SIOP Executive Board Meeting Minutes
January 11-12, 2013
In attendance: Doug Reynolds, Dave Nershi, Tammy Allen, Paul Thayer, Lori Foster Thompson, Adrienne Colella, Kathleen Kappy Lundquist, John Scott, Eric Heggestad, Mike Zickar, Rodney Lowman, Joan Brannick, Deborah Whetzel, Jose Cortina, Milt Hakel, Cristina Banks, Steven Rogelberg, Julie Olson-Buchanan, Laura Koppes Bryan, Jerry Hedge, SIOP Fellowship Chair, Deirdre Knapp (via Conference Call)
Session I - Friday, January 11, 2013
- Financial Report
Leading Edge Consortium Update
Stockholm Conference on Licensing
White Paper Series
I-O Job Analysis/Coaching Competencies
Modifying SIOP APA and APS Program Chair Terms
Session II - Saturday, January 12, 2013
- SIOP Fellowship Committee Recommendation
SPPAC Report on Prerequisite Membership Organizations
Strategic Planning & Policy Ad Hoc Committee Lessons Learned
SIOP's Relationship with Local I-O Groups
Update on Branding Project
Update on Director of Government Relations & Science Advocacy
Revenue Generation and Dues Increase
Member Exit Survey
Update on Houston Conference
Report on SIOP Foundation
Report on the Alliance for Organizational Psychology
Other Projects (EEOC, Veterans, UN Team)
Strategic Goal Review Exercise
Associate & International Affiliate Issues Committee
Post-Election Comments on Revised Election Procedures
Session I – Friday, January 11, 2013
President Reynolds welcomed the group with special acknowledgement of the new members and newly-elected officers.
Financial Report – Dr. Lundquist reported that SIOP has total assets just under $2 million and this is an improvement versus last year. In the current year, expenses exceed income by $100,000, but this is a timing issue and we are on track with conference registration just getting underway. The bottom line is we’re in pretty good shape. There were no high increase in health insurance premiums this year. Rates went up 3%, which is lower than last year.
The investment ratio of equities versus cash is slightly off, but balancing right now would unnecessarily require us selling stock. She said this situation should self-correct with the influx of registration money.
Some questions were raised. It was clarified that the journal subscription line item refers to the per member fee we pay to Wiley-Blackwell quarterly for the journal. It was also noted that the income for SIOP Research Access, which includes EBSCO databases, is increasing. A meeting for the Strategic Planning & Policy ad hoc committee took place in June (last fiscal year) but expenses were paid and reported in this fiscal year.
ACTION ITEM: Dr. Zickar moved to accept the consent agenda, Dr. Thayer seconded. Motion passed. Items on the consent agenda were:
- Report on Emergency Action Items
- Approval of September Meeting Minutes
- Portfolio Officer Reports (Written reports requested. Items requiring EB action will be considered under Other Matters.)
- External Relations Officer: Lori Foster Thompson
- Communications Officer: Mike Zickar
- Conferences and Programs Officer: Julie Olson-Buchanan
- Instructional and Educational Officer: Milt Hakel
- Membership Services Officer: Eric Heggestad
- Professional Practice Officer: Joan Brannick
- Publications Officer: Allan Church
- Research and Science Officer: Steven Rogelberg
ASPPB Liaison – Dr. Brannick provided an update on the October 2012 ASPPB meeting. She said she had planned to ask the board to appoint a liaison to ASPPB in order to relay important information between SIOP and ASPPB on a regular basis and provide updates on critical issues. She then learned that ASPPB has already appointed a liaison on their end to work with us.
ASPPB has a goal to become authority on licensure and credentialing. As a result, many other organizations want to liaise with them. Our relationship with them has seen significant improvement. They value our involvement more now.
ACTION ITEM: The Executive Board votes unanimously to welcome the new ASPPD Liaison.
Leading Edge Consortium Update – Dr. Brannick gave a recap of the activities of the Leading Edge Consortium topic and chair selection committee. The committee recommended the topic of talent management for the 2013 meeting, which will take place in Richmond. The topic of global leadership was discussed but it was ultimately determined this would be a better fit for 2014 when the meeting is in the Chicago area. President Reynolds said Jeff McHenry was appointed to the LEC chair position.
The reporting structure was the next topic. It was decided that the LEC chair will report to the Conferences and Programs Officer (currently Dr. Olson-Buchanan). There would be significant input from the Professional Practice Officer as well.
Dr. Olson-Buchanan asked if science would be represented in the working group for the event, which is now primarily targeted to practitioners. The answer was “yes.” Dr. Cortina inquired about the break-even point for the LEC meeting. Mr. Nershi said it is about 100 registrations. President Reynolds said this year’s goal is to have more than 100 attendees and break even. The Visibility Committee is working on a pre-conference event geared to Houston area businesses. The topic ties in with the LEC and it presents an opportunity to test out topics and identify speakers.
Stockholm Conference on Licensing – Dr. Brannick continued with the agenda item concerning attendance at the Fifth International Congress on Licensing, Credentialing and Certification of Psychologists in Stockholm, Sweden in July 2013. She asked if we have any liaison in Stockholm who could make the financial burden easier for us. That way we wouldn’t have to pay airfare plus hotel to attend. A number of names were suggested by Dr. Hakel.
A brief discussion was held about the purpose of the conference and value to SIOP. Dr. Brannick said it is a combination of understanding what is currently being done in this area and what the future landscape will be. A large number of our US members do international work and would find value by our being at the table to provide input. Dr. Hakel suggested we gather more info and handle through the Emergency Action Subcommittee if funding is needed.
White Paper Series – Dr. Thayerintroduced the topic and asked how we verify the quality of the newly produced white papers that bear the imprint of SIOP. If there is a mechanism, he would like to know it. If not then there should be. President Reynolds said that the intent is to make our science more visible and accessible to the average person. He said that there are currently three categories for the white papers: International Affairs Committee, Visibility Committee and SHRM-SIOP collaboration.
Dr. Heggestad asked if the authors of the papers should be considered experts. President Reynolds answered affirmatively. Dr. Lowman said that white paper is not the only term that could be applied to this sort of publication. He said white papers should be issued only by SIOP and not by committees or other groups. It was noted that International Affairs had an editorial board for white papers, but this was not consistent with all groups issuing papers. Dr. Thayer said we need to know the rationale and guidelines for white papers. Dr. Lowman concurred that standards were needed and these type of publications needed a “home” within the governance system.
We don’t want to squelch such efforts, said Dr. Zickar. Dr. Rogelberg said he wants to see more produced.
ACTION ITEM: Communications Officer Mike Zickar will review this issue. He said his portfolio can be more involved in these type issues. He will develop a proposed policy that will include a purpose and be aligned with SIOP strategic goals.
I-O Job Analysis/Coaching Competencies – Dr. Brannick then gave an update on the I-O job analysis/coaching competencies project. The funding for this was previously approved. An RFP was sent out and the University of Akron will be assisting with data collection and analysis. They are in the planning stages for a survey and then data collection will begin. The target date for completion is shortly before the 2014 conference.
Progress on the coaching competency collaboration with Division 13 was then reviewed by Dr. Brannick. Amy Owens, president of Division 13, has been in communication with President Reynolds to develop collaboration. They want our technical skills. The core team is Vicki Vandaveer, Dr. Lowman and Ken Pearlman. Dr. Pearlman is putting together a sub-team for technical matters. Things are moving forward. A $5,000 interdivisional grant from APA and another $5,000 from Div 13 will cover data collection research and analysis. Results are expected by the end of 2013.
A question was asked about what the model licensure acts say about coaching. There are two model licensure acts (APA and ASPPB), but the ultimate authority is the state. Will potential restrictions in the licensing area cause I-O psychologists to do less coaching work? Dr. Lowman responded in the negative. It’s important for us to define what a psychologist will do in this area, said Dr. Lowman. Whatever gets developed will have impact on education and training for psychologists, he said. A goal of the coaching competency approach is to have it focused on the job analysis. There is a concern that certain coaching organizations are getting their credentials accepted as requirements for government agencies seeking coaches. Judy Blanton has been leading the charge to help prevent this.
Modifying SIOP APA and APS Program Chair Terms – Dr. Olson-Buchanan said that currently the APA and APS Program chairs serve a year in training and then one year as chair. This prevents SIOP from taking advantage of their experience, she said. She proposed that the term be modified to three years, with one year as chair in training. Dr. Colella expressed a concern that this longer commitment might make it more difficult to recruit chairs. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said the current chairs said they would consider a third year. Benefits include making it more consistent with other positions and reducing the burden of having to recruit every year. Dr. Heggestad said it would offer the chair a chance to contribute their experience after the conference.
ACTION ITEM: Dr. Olson-Buchanan moved to establish the three-year term for SIOP APA and APS Program chairs (with the first year being a year in training), Dr. Thayer seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Sunset Reports – The following sunset reports were reviewed by the board. Presenting board member listed with committee:
- Program – SIOP (Olson-Buchanan)
- Continuing Education (Hakel)
- Workshops (Olson-Buchanan)
- Doctoral Consortium (Hakel)
- Education and Training (Hakel)
- SIOP Conference – (Olson-Buchanan)
- Friday Seminars – (Olson-Buchanan)
- Professional Practice Series – (Church)
In each case the recommendation was to continue with the committee.
ACTION ITEM: Program, Workshops, Conference and Friday Seminars report recommendations were approved by motion.
It was noted that the Program section of the Administrative Manual was out of date and that workshops have struggled lately with attendance. Included in the Friday Seminars report was a recommendation that this be removed from the sunset review cycle as this is a component of the conference, which has a five-year review already.
ACTION ITEM: The sunset reports for Continuing Education, Education & Training and Doctoral Consortium were approved by a unanimous vote of the board.
Dr. Hakel said that all materials should be updated to reflect the proper committee name (e.g. Tutorials are now Friday Seminars). He also suggested that board members use my.siop to keep up with the goings on of their respective committees. Portfolio officer can better interact with committees and get up to speed quickly by using this tool.
Dr. Church then presented the Professional Practice Series sunset report. Dr. Rogelberg asked if SIOP really needs a publisher or might we be able to sell our own books. He said SIOP should consider creating a podcast. He said we have to look at the future of publishing. The issues of having a “long pipeline” and determining the correct topics were discussed. Dr. Church said the bottom line is that the book series makes money and publishes works that are of value. The importance of having marketing data to help with decisions on book topics was discussed.
ACTION ITEM: A motion to approve the Professional Practice sunset report was approved.
The final matter of the day was an update from APA representatives. Dr. Thayer reported that the apportionment ballots are in and SIOP retained its four seats on the APA Council of Representatives. APA is in the midst of a Good Governance project which could have implications for SIOP representation. The governance project could result in a model with smaller governance group. This could be community of interest model (i.e. science rep, practice rep) with no division or state representatives. Dr. Thayer said that often the topics at COR meetings are not related to I-O. In February, the group will meet to flesh out the options. Options include: 1) keeping it the same, 2) community of interest model, or 3) a board of about 16. APA will have to have members vote to approve any bylaws change.
The business for the day over, the meeting recessed at 6:15pm
Session II – Saturday, January 12, 2013
President Reynolds called the meeting to order at 8:10 AM.
SIOP Fellowship Committee Recommendations – The Executive Board moved into executive session to consider the recommendations for 2013 SIOP Fellows as presented by Fellows Chair Jerry Hedge. Upon resumption of regular session, a motion was made by Dr. Hakel and seconded by Dr. Thayer to approve the recommendations of new fellows. The motion passed unanimously.
SPPAC Report on Prerequisite membership Organizations – SPPAC Convener Deirdre Knapp joined the group by speaker phone and covered the next agenda item. She informed the board that SPPAC is working on the matter of the SIOP requirement that new members first be members of APA, APS, EAWOP or the I-O division of the Canadian Psychological Association. She said there are several paths that could be taken and implications for SIOP with each.
Dr. Hakel inquired about the paths. Dr. Knapp responded that there could be several including keeping the status quo, requiring continuing membership in these organizations (instead of just initially) or eliminating this requirement. The paths are not clear at this point.
She continued by saying that SPPAC does not plan to make a recommendation, but rather provide a reaction to each of the options.
Strategic Planning & Policy Ad Hoc Committee Lessons Learned – Dr. Knapp then reviewed the lessons learned document, which addresses the scope, tasking and operation of the ad hoc group. She said SPPAC wants to make sure the group and the Executive Board have similar expectations for their work.
Dr. Colella gave a brief review of the group’s history. Dr. Hakel suggested that the group should have its eyes wide open and look at history and long-range planning. Dr. Banks asked about determining priorities on issues that arise during a meeting. This would ultimately go through President. A SPPAC liaison with the board was suggested by Dr. Rogelberg.
Dr. Lundquist expressed concern about the section of the original charge, which states that SPPAC is to “…recommend priorities for the funding of projects in line with our financial goals. Relatedly, the SPP task force will make recommendations on new funding strategies …”
Who is responsible for reviewing the strategic plan, asked Dr. Lowman? It was the consensus that it is an Executive Board responsibility.
Dr. Colella queried whether the name of the committee should be changed since responsibilities and tasks have changed over time. Dr. Banks said that today’s strategic planning work by the Executive Board would determine a higher level focus for the next two or three years. SPPAC has a great outline, but may be operating in a vacuum. President Reynolds said that strategies and gaps would be addressed by the new president in April.
Dr. Banks said that SPPAC might get two different classes of assignments from the Executive Board: addressing immediate problems and higher level initiatives.
President Reynolds provided a summary and suggested that SPPAC should develop a charter document for approval and consider a new name. The verbiage of the committee charge should be reviewed closely. Dr. Knapp said having this will help the group operate more efficiently. She asked whether an annual face-to-face meeting of the group should be budgeted for future years. President Reynolds said “yes.”
ACTION ITEM: SPPAC to develop new charter document and consider new names for the committee.
SIOP’s Relationship with local I-O Groups – Dr. Allen said that an ad hoc committee on local and regional I-O groups had been formed with Bill Farmer as the chair. This group will meet at the Houston conference.
Update on Branding Project – Dr. Reynolds said that the Brand Enhancement Task Force had three subgroups: content, protocol and survey, and background research. The team focused on content, created brand attributes and sample taglines for testing. The protocol team prepared a proposed research plan for a sampling of various groups reacting to the content samples. The background research group looked at member survey results and other information and served as the sounding board for the content team.
The task force created a survey and was used internally to get ideas and find focus areas for the content to be tested. President Reynolds said he would like to use the survey with the board to provide a chance to comment and rate the contents that came from the content team. The survey could result in changes to the tagline or logo.
Dr. Scott asked about the consultant who had assisted with the initial part of the branding project. President Reynolds responded that the consultant is on hiatus and he feels that the organization can make faster progress with a small internal group. The consultant will be used as a sounding board if need be.
Dr. Colella asked what will be rolled out a conference. What can membership expect? President Reynolds said he would like to show at least a blueprint and samples of data to spark interest in what there is to come.
Could there be a change to the organization’s name, asked Dr. Lundquist. President Reynolds said that the feeling was that opening up that issue right would slow down the direction of the branding project.
Update on Director of Government Relations & Science Advocacy – An update on advocacy work was then provided by Dr. Rogelberg. He provided a brief history of SIOP’s scientific advocacy effort and the recent RFP to retain a government relations consultant. He questioned whether SIOP was positioned to completely leverage a consultant at this time. As a result the RFP included a starter project during which time advocacy goals would be developed as well as our advocacy infrastructure.
Part of this work would include a small DC-area task force to represent SIOP in advocacy matters. He said the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society recently hired a government relations firm and we should stay in touch with them.
Dr. Colella asked what this gets SIOP beyond what we might get by using FABBS and APA effectively. This gives us someone working specifically for us. We wouldn’t just be a one small part of group of differing organizations.
Dr. Rogelberg summarized that he plans to have a meeting in Washington and a decision should be made soon on a government relations firm and a plan. He hopes the advocacy plan can be enacted in April.
President Reynolds suggested putting all proposals from the government relations firms online.
Following a break, the group continued.
Revenue Generation and Dues Increase – Dr. Allen then explained the different options for a dues increase. The options reviewed were:
- Plan 1 is the $50 in 5 years plan. This plan increases member dues by $10.00 each year for the next 5 years (student and retiree dues will increase by $5.00). First year revenue generated is $65,250. Cumulative revenue produced after five years is $913, 500.
- Plan 2 is the 15-12-10 step-down plan. This plan increases dues by 15% the first year, 12% the second year, and then 10% the following three years. First year revenue generated is $67,533.75. Cumulative revenue produced after five years is $890,369.
- Plan 3 is an immediate increase in member dues by $31.00 and student dues by $15.50. First year revenue generated is $202, 275. Cumulative revenue produced after five years is $1,011, 375
- Plan 4 is an immediate increase in member dues by $21.00 and student dues by $10.50. First year revenue generated is $137,025. Cumulative revenue produced after five years is $685,125.
(Plans 3 and 4 require a vote of the membership.)
Dr. Lowman asked why we were increasing dues. President Reynolds responded that this will assist funding for advocacy, our expanded mission and goals. We would also be less dependant on conference revenue. Dr. Banks asks what would happen if the Hawaii conference in 2014 is not successful. Dr. Lundquist responded that we are “keeping the glass half full.”
A number of positive comments were made about Plan 3. Having a membership vote, President Reynolds commented, would be better than having a perception of “sneaking in” a dues increase.
ACTION ITEM: Dr. Zickar moves in favor of Plan 3 to have the Executive Board recommend an immediate increase in Professional Member dues by $31 and student, affiliate and retiree dues by $15.50. This will require majority approval by membership (those who are eligible to vote and cast their vote). Second by Dr. Thayer.
Dr. Allen then led a brief discussion on membership and other ways to increase revenue. What do we need to do to keep students as members after graduation? Dr. Hakel asked if it is possible to create an affiliate status for those that are interested in the organization, but are not I-O psychologists. This could open the door to members from SHRM.
Member Exit Survey – Dr. Heggestad then covered the topic of membership exit surveys. He said there was a need to standardize and make this a regular activity. When a member fails to pay dues, the member should receive a renewal reminder and if they still fail to renew, an exit survey. He said it is hoped that the survey will result in helpful data, such as how many students transition to professional membership, how many stay after the transition, and how many exiting members are Masters versus PhD level.
Dr. Olson-Buchanan makes a motion to send out the exit surveys annually. The motion was seconded and approved.
Update on Houston Conference – Dr. Olson-Buchanan provided an update on the Houston annual conference. Some changes in structure were made with the addition of a Consortium Chair who will oversee the details of the Doctoral, Junior Faculty and Masters consortia. The acceptance rate for posters increased slightly. All exhibit booths have been sold.
The meeting resumed following lunch.
Report on SIOP Foundation – Dr. Hakel provided a brief update on the Foundation. Work is proceeding on the HRM Impact Award, which is a joint effort of SIOP, the SIOP Foundation, SHRM and the SHRM Foundation. Nominations will open in the spring. A chair is being sought for the awards committee.
Report on the Alliance for Organizational Psychology – Dr. Hakel next gave a report on the Alliance. He said the group is planning to incorporate in Ohio instead of Singapore as originally intended.
Other Projects – President Reynolds reviewed the status of SIOP’s collaboration with the EEOC. He said the status of this open dialogue is in a good place. He also reported that the veterans transition project is still a pilot program but there are several organizations that are interested in participating or assisting. A brief update on SIOP’s UN team was provided by Dr. Scott.
Strategic Goal Review Exercise – Participants reviewed SIOP’s four strategic goals and rated where we stand on each using a 5-point scale. Small groups then reviewed input and proposed revisions to current goals. Lists of projects to help us achieve goals were developed and gaps and improvement ideas were developed.
Notes from the discussion were forwarded to President Reynolds for consolidation and further review by the Executive Board.
Associate & International Affiliate Issues Committee – Dr. Heggestad reported that Adam Hilliard has been chairing a Membership Committee task force looking at issues pertaining to Associate and International Affiliate members. A report is expected at the Spring meeting.
Post-Election Comments on Revised Election Procedures – Dr. Allen reviewed changes to the newly adopted Elections Committee procedures proposed in light of the recent election. Overall the new procedures were a success with no adverse impact on voting. Feedback has generally been positive. Based on what was learned from this election cycle, two changes to the existing procedures were recommended:
1. Codify process for notification of all participants on the ballot.
Different procedures have been used in the past as to when candidates know the identity of other candidates. We recommend that this procedure be standardized and written into the administrative procedures so that all nominees are aware of the process in advance. Specifically, we recommend that the full ballot be made available to everyone at the same time via posting to the SIOP website. Specifically, the following language has beed added to 3d of “SIOP Elections Committee Administrative Procedures.”
“After the slate of nominees has been finalized, the entire slate will be made available on the SIOP website. Nominees are not informed in advance of the names of other nominees.”
2. Require that a minimum number of nominations are needed to appear on the ballot.
We recommend that to be considered for the ballot an individual must receive a minimum of two nominations. This change will permit the election committee to flex the size of the ballot based on the number of nominations received. Specifically, the following language has been added to 3b of “SIOP Elections Committee Administrative Procedures.”
“In each case, the top nominees must receive at least two nominations to be considered to fill the targeted number of slots. If there are not a sufficient number of nominees to fill the targeted slots, the ballot may be finalized with the available number of nominees as long as this number exceeds the minimum number of candidates required per the bylaws. If the required number of ballot slots is not filled, then candidates receiving only single nominations may be considered (using a random process to choose among them) until the required minimum is met.”
It was noted that under the new system, all candidates are notified of others in the election at the same time. It was felt that this avoided persons making the decision to run solely on who was running against him or her.
ACTION ITEM: Dr. Hakel made a motion to adopt the recommended election changes. The motion was seconded and approved
The business of the Society being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:17 PM.