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

Minutes of the Spring 2008 Executive Committee Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology


April 13, 2008



Call to Order
Governance Report
Advocacy Report

Communication Cluster
Membership Cluster
Professional Development Cluster
Science and Practice Cluster
Strategic Focus Area Updates

Conference Update
Call to Order


President Latham called the meeting to order at 8:00


Outgoing President Tetrick thanked all committee chairs for their service during the last year.


Each member present at the meeting briefly introduced him or herself.


Governance Report


Dr. Kraiger provided a report and review regarding the planned change in governance. There will be an electronic vote on the bylaws change that is anticipated to occur over a three week to one-month period of time.  


All information regarding the changes can be currently found on the SIOP website.


Potential changes to the various committee structures will be reviewed during the September EC meeting. Some of the changes include eliminating the role of Secretary with those tasks being assumed by the Administrative Office. The Secretary and two Members-at-Large will transition into three of the newly created Officer positions. Dr. Kraiger asked all committee members to think about who would be good to fill the additional officer positions and provide him with potential nominees.


Dr. Tetrick provided a brief report on the town hall meeting held during the conference.


Advocacy Report


Foundation: Dr. Porter provided the Foundation report, which included a discussion of the 3 million dollar campaign.


Dr. Porter reported that there may be modifications to the Raymond A. Katzell Media Award. This is necessitated by the fact that often members of the media can’t accept awards for ethics reasons.


APA Council: Drs. Salas and Knapp reported on the APA Council meeting.


The main points included the following: 

  • APA is doing well financially
  • APA is rebuilding its website at a cost of 7.6 million dollars.
  • Jack McKay retired from APA
  • SIOP lost a seat on the APA Council. Next year we will have 4 seats instead of 5. 

This last point generated some discussion concerning the need to encourage and remind members to vote. Dr. Cortina noted that the number of additional votes needed to get the seat back to the Council is substantial. President Latham encouraged everyone to talk to colleagues and spread the word regarding the importance of staying involved in and voting on APA matters.


Dr. Knapp noted that Steve Reisner will be running for APA President based on his advocacy regarding psychologists and torture.   It is important that our members understand that voting for APA President is very important when someone who some consider an extremist is running and who will no doubt launch a strong campaign.


Drs. Knapp and Cortina stated that we need to be part of the APA strategic planning process and make sure that science-oriented aspects of psychology are represented. 


ASPPB National Registry: The next topic of discussion was nominations to the ASPPB National Registry. Many states require APA accreditation or ASPPB registration. APA does not accredit I-O programs.   There are several schools that are on the ASPPB National Register (Akron, University of Tennessee, NYU). These programs are designated to review vitae and do nominations.


The ASPBB is conducting a new practice analysis. Dr. Tetrick and Dr. Dennis Doverspike are on a task force to help get what I-O psychologists do with regard to practice better represented.


We need to nominate 3 people to serve on the ASPBB National Registry committee. Members get 3 weeks to review materials and attend a once a year meeting in Washington DC.


It was decided that a note be sent over the I-O Program Director listserve requesting volunteers.


Federation Update: Drs. Tetrick, Kraiger, and Kozlowski provided information regarding the March 14th Science Forum event.   Drs. Ruth Kanfer and Seth Kaplan chaired a science forum on aging and the workforce. There were a total of 60 reservations made to attend the event and an estimate of 30 actual attendees. There were presentations by NIA, AARP, and NSF and several SIOP members. Summary information will be placed on the SIOP website.


All agreed that SIOP members did a great job at the event but that the Federation did not do as much as SIOP expected with respect to publicizing the event and arranging for key players in D. C. to attend. The event cost $19,000. There were no legislative staff members in attendance.


The question is are we getting our money’s worth? We should look at the issue from an ROI perspective. The spirit of the discussion was that it is worth putting on another event but that we should learn some lessons from this particular experience. We need to ensure that the Federation understands us so that attendees are those we most want to reach.


Dr. Kozlowski noted that there are other advocacy organizations. We should also consider other alternatives/organizations to help build our science advocacy efforts. Drs. Knapp and Salas suggested that SIOP make better use of APA’s science advocacy services.


Dr. Nershi pointed out that the Federation has been very successful with other organizations. We have been able to reduce our dues with them. Our rate is actually $11,000.


We need to communicate with the Federation’s new Executive Director and get a debriefing from someone there. Dr. Latham will speak to Dr. Hough who is currently President of the Federation.


Dr. Barnes-Farrell suggested that we find a way of repeating that event and shop it around with other organizations.


Discussion turned to Dr. Kozlowski’s request to form a task force for the purpose of reviewing our scientific advocacy efforts. We do not know a lot about science advocacy. Dr. Kozlowski would like to form a task force to look at this issue and develop competencies. We need to be knowledgeable and persistent to really develop our advocacy efforts.


This discussion was temporarily tabled as we turned to President Latham’s discussion on visibility and collaboration.


Report on Collaboration: President Latham noted that one of his primary presidential goals is to build networks with other psychology organizations. He introduced several guests in attendance at the meeting.


Franco Fraccaroli is President of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP). EAWOP currently has 900 members. They are working toward building an identity with regard to work psychology in Europe. EAWOP sponsors two scientific journals and an online journal for professionals. The next congress will be held in May 2009 in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. They are interested in developing relationships with other organizations, especially SIOP.


Two representatives from IAAP Division 1 (Organizational Psychology) were present, current President Jose M. Peiro and President-elect Handan Kepir Sinangil. IAAP is interested in ways to internationalize I-O education. The mission of Division 1 is to make I-O psychology play a global role. We need to join forces across different countries and strengthen ties to have an impact.


2010 ICAP congress to be held Melbourne, Australia


Dr. Latham noted that with IAAP and EOWOP as partners, when we speak, the public will notice. SIOP only has 7000 members, half of which are students. It is tough to get the ear of the media. If we speak from a global perspective there is greater chance that we will be listened to.


Now back to Dr. Kozlowski’s action item. Dr. Kozlowski elaborated on his mission for the task force. The idea is to get people together who have experience getting funding and are dedicated to science. Bring these people together and look at the experience in a broader context to identify future pathways for science advocacy. We need to build an infrastructure.


The only money involved would be to perhaps to get together for an initial meeting with 4/5 people.


President Latham suggested that the committee take a global perspective and frame the issue as organizational psychology speaks versus just SIOP speaks.


Dr. Kozlowski stated there is content and there is infrastructure. At this point he is interested in developing infrastructure, skills, mechanisms.


Dr. Kraiger asked why a task force needed to be formed versus a subcommittee?


Dr. Kozlowski indicated that he wants to hand pick his own people to be on the task force.   International is not part of his proposal. His focus is on U.S. agencies for funding. The purpose of the task force is not to pick topics. It is about developing mechanisms. How can we influence mechanisms within the US that advocate for science?


Dr. Bauer made a motion to form the task force and the motion was seconded by Dr. Kraiger.


Discussion followed. It was noted that Dr. Kozlowski has the freedom to form a committee of his own choosing. A committee chair can form a subcommittee/task force. There is money in the Scientific Affairs existing budget to get people together for a meeting.


Motion passed unanimously.


ACTION ITEM: Dr. Kozlowski given approval to form a taskforce/Scientific Affairs subcommittee with the charge to develop means to advance science advocacy.


President Latham called for a brief break to be followed by 30-minute committee chair meetings and new chair orientation.


Members called back to gather at 10:45.


Communication Cluster


Dr. Tetrick reported that actions included keeping communication going both ways with membership. Keep I-O psychology visible with more collaboration with other associations such as APA/APS.


President Latham reported that Dr. Ted Hayes is the new chair of our e-Communications Committee. Dr. Hayes will be adding content to our website as well as reviewing other electronic communications such as our e-newsletter.


It was noted that the APS program has presentations by lots of I-O psychologists. Kudos to Dr. Michele Gelfand.


Membership Cluster


Dr. Colella reported that there will be an effort to begin collecting data on the questions we want answered within the membership survey. The membership committee will do more than accept and deny membership.


The question was raised regarding why students aren’t coming back to the membership. Dr. Blanton asked do we know if student members are in a MA terminal or MA feeder program? Dr. Tetrick noted that we need to figure out where in the pipeline it is that we lose people.


Dr. Kozlowski stated that if we asked students to project when it is that they think that they will graduate, we can track them over time.


Dr. Bob Lewis at Microsoft is the new chair of the Institutional Research Committee. This committee will examine and coordinate the housing and access of SIOP’s various datasets and make recommendations for integration of various survey and membership data.


Other items of interest: 

  • Dr. Boswell is working on revising awards procedures.
  • Dr. Highhouse is working on obtaining all issues of TIP back to 1964
  • Dr. Linton put out a call for someone to shadow her for becoming the next Placement Chair
  • Dr. King welcomed any input on LGBT issues
  • Dr. Jimmy Davis will be the new CEMA chair 

President Latham noted that Dr. John Hollenbeck is the current chair of HR division of AOM. Dr. Hollenbeck wants to collaborate to encourage students to join both AOM and SIOP. A concerted plan can be developed that will benefit both.


Professional Development Cluster


Dr. Tsacoumis was welcomed as the incoming Chair. Dr. Rogelberg reported the group spent some time discussing overlap of areas within the committee.


Dr. Scott noted that next year’s SIOP conference will include a theme track on corporate social responsibility.   There is also some energy around doing some pre and post outreach for SIOP in NOLA.


Educational outreach at the high school teacher level is being discussed within the E&T committee.


Science and Practice Cluster


Dr. Kraut is the new editor of the Practice series. He reported that he has put together a distinguished editorial board.   There are currently four books in the pipeline that will continue to be shepherded to publication by the former editors. The topics of these books are: 

  • Talent management in action
  • Diversity in the workplace
  • Performance management
  • Workplace assessment 

Dr. Kraut has plans for two new volumes. The topics are:


1. Applying I-O psychology in the global workforce/global commerce of ideas


2. Internet testing and selection (proctored and unproctored tests; do we use multiple hurdles; validity and reliability; knowing who is at the other end of the computer)


Dr. Kraut’s objective for the series is to, a) gain a wider readership/appeal to a broad audience and b) give the series a more global flavor.


Frontiers and practice book series will be part of the same committee so that there might be some parallel synergy on topics.


President Latham noted that SHRM has agreed to market our books and they are very interested in evidence-based work.   President Latham wants SIOP to be the supplier of research evidence for SHRM.


President Latham pointed out that committee chair orientation is our most important business for the morning.


Dr. Tetrick inquired when the reshuffling of committees would be done. Dr. Kraiger recommended that in September we look at a proposal and then at elections add officers and then every thing will go into to place next year.


All are encouraged to read all reports and to not feel constrained by what is in clusters and to identify synergies among clusters.



New Volunteer Management System: Dr. Bauer reported that the volunteer system is going online. Ahmad is testing a dummy version right now. All committees will be asked what type of volunteers they need. More information should be provided on the website regarding what committees do and where people are needed.


Website:   Mr. Nershi is working to increase content on the website and is getting press paragraphs from Personnel Psychology. The top 25 rated sessions from the conference in terms of media appeal will also be written up for the website. Each Wednesday there will be a new article.


Discussion ensued regarding a controversial article that appeared. It was noted that we need to be careful to ensure that the pieces do not appear that SIOP is taking a specific point of view. Dr. Zickar will review articles and provide advice on the scientific content as an interim procedure until the proper placement of this responsibility can be determined under our new governance structure.


Dr. Kozlowski inquired about the (lack of) desire for controversy.


President Latham replied that the fear is that lawyers will become involved and use it in testimony. Information on the website could be interpreted as endorsement by SIOP. It was suggested that a disclaimer be added that articles do not represent the views of the Society. Dr. Highhouse indicated that when he read the piece he thought that it did appear as a Society stand.


Mr. Nershi suggested that an advisory board would help review articles. Mr. Nershi will contact a lawyer to develop an appropriate disclaimer.


Strategic Focus Area Updates


Journal: On behalf of Dr. Sackett, Executive Director Nershi provided a report regarding the new SIOP journal. By all accounts the first issue has been warmly received. Some points of interest: 

  • Currently working on 4th issue
  • Blackwell is helping with marketing
  • Blackwell had a reception during the conference at their booth
  • Blackwell has been placing ads on websites of different journals that they produce
  • Blackwell will be launching an e announcement and sending out library recommendation forms
  • Sending a letter by Paul Sackett to assorted journals
  • Direct mail will go to libraries 

The financial success of the journal depends on institutional subscriptions.


Everyone should consider offering commentaries to posted articles.


The timeline for editorship of the journal was discussed. A new editor must be on board in 2009. Dr. Tetrick inquired about the process for finding new editor. Mr. Nershi replied that there was a system used for Dr. Sackett’s selection and he will disseminate that information.  Dr. Tetrick suggested that the Frontiers and Practice series committee could review the selection process.


Practice: On behalf of Dr. Silzer, Mr. Nershi provided a report on the practitioner survey. Over 1000 responses were collected. The results were summarized in a presentation. A hard copy of the slides was handed out. Program and workshop committees should give it attention.


Dr. Blanton stated that the survey results indicate that there is confusion regarding licensure and suggested that the E&T committee also review the results for implications.


Mr. Nershi stated that the survey results will be put online.


The Practice committee will provide recommendations to the EC based on the results.


Dr. Dipboye noted that more details were needed regarding the methodology. Dr. Tetrick indicated that Dr. Silzer would be receptive to answering questions and doing more slicing and dicing of data. Dr. Silzer will be providing a technical report that will provide more details regarding the methodology.


Legal Consultation Proposal: Mr. Nershi reported on behalf of Dr. Silzer. The conclusion was that in general there is weak enthusiasm for the idea. Good idea that did not pan out.


Conference Update


Conference: Dr. Pugh provided a brief report regarding the conference. Attendance was 4096, which was our 2nd highest attended conference.   Both expenses and income were higher than expected. We also had a record number of sponsorships. Preliminary budget figures indicate that we made $270,000 on conference.   The 2014 conference RFP will go out soon.


Dr. Olson-Buchanan noted the intent to charge a committee with evaluating the conference and identifying the factors that underlie satisfaction with the conference.


Dr. Rogelberg provided a brief report on the conference program. Special thanks were given to Dave Nershi for his support during the development of the new program software.


Dr. Bauer expressed thanks to Drs. Julie Olson-Buchanan and Lisa Finkelstein for initially spearheading the effort to move the conference to a three-day format.


It was noted that there was some drop off in Saturday attendance and Saturday night hotel reservations, but it did not appear to be substantial. This is an issue that will continue to be monitored.


Dr. Becker reported that all three keynote presenters have agreed to provide a summary of their talks for the next issue of TIP.


Dr. Scott reported that evidence based management and corporate social responsibility will be the two theme tracks for the 2009 conference.


Fall Consortium. Executive Director Nershi provided a brief report regarding the next Leading Edge Consortium. It will be held in Cincinnati in October.   Jeff McHenry is the chair and the topic is coaching. Information will be on the website soon.


The 2009 conference will be chaired by Lois Tetrick. Dr. Tetrick welcomes ideas and suggestions for the topic focus.


New book series: Dr. Salas reported that the new book series that has been discussed for the last 2-3 years is ready to launch. APA has given a contract that has been signed. The editor will be Denise Rousseau and the focus will be evidence-based management.   APA is very excited about the series. Title of the series to be determined.


LGBT subject pool: Dr. King reported on the idea to develop an internal participant LGBT pool in partnership with APA Division 44.


LGBT Policy Statement: Dr. Cortina described the use of policy statements by APA (e.g., most recently on torture). At the APA Council meeting last February, members underwent diversity training, specifically in respect to LGBT issues.   At training, members were asked to see if we were doing anything in the division on this issue.


In the briefing book is a policy statement on discrimination in the workplace. The question is do we want to endorse statement.


A motion was made by Dr. Bauer to accept the consent agenda with the removal of the LGBT policy statement item. Motion seconded by Dr. Cortina. Motion passed unanimously.


ACTION ITEM: Consent Agenda approved with removal of LGBT policy statement.


Discussion moved to the LGBT policy statement. Dr. Tetrick asked what would be done with the policy statement. It could be featured in TIP, it could be issued as a press release, it could appear on our website, it could be part of our administrative manual.


Dr. Knapp suggested asking the APA media personnel about the pros and cons of publicizing resolutions and about how they go about doing the publicizing. Dr. Reynolds suggested asking our marketing firm.


Dr. Pearlman asked what does it mean for SIOP to issue a policy statement?


Discussion ensued regarding: 

  • Do we want to get into the enterprise of getting into policy statements?
  • Do we get into a political arena? Is this outside the realm of I-O? 

Dr. Cortina noted that other groups are protected, but this particular group is not, so that is a role for I-O psychology.


Dr. Barnes-Farrell noted that when policy statements are issues there will be pushback from members who don’t believe we should be making policy statements and that the views don’t represent their own.


Dr. Knapp noted that the diversity training at APA was surprisingly effective. The presenter talked about the research pertaining to this issue and then it was action oriented and discussion was on what is it you are going to do.


Dr. Cortina made a motion to accept the policy statement and it was seconded by Dr. Bauer. Motion was passed with one against.


ACTION ITEM: LGBT discrimination policy statement accepted.


[Readers: please note that this topic was again discussed with additional action items approved later in the meeting]


Dr. Kraiger noted that for the future we should have more discussion regarding what it means to be in the policy business. Dr. Kozlowski suggested that we form a small task force to discuss what it means to get into policy statements. Dr. Cortina will work with whoever is interested in taking a shot of this.


It was decided that Drs. Kraiger and Pearlman, along with the APA reps, would present something at the Fall meeting for in depth discussion on policy statements.




The EC needs to vote to approve preliminary budget. The numbers in the current report do not reflect the conference. Overall we are in good shape financially. Dr. Pearlman reported that there is nothing really unusual or noteworthy in the current budget. All is routine. We vote on actual budget in September.


Mr. Nershi noted that 67% of income comes from the conference (workshops; sponsorships). We need other ideas for generating income.


Motion made to approve preliminary budget by Dr. Dipboye and seconded by Dr. Bauer. Motion passed unanimously.


ACTION ITEM: Preliminary budget approved.


President Latham remarked that the Deans of business schools make millions of dollars a year from IO/OB types. SIOP can make money on this type of stuff.   SIOP can partner with universities initially and then potentially do on our own.




PR & Marketing Services Update: Dr. Reynolds provided an update regarding the marketing firm working with SIOP. In January the contract was negotiated. We are currently learning the ropes of working with the firm.   There are a number of processes in place. First we build a strategy and foundation.


There are 5 pillars of the plan

1. issue information on topics such as white papers

2. promote conferences

3. build strategic alliances with other organizations such as SHRM

4. create ongoing publications; short press releases that go to key audiences

5. drive internal engagement


We want to place foundational pieces in SHRM/APS Observer/Chronicle of Higher Education (why you need I-O in your university). Try to connect our members with the needs of their other clients.


Dr. Reynolds mentioned three challenges: 

  • They had to learn us
  • We need to learn them and be strategic versus ad hoc; we need to know how to use them
  • We need to have some metrics  

Dr. Dipboye suggested talking to Dr. John Cornwell as he could be helpful in developing an article for the Chronicle. Dr. Colella asked what it is that the marketing firm is doing for us. Dr. Reynolds replied that they are developing press releases on highly rated SIOP sessions. They help provide targeted messages for targeted audiences. One strategy is to have a branding summit. What is in the current report is the first cut.


C & D Magazine: This is an HR magazine in Argentina. They are asking for content for their magazine from SIOP.




A group met with SHRM in DC. SHRM as a client wants more from SIOP as the supplier. Dr. Sara Rynes will take the ball and run with it. Her passion is to reduce the S-P gap.


12:35 break for lunch


President Latham called the meeting back to order at 1:30 for a discussion among executive committee members regarding the approval of the policy statement. Several members believed that before approving any particular policy statement that the implications of issuing policy statements should be more fully addressed. It was also noted that we should determine under what conditions SIOP should issue policy statements. By September we can have more detail regarding what this means and why we would choose to take on a particular initiative.


Dr. Knapp stated it would be useful to talk to APA staff regarding what has gone through Council and see what kind of perspective they may have.   They can give us some perspective.


Dr. Kozlowski noted that this is a difficult issue for SIOP to grapple with. It is difficult to separate politics from science. We’ve had these conversations in the past. But backing away from it also why we are less visible. If we are going to get into activity we need some vetting and statement about process. We should have a small focus group develop a set of guidelines for issuing statements.


There was a brief discussion regarding research on discrimination that exists.


Motion made to reconsider the previous motion to accept the resolution by Dr. Cortina and seconded by Dr. Bauer. Motion passed with one abstention and the rest in favor.


ACTION ITEM: Reconsider previous motion to accept the LGBT policy statement.


Motion made by Dr. Truxillo and seconded by Dr. Knapp to revote on the motion. Motion passed with 3 abstentions and the rest in favor.


ACTION ITEM: There should be a revote on the LGBT policy statement.


Motion made by Dr. Cortina and seconded by Dr. Bauer that Drs. Cortina and King put together a task force on the policy itself with a report to be provided at the Fall meeting.


Motion passed with one abstention and the rest in favor.


ACTION ITEM: Drs. Cortina and King will form a taskforce to provide more details regarding the LGBT policy statement.


Let the minutes reflect there is support for the spirit of the policy statement, but the need for consideration of the implications of policy statements.


President Latham called the meeting adjourned at 1:55. 





Note: Dr. Rupp informed Secretary Allen that in the briefing book that the APS report should be credited to Michele Gelfand instead of Dr. Rupp.