do not provide services to individuals and would be exempt. SHRM and CCL made the same argument that coaches work for the benefit of organizations. The board also needs to make sure the letter is clear that this is our interpretation. We also don’t want to appear we are speaking for other groups. The letter will come from President Salas. The board agreed that when he signs the letter, it is on behalf of the membership. President Salas suggested Dr. Brannick sign it too, on behalf of the committee. Dr. Brannick said she would discuss this with him. She said she now needs to know what groups to send this to. The task force will prepare a list. Dr. McPhail said he is reluctant to involve organizations outside of APA. Dr. Brannick said she envisions a cover letter to accompany the response and that the majority of the task force thinks we need to go broader than APA. There was discussion about the benefits of sending the letter to non-I-O psychologists. President Salas thanked Dr. Brannick for her work.
Coaching Consortium Proposal. Dr.Peterson explained that a few years ago SIOP decided to put something together relating to coaching. The committee came back and said we should not certify people, so Dr. Gary Latham went to Dr. Doug Riddle and asked if we could train people. Dr. Riddle said yes, but how? The committee came up with the idea that SIOP endorses a set of best practices that are managed by some of the top consulting firms. Three part proposal: 1.) SIOP endorses the committee’s Leadership Coaching Consortium (LCC) proposal. Organizations that agree to abide by a set of best practices criteria will be able to have the Leadership Coaching Consortium stamp of approval. 2.) What can we do to support individuals who are not a part of the large consulting firms? We struggle with how to say that a certain particular coach has our stamp of approval. 3.) What type of training can we do? The LCC would want to partner with SIOP to make sure something happens.
Dr. Peterson explained that some organizations are now asking people to have International Coaching Federation (ICF) certification. ICF certification doesn’t have anything to do with business or psychology. We say we are better qualified, but clients are looking for an easy idea of how good of a coach someone is. It’s easy to get a certification from ICF, and our skills are better. We’re saying someone who meets our criteria will be a better coach. There was more discussion of the different steps and whether coaches provide services to. Dr. McPhail said that if we go ahead with number one and not number two in the list, sole practitioners will be mad that there is nothing in this for them. Dr. Peterson said one of the advantages of endorsing consulting firms is that it can be for small or large firms, but we still have not come up with a way for SIOP to help individuals. He continued, saying any approach to look at this with individuals has a lot of overhead and a lot more of a time commitment and that this consortium is already in place.
Dr. Peterson explained that a company would get a stamp of approval from the Consortium and they would become members of the Consortium. SIOP would be endorsing a set of principles that are part of the Consortium. SIOP wouldn’t make any money off this, but it doesn’t cost anything. Dr. Weiss asked if we can endorse this for a year with the provision that if you don’t come up with something to apply to individual practitioners we will not endorse it further. Dr. Peterson said that’s a good idea. Divisions 13 will be voting on this at the end of the month. Dr. Highhouse showed concern that we are endorsing criteria for a practice that lacks an evidence base. Dr. Peterson said there is an evidence base, but we are not speaking to that. We are speaking to the criteria. Dr. Reynolds asked if SIOP has a policy on endorsements. Mr. Nershi said we have endorsed the standards for psychological testing. Dr. McPhail asked if there are legal implications for SIOP if we endorse this and people don’t follow through on the criteria. Dr. Peterson explained that SIOP would not be endorsing the LCC. We would be endorsing the criteria and standards the Consortium uses.
President Salas recessed the meeting at 7 p.m. President Salas reconvened meeting at 8:05 a.m.
Coaching Consortium Proposal. (cont.). Dr.Peterson explained the proposal again. Dr. Colella asked that it be reflected in the minutes that in a year there will be an effort to see how this applies to small firms and individuals. Dr. Peterson moved that the board endorse the criteria standards for the Leadership Coaching Consortium for one year with the provision that after that year, the consortium is expected to approach the board with a proposal to apply to individual practitioners. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded it. Drs. Reynolds, Peterson and McPhail abstained. Dr. Highhouse voted no. Motion passed.
ACTION ITEM: The board endorsed the standards for the Leadership Coaching Consortium for one year with the provision that after that year, the consortium is expected to approach the board with a proposal to apply to individual practitioners.
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE (cont.)
Proposal to Sponsor International Review of I-O Psychology. Dr.Highhouse explained this is an annual book series that has chapters reviewing content areas in I-O psychology. It has been around for a while. There is some concern this series is not getting cited enough. It doesn’t come up on literature searches. The editors are having trouble getting people to write chapters. The publishers want to transform this into an annual journal as a review of I-O like the Annals of Psychology. They want SIOP branding, for it to become a SIOP journal but maintaining the current editors. It would stand alongside the IOP journal as one of the SIOP journals. They aren’t asking us for money, just our brand.
Dr. Hakel explained the publishers would like SIOP members to get a journal as a member benefit or make it available to members at a discounted rate. If we give it to members it will cost us, but if we give them a discount it won’t. Mr. Nershi added that one part of the proposal says there would be a fee to provide it online to members. They want it to be a strictly online publication. President Salas said the Publication Board will meet in three weeks. Maybe we should discuss this then. Dr. Weiss suggested discussing what niche this would fill for SIOP members. If they weren’t able to make this publication relevant in 25 years, maybe there is nothing we can do to help with branding it.
Dr. McPhail added that he is not opposed to further discussion on the topic. In their proposal, the publishers make it very clear that this is a low risk opportunity. They aren’t asking any money and said they would help us if it lost money so we don’t owe them anything. If we have editorial power, we can make sure the content is good. This is a real low risk proposition, but the benefits might be good. Dr. Hakel suggested other opportunities this might present. Maybe they would be willing to cut the per member fees they charge us for IOP in half. Maybe we need to explore the whole situation as a whole with IOP. This could improve our relationship with Wiley. President Salas concluded that this will be sent to publication board to be reviewed again in April.
Organizational Science You Can Use Book Series Update. Dr. Highhouse explained that this is the book series Dr. Gary Latham started. Dr. Denise Rousseau was supposed to be the founding editor and lost interest. Then we recruited Lise Saari and Ed Locke. There were difficulties with things that had already been written but didn’t fit with the new vision of the series. We concluded it was time to start from scratch. Lise said the contract with APA didn’t look like the publication she had been asked to edit. The Publication Board decided they wanted to discuss a new vision for this series as well as the APA Annual Review series. President Salas said he told current authors we have put everything on hold. Now he has all of the chapters and will take them to the Publications Board to see if there is something we can use for something else. Dr. Colella asked about the original APA contract. President Salas said it was to do something like the Annual Review of I-O Psychology book. APA loved the idea and they gave us a contract very quickly. Dr. Kraiger said the first drafts under Denise Rousseau were not what she was looking for. It wasn’t about the quality; it was the way it was written. She tried to explain to the authors that she wanted this to be for practitioners. Dr. Saari added that we need an editor who can help with that. President Salas said the chapters that are written are very academic. It’s difficult to get actionable items out of them. We’ll have updates in April.
TIP: Rename Editorial Board to Columnists and Add Review Board. Dr.Hakel moved
to accept the proposal by TIP Editor Lisa Steelman to rename the TIP Editorial Board to “Columnists” and create an ad hoc Review/Editorial Board. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved proposal to rename the TIP Editorial Board to “Columnists” and create an ad hoc Review/Editorial Board.
PP Editorial Board: Josey-Bass Not Sufficiently Marketing Books. Dr. Highhouse said some people are complaining that Josey-Bass isn’t sufficiently marketing books. President Salas asked is this was something we need to discuss with Josey-Bass. This is the publisher for the Professional Practice series, not the Organizational Frontiers series. Dr. Kraiger said Josey-Bass has written a response on what they are doing to market the journal. The Board discussed some of the problems authors seem to encounter getting the word out about their books. Dr. McPhail said that in some cases, it wasn’t clear to him what Josey-Bass was doing to promote the books. President Salas said we will leave this for the Publications Board to discuss.
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE (cont.)
LEC Revamp Committee Report. Dr. Tsacoumis presented a report on a potential revamping of the Leading Edge Consortium (LEC). Some past LEC chairs were surveyed and said the purpose was to focus on practitioners. Other people said they thought the focus was to bring science and practice together. Some said it was hard to find a topic for this purpose. Also, if we target the audience on a specific topic, then maybe 150 is the right number of people. President Salas said that while he believes the LEC is for practitioners, it is also a place to showcase that our science has relevance. Dr. Leaetta Hough wanted a practitioner-based forum. Dr. Brannick explained that part of Leaetta Hough’s vision was for it to be a way to promote our science and practice to those outside of SIOP, but it seems very SIOP practitioner oriented instead. Dr. Kraiger said the coaching LEC drew a large number of locals. I think the draw was that this is science and best practice on coaching from a large professional organization. For the 2011 LEC, we should focus on the leading edge component to show who we are and what we give to the workplace.
There was discussion about how the LEC is marketed. Mr. Nershi explained that we develop a marketing plan and look at the topic to see who might be interested in it. We market heavily to SHRM, other divisions, and corporations who might be interested. We have very little advertising money and we send a lot of targeted e-mails. Dr. Kraiger added that at the beginning of the 2010 LEC, they polled people asking how many were coming to the LEC for the first time. It is a completely new group each year. 95% of the attendees are attending their first LEC. Dr. McPhail said he was struck by the fact that a lot of local people came to the Cincinnati one. It makes me think the site might be a bigger issue than we are accounting for. Mr. Nershi said we try to pick a location with a couple of I-O institutions nearby. It’s tricky that the topic changes each year, so there might be an LEC in someone’s hometown, but they won’t go because it isn’t their topic area. The 2010 LEC had 111 attendees. It was a little disappointing. I do believe if we did something on selection and assessment each year that you could have 200-300 attendees, but I don’t know if we want to limit our topics. There was discussion of multiple themes versus one theme. Dr. Reynolds added that one of the struggles was that the topic tended to be picked very late and thus the speakers were quite late, so you don’t have the headliners that you can market. President Salas said the thought behind forming this review committee is to start planning the LEC earlier. Dr. Kraiger said he thinks the LEC should be practice focused. Dr. Hakel added that one of the original intents was for early to midlevel members to attend. The idea was to reach people when they are trying to decide what they want to specialize in.
Dr. Tsacoumis summarized that expectations should be 100-150 attendees. We want it practice-oriented. We also have a recommendation that the past president should be involved but not necessarily the chair. Dr. Tsacoumis added that a lot of people like the idea of a science and practice chair, but some of the past presidents said it was hard to find a science chair if it was a practice topic, etc. President Salas suggested including the workshops committee on this for input. The LEC Revamp Committee should come back in April with a more formal proposal and a suggestion of who could be the chair. Dr. Peterson added that we need to pick topics people specialize in. Dr. Kraiger added that with the 2011 virtual workforce topic, he pushed for something drew from a lot of different areas, but if that perspective is not right, we should have a discussion on topic assignment. Dr. Peterson added we should choose the topic while considering who to market it to.
Research Accessibility for Practitioners. Dr. Brannick explained that Dr. Rich Cober put together an informal proposal of how to help practitioners get access to research. They want us to look over the proposal so they can move forward on one of the six channels for getting research there. Ask: Do you believe this issue is worth pursuing? When you look at the channels, are there any that would be off limits to us? President Salas asked about using the practice wiki. The groups discussed adding a link to I-O at Work onto the website. The board discussed the original purpose of the wiki. The board gave feedback on the channels and Dr. Brannick thanked them.
SIOP Response to Proposed Testing Standards. Dr. Allen said we have until April 20 to provide comments on the draft. We need to appoint a group to review it and make any comments on behalf of SIOP. We have also appointed a committee to review the Principles. We already have people on that committee who should not be on the standards testing committee. We need to appoint the committee. Drs. Kevin Murphy has volunteered as well as Steve Stark. I’m open to more suggestions. Drs. Jose Cortina and Bill Bobcat were suggested as well. Four or five people will be on the committee. Drs. Chuck Piers and Chris Banks were also suggested. Kevin Murphy is asking to be a chair. There will not be much time to make members aware of this afterward, so we need to make members aware of this while the committee is doing their work. President Salas said we need to send an announcement to our membership. Dr. Allen said she thinks it is already up on the web. We will post it for comment after it is written.
ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH
External Affairs Officer Travel to EAWOP. Dr. Foster Thompson explained that the External Affairs officer oversees the International Affairs Committee. Do we see this officer’s role as useful in the context of these types of conferences? It’s not just about sending the officer to EAWOP this year but a conversation about how we see the role of the officer. There was discussion about sending representatives of SIOP to Alliance conferences. Dr. Hakel said part of the question is the extent to which SIOP wants to be internationally driven. I think being more international is something we want to pursue. Dr. Weiss said he thinks this isn’t the right place to put that role. We need someone else. Dr. Kraiger said the only funding we have right now for international travel is the presidential travel budget. Dr. McPhail said this is about determining what budget request we want to approve. If there’s a budget request from International Affairs, we would go through the budget approval process for that committee. Dr. Colella said we need to know where to draw the line. We can’t send everyone abroad.
EAWOP is in May, so if we are going to approve it, we need to now. There was more discussion of the budget and whether or not SIOP should set aside money for this in the future. Dr. Highhouse asked why SIOP doesn’t have a diplomat fund for things like this. There was discussion of the SIOP president’s role as diplomat. Dr. Kraiger recommended that External Affairs looks at creating a standing budget for travel and state a case for it. The board will then look at this in the budget review process. There was discussion about who SIOP will be sending to represent us in future cases. The president can’t go to all of them. Dr. Thayer said we need to decide whether we want the International Affairs Officer to have the role of a diplomat for SIOP. Dr. Kraiger suggested the board decide that this is not a good use of our funds this year. We can start the discussion of future diplomatic positions when we discuss the three delegates to send to a yearly conference for the Alliance. President Salas asked that Dr. Foster Thompson come back in April with a proposal for how to move forward. Dr. Colella asked if Foster Thompson could come up with a list of events that SIOP would want to have representation at.
APA Council Rep Report. Dr.Major explained that at the last meeting the board talked about the proposal by APA that every state have two seats on council. That was voted down. President Eduardo had wanted External Relations to work on finding people who could be future council representatives. They came up with three people; two said they would do it. John Scott and Deb Whetzel. You are welcome to nominate people to APA council reps.
Revised Branding Proposal. Dr. Foster Thompson introduced Dr.Kevin Kramer who came to present the revised branding proposal to the board. Dr. Kramer introduced himself and the revision. This is not a new topic. Our logo and image were developed years ago and the world has changed. I’m not sure our membership thinks our external brand captures who we are now. I’m not sure CEOs and other business people view SIOP the way we would like them to. The idea of branding is to help us clarify who we are and get it written down. This would include images such as the logo, the website, etc. Dr. Kramer explained some of the benefits of branding, including a higher caliber of students in I-O programs, better grants, being trusted experts by CEOs, etc. We’re I-O psychologists; we are not marketing experts, so let’s engage a company that specializes. We aren’t asking for the funding today. We are asking for the agreement that this is a good idea and to go out and get RFPs. The next recommendation is to assess our audiences and try to see what resonates with them. The branding firm would help us with the methodology. Dr. Colella asked if this would reach outside of I-O psychology. Dr. Kramer said yes. There was discussion about whether we should be promoting SIOP or I-O psychology. There was discussion of who this helps. How can branding help academics? Dr. Weiss suggested coordinating branding efforts with the Science Advocacy Task Force to see how our field can affect policy makers. Dr. Weiss added that he doesn’t see why SIOP needs visibility but he sees why I-O psychology does.
Board members discussed questions of whether SIOP has an image problem. Several people said they would like to see facts about how those outside SIOP see us. It seems like we may be having a problem finding what message we want to present. There was agreement that SIOP’s role is to make I-O a source of information and promote I-O. There was more discussion of the pros and cons of the branding proposal. We need more discussion of who we are and who our audiences are. Dr. Colella said she is not certain there is that much confusion internally about who we are and what message we want to say. I’m not sure spending a lot of time going back and determining who we are or what we want to see will get us there, she said. Dr. Reynolds said the perception that this could become something big is possible, but what we want to do is get something accomplished. For example, there are firms that specialize in differentiating societies from one another. Dr. Kramer said the committee wants the agreement that they can explore this. President Salas said he is torn. We have not engaged in any meaningful long lasting activity. Part of me says this is something and part of me thinks this is too broad. Dr. Thayer agreed the proposal is too broad and we are trying to do all of this in one fell swoop.
Dr. Weiss asked if we should agree to a draft of the RFP. He also agreed with Dr. Reynolds’ proposal that the committee focus on differentiating our association from other associations. Dr. Reynolds suggested making this a request for information. We would tell firms we are looking for some information about their expertise and how they might help us in the early stages of brand definition. Instead of getting a specific proposal back from people, we would get information about their services. Dr. Brannick added that, yes, some people want our brand, but those people are internal folks who already know who we are. There was general agreement that Dr. Reynolds’ proposal for an RFI was a good step. Dr. Reynolds’ said he thinks the committee should go back and create an RFI and come back to the board to look at the RFI with some research about who we would send it to before we send it out. Will they bring the RFI draft back to the board in April? That is a busy meeting. Can we have this done before the meeting so we can have a conference call or some sort of discussion on this beforehand? Maybe we can have an online discussion. The board thanked Dr. Kramer for coming and for presenting all of this.
ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH (cont.)
Alliance for Organizational Psychology. Dr. Hakel said the Alliance is in its launch year, which means that it does not yet officially exist. The three founding members are in the process of ratifying the governance plan, and when that happens, the Alliance will be officially incorporated rather than just a representation of the presidents of the three founding partners. Right now the alliance has no budget or specific program. At the April board meeting, one of the action items will be to pose the questions of whether or not SIOP gives its approval to this governance plan or if we want to make changes to it. We need some official standards or practices written. Dr. Kraiger said he has heard of a number of I-O psychologist in other countries who don’t have a SIOP membership, but they could eventually become members of the Alliance. There was discussion of EAWOP wanting to make sure that any group that would want to come into the Alliance through Europe would have to go through EAWOP. They want there to be regional organizations. There was discussion about wording about conflicts of interest involving products and services. This provides that there could possibly be products and services in the future that would need committees.
High School/College Outreach Program. Dr.Hakel said there will be a half day program at the Chicago SIOP to teach to high school and college teachers about I-O psychology. This follows an effort made four or five years ago to reach out and make sure curricula include I-O content. Mikki Hebl has been leading the charge on that. There was general agreement that this is dollars well spent.
MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS
Normative Study of I-O Programs. A survey has been drafted and viewed by a small number of people. It will be given on a pilot basis and discussed in Chicago for the program director meetings. It might be useful to individual programs as they face the internal review and planning practices within universities to describe what their program is, etc. There is some overlap with the graduate study in I-O, but there are other issues in the study such as research funding, program numbers etc. They were requesting $1,000. That might be in their budget. If it isn’t, we can have the emergency action committee approve it.
Online Training for Committee Chairs. Mr.Nershi explained there has been a request that we do some online training for committee chairs. We’re proposing a program where we would contact the chairs as soon as they’re appointed and make online training available, and use the conference to enforce what they learned. This would also include budget training. President Salas said the April meeting is the most frustrating. We have all new committee chairs, etc. Is there a way to change it so the new committee chairs are there in the morning and then the Executive Board meets privately later in the evening? Mr. Nershi said right now we say they are free to stay all day if they want. President Salas suggested telling chairs they can come from 8 a.m. until noon. Dr. Colella asked if we can we give them some time to meet with the current chair during that day. Dr. Kraiger asked if some of the logic having the committee chairs there for the purposes of training. Dr. Hakel said that is part of it, but it is also to give them some face time. With the online training, at least they wouldn’t be starting completely blank. Dr. Colella suggested a committee chair job description they would get before the board meeting. Dr. Allen said she thinks there is some benefit to having the committee chairs see how the board operates. There was more discussion of how to allow chairs to observe the process without interfering.
Sunset Reviews. Dr. Saari discussed the sunset reviews for Placement and JobNet. She said these bring in good money and they are useful, and she sees no reason not to continue them. Dr. Reynolds moved to approve Dr. Saari’s recommendations. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved the sunset recommendations to retain the Placement and JobNet committees.
Dr. Brannick explained that she recommends keeping the State Affairs and Professional Practice committees. Dr. Colella moved to approve Dr. Brannick’s recommendations to retain the Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved the sunset recommendations to retain the Professional Practice and State Affairs committees.
Scientific affairs and Consultant Locator committee reviews will be completed in February.
MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS (cont.)
Bullying. Dr. Saari asked if we observe this in SIOP? Dr. Tsacoumis explained that the workshop committee can generate a lot of passion form people who want to present. This year we had someone who was very unprofessional and sent a nasty note to the workshop chair. The workshop chair said she wanted SIOP’s support for someone to say this is inappropriate. President Salas said he has observed incidents of discussions being disrespectful or aggressive, etc. This is worth looking at. Dr. Reynolds suggested getting input from people who do research in this area. Dr. McPhail said we need to make sure it is positive in terms of civility and not in terms of “don’t do this.”
Re-Evaluation of Owens Award (Scholarly Achievement). Dr. Saari explained this award is given for the publication judged to have the highest potential to significantly impact I-O psychology. The committee scans for articles and criteria that would qualify. None of the people recommended for the last award were members. A discussion was held about the value of including nonmembers in the award as well as a requirement that at least one author be a member. Dr. Weiss made a friendly amendment to include student members of SIOP. A motion was proposed stating that in looking to judge the highest potential to impact I-O psychology that the Owens award would be given to the publication with at least one SIOP member as an author (broadly defined). Dr. Highhouse seconded the friendly amendment. Dr. Saari accepted the amendment. Dr. Colella asked why the winner of this award has to be a SIOP member. Dr. Highhouse said he would envision the spirit of the award being the SIOP member with the most impactful research. Dr. Thayer noted that the intent is ambiguous. Dr. Weiss noted that the only award for which winners don’t have to be members is the Katzell. There was discussion of where the committee looks for potential winners. They normally look through certain journals. Dr. Saari explained that they are looking at certain journals to keep it closer to us at the core of I-O psychology. Drs. Hakel, Thayer and Foster Thompson voted against the motion. Motion passed.
ACTION ITEM: Added language to the criteria for the William A. Owens Scholarly Achievement Award stating that, in judging the highest potential to impact I-O psychology, at least one author of the award-winning publication must be a member of SIOP, broadly defined to include students and all others members.
Distinguished Professional Contributions Award. Dr.Brannick explained there are currently no nominees for this award. We’re not sure why. We need to get the word out that there are no nominations and the deadline is in June for 2012. Also, we should announce this as part of the plenary session. There was discussion of why no one is being nominated, including the award qualifications. Dr. Weiss said the inability to give this award is an embarrassment because we have plenty of people who qualify. Dr. Major suggested making it easier for people to nominate. If we let people present vitae first and then ask them to give us a package of a self-statement and letters of recommendation, maybe it will make them more likely to be nominated. If you want to nominate someone else, you can just send in their vitae. Dr. Brannick said this will be two years in a row that we will not have nominations or a winner. Dr. Kraiger said he thinks this falls back on the awards committee to be more aggressive in telling people to nominate people. There was discussion of whether it is a conflict of interest for the committee to be soliciting nominations and also approving them. The general agreement was that the committee is charged with doing both. Dr. McPhail suggested being careful in the messaging of the solicitations. We don’t want them to think they have already received the award; we want them to know that they are qualified. Dr. Brannick said normal circumstances for solicitation is publication in TIP.
Final Workshop Guidelines. Dr. Tsacoumis said this is just a clarification for people about how the topics are selected. The topic procedures have been in place for a while. Dr. McPhail said there are a lot of outdated things in these guidelines, such as it referring to the “division” from when we were doing workshops at APA. We would like the board to approve them with a note to delete the outdated sections. Dr. Tsacoumis moved to approve Section 1 of the workshop guidelines, which includes guidelines related to workshop topics, presenters, and meetings continuing education requirements with a provision to delete the outdated sections. There was discussion about how clear we are that presenters cannot use the workshops for commercial means. Mr. Nershi said the workshop committee has created templates for PowerPoints and handouts, and those are SIOP branded, so that solves this concern. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved Section 1 of workshop guidelines proposal, which includes guidelines related to workshop topics, presenters, and meetings continuing education requirements, with a provision to delete any outdated sections.
Use of 3rd Party Company for Conference Site Selection. Mr. Nershi explained that traditionally SIOP has not used the services of these companies, as we have site selection chairs that work with the SIOP executive director to develop recommendations. Mr. Nershi was approached by Conference Direct and met with them as a courtesy. He proposed that SIOP have a trial with the company. We used the services for the LEC site selection for 2012. The services don’t cost anything to SIOP. Conference Direct gets 10% of the room revenue from the hotel. Site selection has become increasingly complicated for the site selection chair. It is very time consuming for someone with a fulltime job. We worked with Conference Direct and things went so well we found locations for LEC 2012 and 2013. The hotel rates they negotiated were good.
Conference Direct also has a really good attrition clause. We don’t have to deal as much with the hotels, but the final decision on our conference hotel is still up to SIOP. The room rates will probably be lower for the conference. We also got free internet for guest rooms, which we will try to get each time. If we contract with them, they will represent us for the 2017-2020 conferences and 2014 and 2015 LECs. If we don’t like them, we can terminate the contract within 30 days with a written notice. This would not eliminate the site selection chair but would make the job more manageable. Our Conference Direct representative also agreed to split half of her commission with us from the conference. That wouldn’t happen until the conference takes place but would be an extra $10-15,000 for SIOP. Dr. McPhail moved to accept the proposal to contract with Conference Direct with site selection for the 2017-2020 conferences and the 2014 and 2015 LEC. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM. Board approved proposal to contract with Conference Direct to assist with site selection for the 2017-2020 conferences and the 2014 and 2015 LEC.
Possible Member Survey for International Affairs Committee. Dr. Thompson explained the committee wants to survey the membership to be of better service to them. Topics they want to explore include challenges of representing SIOP abroad, how to make the website more useful to people, and how to make their committee more useful to members. There is a vendor that does this at no cost to SIOP. Dr. Colella asked if we could just include this in the next large membership survey. Dr. Reynolds pointed out that we have not done a membership survey in a while. Mr. Nershi said we are waiting for the appointment of the membership chair to do this survey. Thompson said she will contact the chair when he/she is appointed.
Certification Task Force. Dr. Kraiger asked if there was any interest in hearing more about the taskforce at the April meeting. There has not been much progress so far. Dr. Kraiger provided a report of where he hopes to be in June. One recommendation is to separate certification form the issue of licensing. Instead of asking a broad question of do we want to consider certifications, we should ask a narrow question like “do we want to pursue certification of (blank)?” Dr. Kraiger said his suggestion is that he will not come back until the taskforce has something to say. It may not be April.
Continued TAG Membership. Mr. Nershi explained that the group is drafting international standards on assessment service delivery and there is an upcoming vote on that. In order to see this project through we need to continue our membership in the TAG group and the cost is $3,500. It was more expensive in previous year. There will be no international travel involved this year. This will maintain our voice in companies in Europe. Dr. McPhail said we want to have a say in those international standards. Dr. Kraiger explained that when SIOP initially approved membership in this, we thought it was a one-year fee and there was no budget for travel. It should have been completed in four years and we ended up spending $25,000 more than we were supposed to. They are very close to finishing. There is a risk that if we are not present when things are finalized some things we fought for will fall through. Dr. Thayer moved to continue SIOP’s membership in the TAG group at the cost of $3,500. Dr. Tsacoumis seconded it. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board voted to continue SIOP’s membership in TAG at the cost of $3,500 for one year.
Dr. Kraiger recommended Dr. Colella consider extending the April meeting until the late afternoon so they have more time for agenda items. Dr. McPhail discussed how this would impact the budget if we have to stay for extra nights. There was discussion of whether to extend the meeting in April. President Salas suggested the past, current and future presidents discuss this in the next few weeks. Mr. Nershi suggested adding on a few hours to the meeting in September. President Salas explained this would be his last meeting as president. Dr. Colella will take over at the conference. He thanked the board for their hard work and opinions throughout his year as president. The committee thanked President Salas.
President Salas closed the meeting at 12:53 p.m.