Home Home | About Us | Sitemap | Contact  
  • Info For
  • Professionals
  • Students
  • Educators
  • Media
  • Search
    Powered By Google

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Winter Executive Board Meeting

January 6-7, 2017
Walt Disney World Dolphin Hotel

Present: Alex Alonso, Janet Barnes-Farrell, Georgia Chao, Milt Hakel, Deirdre Knapp, Steve Kozlowski, Gary Latham, Mort McPhail, Fred Oswald, Deborah Rupp, Rob Silzer, Evan Sinar, Steve Stark, Scott Tannenbaum, Mo Wang. Staff members present were Dave Nershi, Jeff Hughes, and Tracy Vanneman


President S. Morton McPhail called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. He welcomed Dr. Steve Stark to his first SIOP Executive Board meeting as the newest APA Council Representative. President McPhail also recognized Dr. Steve Kozlowski for his recent election to the position of Research and Science Officer. He acknowledged the other newly-elected officers, not in attendance, whose terms will begin at the April meeting, including Dr. Talya Bauer (President-Elect), Dr. Eden King (Conference and Programs Officer), and Dr. Lori Foster (Communications Officer). President McPhail stated that Dr. Mikki Hebl could not join the meeting due to having received an award from Baylor University requiring her attendance as well as other family commitments. President McPhail shared his appreciation for Dr. Alex Alonso and Dr. Evan Sinar for their service to the board as their terms soon come to an end. Finally, he welcomed Mr. Jeff Hughes, incoming Executive Director, who will begin work at SIOP on February 1 and have a three-month overlap with Mr. Dave Nershi, outgoing Executive Director, who will be retiring on May 1, 2017.



Dr. Tannenbaum introduced the "Delegation of Financial Authority" document. He stated that, with the transition of leadership, now is a good time to be clear about financial decision making processes about which we may currently have implicit understandings. This document is more of a codification of the way things currently operate than an introduction of any new or different process.

ACTION: Dr. Tannenbaum moved to approve the Delegation of Financial Authority. Dr. Wang seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


Dr. Tannenbaum confirmed that SIOP is solvent and the financial picture is positive. Dues revenues are up $15,000 relative to last year. The removal of the prerequisite membership requirement may have had a positive influence on this number. SIOP is now up to 18 individuals who have taken the Associate to Member path upgrade. Regarding the 2017 SIOP Annual Conference, it is too early to analyze registration revenue and although sponsor dollars are down $80,000 this is due to timing of payments and not a concern. Mr. Nershi added that sponsorship orders have been very successful and the exhibit hall has sold out. Dr. Tannenbaum pointed out the Leading Edge Consortium net income of $61,000, with topic being noted as an important driver of success for that event. He reported that investments did well this year with a 10.5% yield (which is above industry markers) and that total organization income is up $80,000.

On the expense side, program expenses are up $64,000 this year due in part to a larger conference, investments in the NOAH technology, and a successful Executive Director search process. He has no concerns to bring to the table. SIOP should be able to stay on budget or exceed it, although much is dependent on conference registration numbers.

Dr. Tannenbaum shared a high level overview of income and expense groups, and noted that, in the past five years, 32-40% of SIOP's income has come from the Annual Conference. We do have insurance against the conference to protect in the event of catastrophe, but this remains the top revenue generator for the organization. Dues account for the next largest percentage of income, with sponsorship in third. Dr. Tannenbaum recommended that the Executive Board begin benchmarking and planning a dues increase. President McPhail reminded the board of the Bylaws requirement that dues increases, if over a certain threshold, must be approved by the membership. Mr. Nershi stated that communication to the membership regarding a dues increase would be important. Dr. Kozlowski suggested a more regular review of the dues rate. 

Dr. Tannenbaum pointed out the positive fact that the income growth has outweighed the expense growth in the past five years and that the Executive Board must periodically review these categories to preserve that good relationship moving forward.

Dr. Sinar asked if there was a line item for JobNet expense and Mr. Nershi replied that there is no significant annual expense but rather occasional technology investments as well as UBIT and credit card transaction fees. Dr. Sinar asked if there should be a JobNet subscription fee increase and Mr. Nershi stated that there should be a periodic review of our subscription rates, although any increase should wait until after the JobNet site has been transitioned into the NOAH system. 

President McPhail asked that Dr. Tannenbaum work with Ms. Linda Lentz, Director of Administrative Services, to consider pricing on all SIOP revenue-producing services and program items. When is the last time we made a change on a price? How does it match up to expenses? From these data the Executive Board will be able to make determinations about how to price and how to schedule increases so that all changes would not be made in a singular year. Dr. Tannenbaum has agreed to deliver trend information at the April 2017 meeting.

Dr. Tannenbaum pointed out the notable increase in General and Administrative expenses but stated that it has nothing to do with the efficiency of the Administrative Office. Much of the increase comes from employee health insurance. President McPhail asked when the next review of insurance providers and plans would be, and Mr. Nershi responded that the insurance program is reviewed annually and, despite efforts on our part, the premiums always go up. Mr. Nershi and Mrs. Lentz are always seeking options to mitigate the cost increases.

Finally, Dr. Sinar noted the improvement in Publications income versus expense, which Dr. Tannenbaum also acknowledged, and Dr. Rupp said it should continue to improve with the newest contracts being even more financially beneficial.

ACTION: Dr. Hakel moved to approve the Financial Report. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


President McPhail introduced the Consent Agenda and opened the floor to discussion. Dr. Tannenbaum asked for clarification on the listed workshop registration fees, highlighting a discrepancy he identified in the workshop report. Dr. Sinar stated that he would follow up with the Workshop Chair to clarify the documentation. Mr. Nershi stated that the workshop fees are set and published on the SIOP web site and included within the conference registration process.

ACTION: President McPhail stated that the Consent Agenda is by nature already presented as a motion and therefore no new motion or second is needed. The motion was unanimously approved.



Dr. Barnes-Farrell reported that Dr. Ali Burston and colleagues contacted SIOP about establishing an MOU with a new I-O group forming in Australia similar to what SIOP has with the Alliance. Dr. Barnes-Farrell, Dr. Burston, and Mr. Nershi exchanged emails on the topic. There are timeliness issues with this request due to the professional education/chartering process for psychologists in Australia. The group, SIOPA, drafted an MOU with the International Affairs Committee, Dr. Barnes-Farrell, President McPhail, and Mr. Nershi all reviewed it. It does not promise anything besides the agreement to remain in contact with the organization.

Dr. Barnes-Farrell asked if there is anything behind the scenes that would create difficulties. President McPhail received an email from a colleague who lived/practiced in Australia. This new group is based in Perth and largely western Australia, and they represent a small group compared to the mass of I-Os in the east. There may be concern if we pursue a relationship. Is this group forming itself to oppose the activities of the larger east coast group? The group admitted that responses were largely guesswork based on knowledge of people involved. Dr. Hakel knows the Executive Director of APS-COP. President McPhail asked if an email or phone call to the individual may be needed. 

Dr. Wang added that Academy of Management holds an I-O conference in Australia at which he is a speaker. Dr. Wang was not clear if the SIOPA professional body will represent I-Os in all of Australia. President McPhail doesn't think the MOU does any harm, but it could be perceived as taking sides. 

Dr. Kozlowski and Dr. Tannenbaum both felt we should show restraint in engaging with this group. Dr. Barnes-Farrell wondered what the urgency is to establish the relationship, and why not pursue involvement with the Alliance rather than specifically SIOP? Mr. Nershi believed the MOU could help to increase credibility and that may be what SIOPA is seeking. Dr. Wang indicated willingness to inquire of those inviting him to speak at the conference to find out why this might be coming up. President McPhail asked Dr. Barnes-Farrell to follow up and indicate that we are taking the MOU under consideration. Dr. Rupp offered to call Dr. David Day, who just moved back to the United States from Australia, for his take.


Dr. Knapp reported that the APA Council of Representatives has not met since the last SIOP Executive Board meeting and that the board books for the upcoming February APA meeting have not yet been issued. The "good governance group" made a number of recommendations that have undergone a three-year trial. It is complicated because there is a body of 274 people trying to have group deliberation, so the organization is seeking a better way to govern. For the upcoming meeting, the representatives will do their homework and be prepared, as this topic can become political. The Hoffman Report occurred during the three-year trial period, and some of the board members had to recuse themselves, so it has been a challenge to the governance trial period.

Regarding the Hoffman Report, Dr. Knapp expressed relief that it is no longer the only thing that the Council of Representatives discusses; however, some council members believe that is due to APA trying to draw attention away from it. She also reported that APA is seeking a new CEO. She believes there would be many good CEO candidates who are not psychologists but that APA is seeking only psychologists for the position. Dr. Knapp reminded the group that she serves as chair of the caucus for general applied psychologists. It is to SIOP's advantage to have a member in this role, but she is reconsidering if she should remain in this role.

Regarding the ethics code revision task force, Dr. Knapp had expected that it would have been established by the end of 2016 but it remains outstanding. SIOP has been advised to prepare a letter (perhaps jointly with GAP caucus) outlining concerns regarding the makeup of the task force and having the viewpoints of practitioners outside of healthcare reflected in the deliberations. We should prepare a list of potential nominees from diverse backgrounds so as to put an I-O psychologist on the committee. Dr. Knapp requested thoughtful nominees from the Executive Board for the position of APA Council Representative to replace her. 

Finally, Dr. Stark reported that he reached out to some people regarding the concern about the use of the GRE for entry to graduate school. Dr. Oswald added that the Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment (CPTA), on which he sits, reviewed the proposal and removed the language that was of concern about testing bias and the GRE.

At 4:25 p.m. the board took a break. At 4:30 p.m. the meeting reconvened for a timed agenda item.


Past President Dr. Tammy Allen and Licensing, Certification, and Credentialing ad hoc Chair Dr. Mark Nagy joined the meeting via phone. President McPhail stated that this would be limited to a 60-minute conversation absent a majority vote of the Executive Board to extend. He confirmed that there are underlying issues to the issue of licensure of I-O psychologists, and some board members fall on different sides of the aisle. He asserted that this conversation was not a discussion about changing SIOP's longstanding policy on licensure. He defined for the group the ASPPB (Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards), which is not a licensing or accrediting body but rather a professional association that originally came together around the administration of the EPPP. ASPPB’s role has since expanded, and it has created a model licensure act, which in some ways competes with APA’s version. President McPhail was an observer at ASPPB some time ago, and SIOP has had representation ever since.

Dr. Kozlowski reiterated that the intent is not to debate SIOP's policy on licensure. He stated that the Licensure of Consulting and Industrial-Organizational Psychologists (LCIOP) Task Force was created at the time of Dr. Allen’s presidency. The joint task force began polling I-O graduate programs without SIOP's knowledge. If there were reports being filed, Dr. Kozlowski indicated that he was not aware of any during his presidency. A concern was brought forth of the motives of the task force. The group did not inform the Executive Board of the IOP journal focal article that it was preparing. Dr. Kozlowski asked what the impetus was for SIOP's participation in the joint task force, how well SIOP is being represented, and what the intent of the task force is going forward.

President McPhail asked Dr. Allen to give background from her perspective. She indicated that SIOP has been sending a representative to ASPPB for a while. When Dr. Doug Reynolds became SIOP President, the ASPPB involvement amped up. Funding was increased to send not only a committee chair (at that time, the State Affairs Committee Chair) but also an Executive Board member to ASPPB meetings. At some point, Dr. Don Crowder became an official liaison to SIOP from ASPPB, and he is now President of the organization. 

Dr. Allen stated that SIOP was notified that the LCIOP Task Force was created in 2013. The forming of the group was a surprise, but the consensus was that having a SIOP member as a part of the task force would be advantageous to I-O interests and collaboration. The task force became effective in January 2014. Dr. Allen became concerned in February 2016 after receiving an email, as chair of the I-O program at the University of South Florida, asking for her to verify her program’s curriculum. A few other program directors also became concerned about this communication and alerted the presidential trio. Dr. Allen would like to know why the LCIOP Task Force asked this of I-O programs? The IOP article heightened her concern, along with the recommendations about how the program data may be used.

In April, President McPhail met with Dr. Nagy and Dr. Crowder and others from LCIOP regarding the concerns around the February I-O program chair email. President McPhail stated that it was explained to him that the task force commissioned, with financial support from Divisions 13 and 14 and ASPPB, a graduate student to review the course offerings of all programs listed on SIOP.org for which they could find information. The email was sent to ensure that the work the student had compiled was accurate. President McPhail pondered what information SIOP can provide to licensing boards regarding what constitutes an I-O psychologist.

President McPhail, Dr. Nagy, and Dr. Silzer sent a follow-up email to program chairs trying to explain the purpose of the February email. The authors of the IOP article stated in their introduction that they are not speaking for SIOP or others on the LCIOP Task Force but rather only for themselves.

Dr. Nagy confirmed Dr. Allen and President McPhail’s summaries of the situation. He stated that he is not currently licensed himself. He believes that his role as LCC Chair is to try to help I-O psychologists obtain licensure if that is what they seek as well as to provide guidance to state and provincial licensing boards regarding how to evaluate I-Os for licensure. The 6-month lapse between the formation of the LCIOP Task Force and the beginning of its activities was to ensure support from all organizations involved. 

Dr. Nagy and Dr. Joan Brannick pursued the effort to name a liaison for SIOP to ASPPB. One purpose of the task force was to increase communication between the participating organizations. Comprising the LCIOP Task Force is one SIOP representative, one CSIOP representative, two Society for Consulting Psychology representatives, and two regulators, plus ASPPB President Dr. Crowder and one administrative participant. Four of the eight task force members are SIOP members.

Dr. Nagy reported that he receives one or two requests per week for input about psychology licensure from professionals and students alike. Dr. Judy Blanton and Dr. Nagy authored a white paper adopted by ASPPB about the challenges to becoming licensed, mainly supervision requirements and the requirement in some jurisdictions to have an APA-accredited education. Dr. Nagy confirmed that he would not endorse language that states that I-O psychologists must be licensed. He supports the existing SIOP policy on licensure.

Dr. Nagy stated that members of the LCIOP Task Force receive inquiries from state regulators about an equivalent requirement to APA accreditation. They ask what would be considered a "good education,” as guidelines on education and training are insufficient. The program content study that the graduate student completed was approved by SIOP, which provided for one-third of the funding. Upon reading the results of the study, Dr. Nagy knew that the data were not entirely accurate. For example, he knows that the Bowling Green State University I-O program teaches job analysis and yet the report reflected otherwise. He suggested that, given the concern about the data, program directors should be contacted to double check for accuracy. Dr. Crowder offered to take the reins on sending the email but, in retrospect, Dr. Nagy believes that such a message should have come directly from him. There are 39 responses of the 61 program directors who were contacted (2 had left their position and no replacement was available). He sees the information being used to get an idea of what to say to regulators about what is taught in I-O programs (i.e., 57% of programs teach this, etc.) He stressed that it has never been said that this information should be used to create an accreditation process for I-O programs.

President McPhail stated that, on a few occasions, we have been asked to respond to the APA model licensure act. These are suggestions made by credible bodies to state regulators. ASPPB changed their model licensure act to add "or equivalent" to the "education from APA accredited school" qualification.

Dr. Kozlowski appreciated Dr. Nagy's efforts to provide additional background. He does not understand the motivations of ASPPB and how it is positioning itself as an organization, as well as the trajectory of the LCIOP Task Force. He would like SIOP guidelines to remain guidelines for program directors only, as anything more is a slippery slope to accreditation.

Dr. Knapp was not concerned after reading the IOP focal article; however, she was surprised to see it brought to the Executive Board for discussion and was alarmed by the response articles. The focal article acknowledges that there are differing opinions. She does not want to see an unfortunate error in process negate the efforts that have positively contributed to SIOP's interest in ASPPB. If we are not a part of the conversation and task forces like this the conversation will happen without us. President McPhail stated that ASPPB has no interest in becoming an accrediting body. Dr. Nagy said that ASPPB is revising their model licensure act and including language about HSP (health science providers) and GAP (general applied psychologists) as unique tracks. ASPPB will be suggesting other avenues for GAPs to become licensed. He would not have engaged in the study if he thought the data was to be used to support a path to accrediting I-O programs.

Dr. Allen countered with her belief ASPPB has already begun down this path. The focal article states that programs must have a nucleus of specific curricula. She takes this to mean that they are establishing standards and, to this end, there must be a way to monitor adherence to standards. Dr. Nagy stated that the behavior of ASPPB is to recommend alternatives to licensure requirements, not to require accrediting. Dr. Allen said that there is a motivation to sell more tests and ASPPB is in the business to do so. To the extent that they can create more opportunities to credential applied psychologists, the more opportunity they will have to sell their tests. Bundling this with Division 13 negatively effects the SIOP brand.

President McPhail pointed out that even under conservative assumptions the EPPP for I/O would be less than 5% of ASPPB’s annual revenue and so their motives in this do not appear to be financial. We have been working with ASPPB for years, and they have been responsive to the needs of SIOP members. Dr. Nagy added that Division 13 felt that they were being shut out from becoming psychologists similar to what SIOP members experience, with the same barriers like supervision, educational requirements, and mobility.

Dr. Latham explained that he has known Dr. Crowder and Dr. Blanton for years. He believes them to be standup and transparent individuals who support the mandatory licensing of I-O psychologists. Dr. Nagy believes that they are reasonable people who see the systems in place that are barriers to licensure. ASPPB, by campaigning for both HSP and GAP, shows that they recognize there are differences in what each group is trying to accomplish. Dr. Tannenbaum stated that it feels there could be unintended consequences that create barriers and costs. So we have to consider whether the good of helping people get licensed outweighs the downside.

Dr. Silzer stated that there are very different perspectives on this issue and that perhaps resistance to accreditation is in defense of personal freedom in academic instruction rather than understanding of the effect of lack of accreditation on individuals in the practice realm. Dr. Rupp commended Dr. John Scott for publishing this controversial item in IOP. She understands the concerns of the program directors. If these concerns have merit then SIOP should consider our role on the LCIOP Task Force going forward, and SIOP representatives should be held accountable for reporting activities to the Executive Board.

Dr. Alonso shared that he has experience building a certification program in a contentious environment. He believes that ASPPB is being upfront about supporting licensure. He would like to know if licensure is of value to practitioners.. He stated that, in reviewing the 990s of ASPPB, the organization is looking for a growth strategy.

Dr. Oswald would like to know more in the future about what drives these issues. There are assumptions on the table. Our goal is to make SIOP members happy, so what are pain points for members trying to obtain licensure? What are the outcomes of obtaining licensure? There is a larger world than us, so is this a growth strategy for SIOP? And, if we choose not to play, what are the consequences of that?

Dr. Silzer warned that if you withdraw from this activity then another organization will step in and make decisions that will affect SIOP without our input. Mr. Nershi clarified that withdrawing from the task force would not end involvement with ASPPB. Dr. Kozlowski added that if the motion at hand does not pass there should be a follow up motion for more direct and explicit reporting from the task force to the Executive Board.

ACTION: Dr. Kozlowski moved to have SIOP withdraw from participation in the LCIOP Joint Task Force. Dr. Chao seconded. The motion failed.

Dr. Latham indicated that he was appalled as a member of both SIOP and CSIOP at the lack of communication from LCIOP back to the participating organizations. Dr. Knapp stated that the task force had not been asked for reports nor given a format or channel for communicating its activities. Dr. Nagy replied that he has written statements within his committee reports which include LCIOP task force activity. Dr. Nagy stated that the activity of the task force should be complete by the end of the 2017. Dr. Knapp added that she will vote against this motion because she does not understand why a procedural request necessitates a vote of the Executive Board, and she believes the intent is to make a more visible statement.

ACTION: Dr. Kozlowski moved to have the Licensing, Certification, and Credentialing (ad hoc) Committee Chair report on LCIOP activities on a regular basis to the Professional Practice, Research and Science, and Instructional and Educational Portfolio Officers, with those officers bringing the substance of the reports to the Executive Board meetings. Dr. Latham seconded. The motion was approved.

At 5:43 p.m. the board took a break. At 5:53 p.m. the meeting reconvened. Mr. Nershi gave a housekeeping note regarding dinner at Il Mulino at 7:15 p.m. in the Swan hotel.


Dr. Sinar outlined the new version of the SIOP Conference and Program Charter to carry the organization through 2022, noting that many of the recommendations simply codify what is already in place. Dr. Tannenbaum expressed appreciation for the helpfulness and clarity of the document. He added that he would like to have a future conversation around Friday Seminar and Preconference Workshop attendance but that would not impact his support of this document. 

Dr. Sinar highlighted the changes made to help improve conference educational session formats with attendee experience and engagement in mind. He also mentioned logistical considerations such as expanding the display area for posters and use of the headquarters hotel with adjacent convention center model, visibility considerations like gathering social media statements and improved press paragraphs from submitters, and other improvements. Feedback has indicated that members like using a convention center when it is next door to the headquarters hotel, but not if a shuttle bus ride is involved. The charter also incorporates a financial viability component.

President McPhail asked if the SIOP book series would maintain a presence in the conference program. Mr. Nershi described how the book series sessions were not treated as a part of the official conference program and that attendance was frequently low. Both series editors declined the opportunity to host book series sessions in 2017. Dr. Rupp reminded the board that that the Publications Officer and others have the opportunity to submit a session about books in the SIOP series via the Executive Board block submission method if desired.

Dr. Sinar mentioned the recommendation to preserve allocation for Alliance sessions, noting that attendance and audience feedback should be observed. He pointed out that, because they are not awarded annually, the Dunnette and Katzell award sessions are treated separately from the other awards sessions in the document. He continued that the awards sessions for the 2017 Annual Conference have been re-imagined as "Featured Sessions" in which award winners have been matched to co-present in attempts to increase interest and attendance. Every award winner was asked if they were interested in participating in the "mash-ups" and could have opted-out, but all were eager to try the new format. Dr. Tannenbaum commended Dr. Sinar and the charter report for the decision making and recommendations within being evidence-based.

ACTION: Dr. Alonso moved to accept the new five-year SIOP Conference and Program Charter. Dr. Chao seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


Dr. Hakel reported that the incubator fund started by Dr. Mikki Hebl and her husband has met the $50,000 threshold to become a new fund, which will be entitled the "Hebl Grant for Reducing Gender Inequities". Like the James L. Outtz Grant for Student Research on Diversity, the Hebl grant will be intended to fund graduate student research.


President McPhail reported that he took to heart the comments from the discussion at the September Executive Board meeting about white paper procedures. He restructured the proposal from establishing an editorial board to instead commencing a one-year task force to be chaired by the Communications Officer. The purpose of the task force will be to review white paper requests, compile an inventory of existing whitepapers, and make a determination and recommendation on the extent to which SIOP needs broader review when publishing white papers. President McPhail preserved the section that calls for three separate written pieces as preferred but not mandatory. Dr. Alonso indicated that three separate pieces were prepared for the biodata white paper project, and that while it was not onerous, it did take a little work. He supports the creation of the task force so long as there is representation across portfolios and says that the evaluation process should be the primary focus. Dr. Silzer asked if and President McPhail confirmed that a report would be produced by the task force upon completion of the year of activity. Dr. Kozlowski asked for the task force to adjust midstream if the review process starts to result in a loss of the momentum of white paper production. 

The President has the authority to create task forces without Executive Board approval and so no motion was made. President McPhail stated that he will create the task force but felt it important to share his revised proposal with the group at this meeting.


Dr. Oswald stated that Lewis-Burke is working with us in regards to the changing administration in Washington. Lewis-Burke works with the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society as well, and so they have a broad understanding of the needs of our field. Dr. Sinar asked if the change in administrations would impact our financial investment in Lewis-Burke. Dr. Tannenbaum replied that the contract is not influenced by different advocacy activities. The policing initiative, which receives bipartisan attention, is continuing to progress under Dr. Amy Grubb's leadership.

Dr. Kozlowski shared that the task force to identify opportunities to more directly link I-O psychology activities to the economy for the benefit of our society is being assembled. Dr. Rob Ployhart will lead the task force and Dr. Kozlowski will Co-Chair and serve as liaison to the Executive Board. It is his desire that, by the conclusion of his upcoming term as Research and Science Officer, there is a path forward for this initiative or the knowledge that it is not viable path to pursue. President McPhail stated that even if this initiative is not well received under the new administration and new congressional representation it remains a worthy pursuit. Lewis-Burke believes that openings will remain for SIOP to advocate, for example, within the United Nations. Dr. Kozlowski said that the task force will look at proprietary indices and private business.

Dr. Tannenbaum said that an index like this would be a great initiative to help advance the SIOP brand. Dr. Oswald noted that SIOP is highly visible in NASA, NSF, and other federal agencies, and we need to continue involvement in those organizations. Dr. Kozlowski stated that the EAWOP meeting about replication brought together a number of people from around the world and now Dr. Gudela Grote has prepared a session, in which he is presenting, to discuss advocacy at the Academy of Management meeting.

At 6:25 p.m. Dr. Kozlowski made a motion to recess. Dr. Wang seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


President McPhail called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m.


SIOP Fellowship Chair, Dr. Ken DeMeuse, joined the meeting to present the report and recommendations of the Fellowship Committee. Dr. DeMeuse thanked the Executive Board for those who had taken the time to nominate and/or endorse individuals for Fellow status this year. He also thanked the members of his committee for their efforts in thoughtfully reviewing the 31 nominees. He outlined the four-point scale by which nominees are rated. A score of "4" is an absolute recommendation in favor of awarding Fellow status. A score of "3" indicates that the committee is leaning in a positive manner but may need more discussion or information about the nominee. A score of "2" indicates leaning towards declining Fellow status but further information may be of influence. A score of "1" is a recommendation against awarding Fellow at this time.

The Fellows nominees went through multiple rounds of committee review, with committee members having the opportunity to provide individual scores first, then new scores with the knowledge of the scores given by other committee members, and culminating in a series of conference calls and final scoring, wherein the committee members were asked, to the best of their ability, to award a score of either "4" or "1".

The meeting entered executive session at 8:25 a.m. to discuss the recommendations of the Fellowship Committee. The meeting came out of executive session at 9:40 a.m.

ACTION: Dr. Latham moved to send one recommendation back to the Fellowship Committee for reconsideration. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. The motion was approved.

ACTION: Dr. Hakel moved to approve the remaining Fellowship Committee recommendations reviewed within the first executive session. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. The motion was approved.

The meeting reentered executive session at 9:43 a.m. to consider two other recommendations. The meeting came out of executive session at 10:13 a.m.

ACTION: Dr. Chao moved to reconsider one recommendation of the Fellowship Committee and approve the other recommendation reviewed within the second executive session. Dr. Wang seconded. The motion was approved.

President McPhail tasked Dr. Wang with seeking input from the Fellowship Committee, the Professional Practice Officer, the Research and Science Officer, and others within the Executive Board, in order to give reconsideration to what the appropriate criteria are for evaluating all nominations and, in particular, nominees from the practice realm. Dr. Tannenbaum expressed that it is difficult to review Fellowship nominees because many have a blend of experience and they may not meet the criteria specifically for one type of professional versus another. In short, it is about how to tell the story of the impact of a person's body of work. 

Dr. Barnes-Farrell confirmed this view, noting that it is important to see the sum total of the nominee's work and not view the nominee as being rooted in one particular work setting. Dr. Silzer stated that practitioners do not regularly create a running record of what they have accomplished in order to eventually be considered for Fellow status, and so it becomes difficult to engage practitioners in the Fellows nomination and application process. Dr. Latham stated that he believes reasonable indicators can be developed and suggested that Dr. Wang follow up with prior Fellowship Committee chairs as well.

At 10:17 a.m. the board took a break. The meeting resumed at 10:39 a.m.


Dr. Silzer reported that executive coaching will be topic of the 2017 SIOP Leading Edge Consortium in Minneapolis, MN, with a likely theme of what psychology brings to executive coaching and how to distinguish ourselves in the cluttered coaching marketplace. Dr. Sandra Davis, based in Minneapolis, has been chosen as Chair, and she will soon be announcing her planning committee. The event dates have been changed from October 13-14 to October 20-21, 2017, due to an overlapping coaching event by Harvard Business School on the same dates.

Dr. Silzer added that we will be working with Division 13 and local groups to encourage high attendance. He indicated a desire for more than just event speakers, including skills-based training. He would like to add day long or half day preconsortium workshop to bring in revenue and provide additional training for individuals. Dr. Sinar acknowledged Ms. Linda Lentz's efforts to pull conference attendee data for marketing the 2016 Leading Edge Consortium to people interested in big data and recommended that a similar process be used at SIOP 2017 to gather prospects from attendees of coaching-related sessions.

Dr. Tannenbaum asked Dr. Silzer about workshop pricing, because although he likes the idea of diversifying the revenue stream he noted that there is much that goes into production of workshops and so they should be priced accordingly. He also noted, regarding the executive coaching topic, that the theme of "psychologists as coaches" versus "the psychology of coaching" will impact the audience, and so planning should be conducted with that in mind.


Dr. Sinar reported on the Conference Committee meeting held on January 6, 2017, which included a tour of the facility. He highlighted the efforts of the Program Committee and the Administrative Office to navigate the technology challenges using the NOAH software for the entirety of the submission and review process. He commended Dr. Zack Horn for his work, particularly on reviewer recruitment. Regarding the program, more 50 minute sessions (33%) were accepted, which helps to place coffee breaks strategically, reduce dead space in session rooms, and potentially increase registration. There were a number of diverse, engaging session types. There are currently 384 registrants, 39 workshop signups, and 6 half day workshops. The half day workshop option has been reintroduced with thoughtful pricing and limitation on quantity of participants. 

Dr. Sinar asked Ms. Tracy Vanneman to share an update regarding conference partnerships. She was pleased to announce that this has been the most successful year of conference partnership to date, with sponsor revenue more than 11% over budget at $350,000 and growing, including 6 "Platinum" level partner organizations investing more than $20,000 each. We have 65 exhibitors, with approximately 10 new organizations. We had raised prices on exhibit booths, a number of sponsorships, and program advertising and yet still saw the exhibit hall and nearly all sponsorships sell out. She will review the offerings for 2018 with this year's successes in mind. Mr. Nershi informed the group that, due to the growth in the partnership area, Mrs. Vanneman's job title is now "Partnerships and Programs Manager".

Dr. Tannenbaum asked if it would be of help for the SIOP President to stop by new exhibitors and thank them for coming, to which Mrs. Vanneman replied that any activity by the SIOP President or Executive Board to express appreciation to partnering organizations is welcome and encouraged. Dr. Stark asked about exhibitor satisfaction and mentioned one organization that expressed dissatisfaction regarding their SIOP experience. Mr. Nershi stated that we issue a satisfaction survey post conference and that we would follow up with the exhibitor in question, but for the most part, our event receives positive reviews from participating organizations.

Dr. Sinar reported that we continue to experience ambiguity regarding the closing plenary speaker. Mr. Nershi stated that, with Dr. Kozlowski's help, we have made a connection with NASA regarding having an astronaut be our speaker. Dr. Kozlowski assured the Executive Board that the speaker himself has made a personal commitment to us but that we are awaiting the official approval using NASA's formal speaker request process. This speaker should help to continue our record of having fantastic closing plenary keynote addresses. President McPhail confirmed that his experience at the Conference Committee meeting assured him that the group is working hard on the Executive Board's behalf to deliver another successful SIOP conference.


President McPhail introduced the task force charge to evaluate options for dealing more effectively with questionable research practices. Within the document he outlined seven activities for the task force to perform. The group is seeking funding to hold an in-person meeting to address the concerns. President McPhail believes that SIOP must be engaged in this discussion as it is a large, multi-disciplinary concern about which industrial-organizational psychology has a unique perspective, to which Dr. Oswald confirmed his agreement.

President McPhail reported that the 2017 Annual Conference will feature a reproducible research educational track and those involved should be connected in with this task force. He also reported that Dr. Rogelberg has altered the original proposal and moved away from the request to create a journal on the topic.

Dr. Wang recommended the use of the terminology "robust and reliable research" rather than "questionable research practices," which received audible support from a number of board members. Dr. Rupp is happy with where this initiative is going, and she believes it could have positive use within the advocacy realm to better inform federal agencies. President McPhail expressed concern that skepticism about scientific research in general, and particularly within I-O, will be damaging to our field. He emphasized that there is an enormous amount of research being done within the practice realm and so this effort will have strong impact across both science and practice. Dr. Kozlowski recommended that the task force supplement their work with material produced out of the Alliance meeting on the topic last year.

Dr. Tannenbaum clarified if the request is a one-time ask of $7,000, with $2,000 of that coming from the existing Scientific Affairs budget. President McPhail confirmed that as accurate. Dr. Sinar added that this initiative would be a prime candidate for submission to the 2018 Annual Conference Executive Board block submission process.

ACTION: Dr. Oswald moved to approve the establishment of the Research Methods Blue Ribbon Committee and its funding request for an in-person meeting, with the revised language to reflect "robust and reliable research" rather than "questionable research practices". Dr. Latham seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


Dr. Rupp reported that the Professional Practice Series has moved to Oxford University Press as publisher. The translational series proposal has gone under review with Oxford and they requested additional revisions as well as inclusion in the proposal of an inaugural editor championing the board structure, editor selection process, and planning for the initial volumes. Dr. Kozlowski has committed to this role. Abby Gross, senior editor at Oxford, has informed Dr. Rupp that the proposal has been approved by the Oxford board and a contract for consideration is forthcoming.

Dr. Rupp stated that the Principles have been revised and will soon be moving through the APA review process. She has had conversations with Executive Board members and has been encouraged to talk with Cambridge to publish the Principles as a supplement to IOP. Cambridge is interested in considering such a model where, for one year, there is an extra issue. Any IOP subscribers would receive it in print, if print subscriber, and all SIOP members would have access to it electronically like the rest of the IOP content and could pay a reduced member price for a print copy if sought. Cambridge is developing the process to distribute it for an affordable fee in print or digital format to others who seek it.

President McPhail reported that the task force has completed a draft of the Principles and has requested assistance to verify the reference list, which the AO has agreed to supply. Science and Practice committees have received the draft for review and have agreed to submit comments by the end of January. He would like to open it up for membership review and then a final version will be voted on by the Executive Board in advance of the April conference.


Dr. Hakel reported that the Executive Board previously approved the revised Guidelines for Education and Training in Industrial-Organizational Psychology. The guidelines were then sent to APA and its many committees for review because the document will be adopted by APA as policy. The APA has returned its recommendations, and the Education and Training Committee has addressed the recommendations in this new version of the document now up for discussion. 

Dr. Silzer asked if there was anything substantive in the recommendations, and Dr. Hakel said that, from his perspective, there was not. President McPhail summarized that most comments from APA had to do with improving the language for the purposes of inclusion. 

One concern was that APA CODAPAR recommended that all divisions also have the opportunity to review the guidelines. Dr. Barnes-Farrell stated that, in her memory of the prior revision, the guidelines did go out for review by all divisions and some wanted to give input, but because our guidelines do not create implications for any other kinds of graduate programs beyond industrial-organizational psychology, additional division response is unnecessary. President McPhail suggested that our response to CODAPAR's request be "because these guidelines apply only to I-O we don't believe it is appropriate to have other division commentary." Dr. Chao could not recall ever reviewing any other division's educational guidelines, nor could other board members, so why should other divisions have input on ours?

ACTION: Dr. Hakel moved to approve the draft as presented, but with the amendment of President McPhail regarding not having other APA divisions provide commentary on the guidelines. Dr. Chao seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


Dr. Oswald introduced a clause to be added to election procedures regarding deadlines and communications with members nominated for SIOP office. There is currently a lack of policy and so this clause formalizes what we are already doing in practice. Dr. Kozlowski stated that this will give clarity to nominees about the expectations for responsiveness when being considered for a SIOP officer position. Dr. Silzer encouraged the Election Chair to maintain a personal touch in the communications process pre and post-election. Dr. Kozlowski acknowledged the importance of personal communication but stated that it can be difficult to track people down if their SIOP membership profile is not up to date. Dr. Knapp took the opportunity to encourage nominations for APA Council Representatives and noted that with her term ending, the remaining current representatives work in academic settings.

ACTION: Dr. Latham moved to approve the addition to the Election Committee Administrative Procedures. Dr. Alonso seconded. The motion was approved.


Dr. Oswald was contacted about 6 months ago by Dr. Mindy Bergman and Dr. Aditi Raghuram regarding creation of a Women’s Inclusion Network committee. Dr. Oswald and President McPhail are in support of the initiative to give this standing committee status. Dr. Silzer asked why this should go from nonexistent to standing committee, and Dr. Kozlowski said that if there is hesitation they could be named to ad hoc status first, achieve some preliminary goals, then be promoted to a standing committee.

Dr. Knapp said that committee nomenclature was discussed at the September meeting. It might be helpful to have criteria about what should be a task force versus ad hoc committee versus standing committee. President McPhail said he sees ad hoc as existing temporarily for a specific purpose. Dr. Kozlowski said that it could be looked at as a process. Dr. Barnes-Farrell thought the board had agreed that there was no need to distinguish between ad hoc and standing committees. The sunset review process could be used to review new committees after the first 2 years and then every 5 years thereafter.

President McPhail said that the conversation is around a governance issue rather than specific concern regarding the development of the Women's Inclusion Network. Mr. Nershi suggested language such as "Your committee was approved. As is our practice, it will start as an ad hoc committee". Dr. Tannenbaum suggested that sunset review questions consider the age of the committee.

ACTION: Dr. Oswald moved to approve creation of the Women's Inclusion Network. Dr Kozlowski seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


Mr. Nershi reported that both recent bylaws amendments were passed by the SIOP voting membership handily. The bylaws can be updated immediately with these changes, and the amendment pertaining to International Affiliates will go into place for the next membership cycle.

Dr. Sinar asked about the total number of eligible voting members versus the number of votes cast. Dr. Silzer indicated concern about the low voting numbers, and he would like to see more communication efforts. Dr. Rupp suggested a social media strategy around it as well as including more details on the emails announcing the opening of voting (for example, names of who is on the ballot). Dr. Kozlowski requested an unmistakable link on the homepage for voting, which Mr. Nershi confirmed exists. Dr. Silzer asked if we could have the Election Committee consider options for improving voter recruitment. Mr. Nershi suggested that we could set a goal to have an increase in percentage of voters. Dr. Sinar asked about post-election data review to see who has voted (in aggregate), although Mr. Nershi indicated he is against looking into individual voting records. Dr. Knapp suggested announcing the percentage of eligible individuals who actually voted. Mr. Hughes suggested looking at the root cause of why voter turnout is low. Dr. Knapp believed that not knowing the names on the ballot may an issue. Dr. Silzer stated that he was the only practitioner of 8 recent elections who won and practitioners usually win in the first and second round of the vote calculations but eventually drop off. Mr. Hughes suggested benchmarking with ASAE to see if we are close to average or not within the association community.


Dr. Hakel may be using BoardMax for the SIOP Foundation meeting and requested input from Executive Board members regarding their first time user experience. Dr. Kozlowski and Dr. Oswald found downloading the PDF with tabs more helpful than using the agenda interface, although that causes an issue when items are added later. Dr. Knapp suggested numbering the agenda items. Dr. Silzer asked for an agreement on the deadline so that more material is not added after one has already downloaded or printed the material. Mr. Nershi said there formerly was the briefing book issued in advance and then the briefing book supplement provided onsite at the meeting. President McPhail believes that it is better to receive the material late than only to receive it upon arriving at the meeting. Dr. Rupp said that "Preferences" included a weekly subscription that provided her with email updates. Dr. Tannenbaum said that a week deadline would be helpful and then the Executive Board members could be emailed after that deadline if new items are added to the portal. President McPhail said that each item should be its own section rather than the "Strategic Focus Area" being one block, which would improve the ability to use the comments function, although he and Dr. Oswald discussed that and shortly thereafter and may have resolved the issue. Dr. Hakel would like to see a single sign-on opportunity.

Dr. Silzer notified the group of the approved Practice Update newsletter, as well as the conference activities of the new Professional Practice Networking Reception and Early Career Practitioner Consortium.

Mr. Hughes shared his appreciation of being invited to attend the meeting and the candor, healthy debate, and energy shared amongst Executive Board members.

Dr. Silzer shared his appreciation for Mr. Nershi's tenure with SIOP and encouraged the Executive Board to read the TIP letter to the editor that he and Dr. Alexis Fink authored together regarding Mr. Nershi's work, specifically for the Leading Edge Consortium.

President McPhail announced that there will be a board meeting teleconference in late February or early March to revisit some tasks that will need resolution before the April meeting.

ACTION: Dr. Latham moved to adjourn the meeting. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. The motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 1:32pm.