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

Minutes of the Spring 2012 Executive Board Meeting

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
April 29, 2012

Manchester Grand Hyatt, San Diego

Members Present: Tammy Allen, Joan Brannick, Adrienne Colella, Milt Hakel, Eric Heggestad, Kathleen Lundquist, Deb Major, Julie Olson-Buchanan, David, Peterson, Doug Reynolds, Steve Rogelberg, John Scott, Paul Thayer, Lori Foster Thompson, Mike Zickar. David Nershi, Andrea Goldberg, Chris Rotolo, and Heather Kelly from APA and various committee chairs were also present.

Members Absent: Allen Church.

Report on the SIOP UN Team
Strategic Planning and Policy Task Force.
Election Reforms.
Status of Branding Proposal.
Science Advocacy Position Update Re: Sustainable Funding.
FABBS Recommendations.
Conference Update. Notes on San Diego.
Update on Conference Constitution Task Force.
Hawaii Conference Planning.
Leading Edge Consortium. Report on 2012 LEC.
Career Study of People with Advanced Degrees in I-O Psychology.
ASPPB Meeting Update.
APA Model Licensure Act Letter Update.
SIOP Research Access Update.
Returning Veterans Program Update.
Feedback from Town Hall Meeting.
Committee Sunset Reviews. Program APA
Program APS.
Membership Survey
SIOP LGBT Statement
Diversity Task Force
APA Council Representative Report
Educating State and Provincial Licensing Boards
International Affairs Award Proposal
Going Digital with TIP July 2013
My.SIOP Online Community Update
SIOP Foundation Report
Alliance for Organizational Psychology
Report on SIOP UN Team


President Reynolds called the meeting to order at 8:25 a.m. He welcomed new board members Eric Heggestad and Kathleen Lundquist and the new President-elect Tammy Allen.


Dr. Lundquist gave the financial report. We beat our goal for workshop attendance at this year’s conference. We beat our goal for overall conference attendance as well. In terms of revenue, conference and event revenue came to $844,000, which is quite a good number. Sponsorships blew away the goal at $210,000. In terms of expenses, we don’t have the final number, but we think we will have a net profit of about $250,000. We had somewhat of a hit to our finances last year due to the market, but we have rebounded quite a bit. In regards to other sources of revenue, we are up on JobNet. We are not doing so well with the LEC. In terms of expenses, our printing costs are down and our other costs are controlled with the exception of healthcare. We are doing reasonably well all things considered. Dr. Colella asked about dues revenue being below what we expected. Dr. Lundquist explained that it was because the dues year has not yet ended. We will also be doing budget training today. Budgets need to be submitted by June. Dr. Zickar moved to accept the financial report. Dr. Hakel seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the financial report.


Dr. Major said the committee sunset reports had a lot of great suggestions. President Reynolds said those suggestions will be handled separately. Mr. Nershi suggested separating the joint statement approved by the Emergency Action Subcommittee from the rest of the consent agenda. Dr. Thayer moved to accept the consent agenda, excluding the item within the emergency action item referring to a joint statement with IAAP regarding the exploitation of workers in developing countries. Dr. Allen seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the following in the consent agenda:

  • Approval of January Meeting Minutes
  • Report on Emergency Action Items/Interim Board Action
    • Approved the recommendation o of the Publications Board for two new book series editors.
  • Portfolio Reports (written reports requested. Items requiring EB action will be considered under Other Matters).
    • Conference and Programs-Julie Olson-Buchanan
    • Publications-Allan Church
    • Communications-Mike Zickar
    • External Affairs-Lori Foster Thompson
    • Membership Services-Eric Heggestad
    • Professional Practice-Joan Brannick
    • Instruction and Education-Milt Hakel
    • Research and Science-Steven Rogelberg



Report on SIOP UN Team. Dr. Scott explained that SIOP was allowed to submit a statement to the Economic and Social Council of the UN related to our stance on workplace abuse. He and Walter Reichmann wrote this and submitted it for approval by the Emergency Action Committee. It stemmed from a problem in China with the Apple plants in which workers were jumping out of windows. This statement has been published. These issues may continue to come up, so we should talk about a procedure for creating these statements. Dr. Colella asked if you normally always have such short notice. Dr. Hakel said it is always short notice for issues like this. Dr. Scott said we will be working on joint statements throughout the year.. Dr. Olson-Buchanan asked if we could let the Emergency Action Committee vote on future policy statements but let the entire board read them. Dr. Hakel suggested using my.SIOP for this. Dr. Rogelberg suggested an ad hoc committee to help Dr. Scott write these statements. Dr. Scott said the UN representatives could help with this in addition to other psychologically oriented NGOs. Dr. Lundquist asked if we anticipate that this group would produce much that would be controversial. Dr. Scott said no, but it does come up. We should make sure we are reviewing all of them. President Reynolds asked if we can approve this remaining item from the consent agenda. Dr. Hakel moved to approve the joint statement with IAAP regarding exploitation of workers in developing countries. Dr. Zickar seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved consent agenda item referring to the action taken by the emergency action committee to approve a joint statement with IAAP regarding the exploitation of workers in developing countries.


Strategic Planning and Policy Task Force. Dr. Colella said we have the group set. Next year one person will go off and Dr. Allen will appoint someone else. They are working on defining themselves and looking at SIOP’s strategic plan. Dr. Major said they aren’t trying to rewrite the goals or strategic plan but taking a look at them. Dr. Deirdre Knapp is on this, as well as Eduardo Salas, herself and others. Dr. Colella thanked them for their work. President Reynolds recalled they had agreed to include something in TIP, so he, Knapp and Major should write something.

Election Reforms. President Reynolds asked if we want to alter the bylaws to put constraints on the number of nominations that can be submitted. There was another issue about the appropriate role of discretion for the Elections Committee. Our new procedures remove the discretion so we use a random process for tie votes. We added these issues to the Strategic Planning and Policy Taskforce tasks. They do not make decisions. They bring things to us and we vote on them. Dr. Rogelberg expressed concern over changing the rules again. President Reynolds said it depends on what kind of recommendation we get. For example, do we want the changes we made to become permanent? We agreed to a one-year cycle for the current changes. Dr. Zickar said he thinks we have created the context for changes, so there may be no pushback. President Reynolds recommended we get some input by the meeting next year. Dr. Brannick asked if we will have gone through an election cycle by the next meeting. We will have experience with how well these rules worked. Dr. Rogelberg asked: what is the litmus test for sending an issue to the task force versus the board tackling it on their own? President Reynolds explained that with this issue we wanted input from people not on the board. Dr. Rogelberg noted that this committee is being tasked with a lot. Doesn’t this add a delay to discussion by the board? Dr. Colella said they have discussed this, but the task force will be meeting more often, so there shouldn’t be much of a lag. Mr. Nershi explained that if nothing else happens, we have a plan in place that works. Dr. Hakel said a motion could come up in January to continue this year’s changes. Dr. Colella agreed that we need to keep it from becoming the catchall task force. Dr. Knapp said she thinks they should provide feedback to the board throughout the year about their work load and priorities. Dr. Lundquist asked to receive a list of items sent to the Strategic Planning Task Force.


Status of Branding Proposal. Dr. Chris Rotolo said the culmination of phase one is to develop a branding strategy. We will need funding to execute that strategy, so we hope that it would be approved by June 2012. Dr. Goldberg explained her work history and experience. A brand is a promise, and it has to be authentic. The way you conduct yourself has to be consistent with that image. We started Phase One, discovery. We tried to figure out where we are now, the perception of SIOP from members and leaders, how we compare to peer organizations, how loyal we are to SIOP, and where we are lacking. We also want to focus on I-O psychology. There is an overlap between SIOP and I-O psychology, but they are not the same. We sent letters out to members and leaders. The results gave us good information. SIOP provides a great deal of value to members, both practically and emotionally. The concern was that there is a lack of focus. SIOP needs to communicate more efficiently and effectively to other constituencies (HR, business leaders, etc.). Professionalism, quality, intelligence, conservatism, and the scientist-practitioner model, were the most consistent characteristics from the survey. The scientist-practitioner model seems to be the key differentiator between us and similar organizations. Fun, progressive and friendly were in the minority. We have to have a view of how we want the world to see us as. We can’t be everything. The majority of people were optimistic about the profession. There was pride about what we are doing and dissatisfaction that no one knows about it. Some of the perceived weaknesses include being slow, risk-averse, problems with presidents having one term, and problems getting our views out externally. A lot of people say we need to have a greater presence externally and focus on communicating our science. There was some concern about a schism, but that is the unique value proposition we provide, that we have both science and practice. We also tend to lead with the methodology instead of the results. Dr. Goldberg said she and Paul Rubenstein will now come up with a branding strategy. Dr. Rotolo said the next steps will be to work with the cross-committee task force that President Reynolds and Dr. Colella created. After this week we will pull together this task force and bring to the Executive Board our proposal for funding Phase Two. There is also a Visibility Committee proposal for metrics to track the external audience’s opinions. We will probably bring both to the board at the same time. Dr. Rogelberg asked if there has been any kind of benchmarking. Do other organizations or divisions in APA try to bring everything together into one brand? Dr. Zickar said he is concerned that we are trying to be one person. Dr. Rotolo suggested looking at SHRM. They are diverse, but they give specific statements and represent HR as a whole. Dr. Goldberg said she doesn’t want to narrow our subject, just communicate it better with a single brand. Dr. Major asked who defines the brand. The task force will integrate the brand strategy from Dr. Goldberg and they will decipher our brand positioning. The board will have to agree on the overall brand. The task force intends to come to the board with specific recommendations. We should have a sense of the cost for Phase Two by June. Dr. Lundquist suggested looking at the American Bar Association. Dr. Brannick suggested getting input from the broader membership. Dr. Rotolo suggested using my.SIOP for this. President Reynolds said he would like to get a set of conference calls set up with the branding group. No motion necessary.


Science Advocacy Position Update Re: Sustainable Funding. This is an issue that will be with the Strategic Planning Task Force. Dr. Rogelberg said he is not sure where they are with this. He would like some indication as to where this should be priority-wise for the task force. Dr. Colella gave a brief synopsis of the project. Last year we had a task force that worked to get information together on an advocacy position. That is what started that task force.

FABBS Recommendations. Dr. Knapp explained that the External Relations Committee has been trying to build better relationships with FABBS and APA. One of our goals is to finalize the role and tenure of official FABBS representatives. We have never given any guidance to them on this. Dr. Major asked how the FABBS representatives were chosen in the past. Dr. Knapp said she believes it was the president who appointed them. SIOP is the most active of the 22 societies in FABBS. Other initiatives of the External Relations Committee include that they have been trying to establish relationships with other organizations. The APA president-elect election process is underway, so we will get some answers to specific questions from SIOP and promote them to the membership. Dr. Colella suggested bringing a proposal to the board in January where we can approve all of these task forces and the ad hoc External Relations Committee as committees. Dr. Knapp said she thinks it would be a good idea to get all of the bylaws changes out of the way together. There is no formal board vote needed. They plan to continue to go in this direction unless the board tells them not to. President Reynolds said his sense is that the consensus is to move forward with this.

Heather Kelly from APA introduced herself. She explained that she is our free lobbyist and explained some of what she has done. She encouraged anything that has to do with the Federal government to come to her. Dr. Rogelberg said we should leverage the roles we have with FABBS and APA. Dr. Allen thanked Heather for being at the conference and doing training. Heather said all we have to do is ask in order to get anything out of her.

Break for training and lunch. 10:30-1 p.m.

Upon returning from lunch, President Reynolds asked the committee chairs to connect with their portfolio officers for future issues and questions. There were introductions of everyone on the board and the committee chairs present.



Conference Update. Notes on San Diego. Our attendance was 4,109. It was only projected at 4,037. People loved the hotel. The staff was responsive and the food was good. Everything was well-attended. People are excited about Hawaii. A lot of people think Hawaii is next year, so we should clarify that when advertising it.

Update on Conference Constitution Task Force. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said they have not picked a name. We are working on a revised document. Dr. Eden King will start with that.

Hawaii Conference Planning. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said we are concerned that Hawaii is two years from now. APA is there next year. We need to make sure people know SIOP is not there next year. Questions center on the likelihood of people attending. We don’t think we will change the time schedule, but we may have more sessions at the same time. The survey results show that an early start time was really not desired. Dr. Robin Cohen will be the conference chair for that. We have as few suggestions, such as a hooding ceremony. Missing hooding ceremonies is a concern since this will be in May. We have thought about having a ceremony at SIOP.

Leading Edge Consortium. Report on 2012 LEC. Dr. Sara Weiner was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Nershi showed the flyer for the conference, which will be October 19 and 20 in New Orleans. Stephan Dilchert and Deniz Ones are science co –chairs and Mark Schmidt is practice chair. They have some good speakers lined up already. Ed Lawler, Dominique Conseil from Aveda (Note: He has since cancelled.), Chris Rotolo, etc. This is the 8th LEC. President Reynolds wanted to discuss the promotion and development of the LEC. Because it changes topics every year, we are worried about attendance. I have been to almost every one of them and always get something out of it. I think there is a strategic issue about how we want to use that forum, The forum is just not as potent to the market as it once was. I have appointed a small task force to take a look at how it is shaping up and where it is going in the future. I have asked Rob Silzer to lead that task force. He was instrumental in the initial LECs. They will look at attendance rates and prepare a brief report for the board by the fall meeting. If you have suggestions or just want to help, let President Reynolds or Rob Silzer know.

Career Study of People with Advanced Degrees in I-O Psychology. This was approved at the January meeting. Dr. Brannick explained that this is a career study of I-O psychologists that began around discussions of licensure, but it became apparent that the data would have value in a lot of areas. Rich Cober and Mike Trusty from Professional Practice Committee have been instrumental in this. Dr. Cober explained that this study will help us understand career paths for those who are non-academic. The initial step is to have a steering team help us. We have three parts to the study. Once we get the steering team together we want to take a look at past studies going back to 1996 and follow that with interviews balancing our different stakeholders. We want to leverage graduate student support. We have a $10,000 total budget. The questionnaire would go out at earliest July. We want to make sure we work around other surveys going on. We have not talked to people yet for the steering committee. I haven’t invested much time into names until we know we can move forward. Dr. Rogelberg asked if we could get this on O*Net when it’s done. Dr. Foster Thompson said she is involved with O*Net and would be willing to help. Dr. Cober said we could do a call for students to help, maybe a pseudo-RFP. It’s a great opportunity for anyone who would be involved. President Reynolds noted that we have had success drawing on I-O consulting firms interested in doing this pro bono. President Reynolds suggested an open bid process. Mr. Nershi noted that interest in pro bono work with SIOP has diminished. There is one company that is very eager to work with us, but they are providing a platform as opposed to doing the work themselves. Dr. Cober asked if we could leverage our survey provider. President Reynolds said it might be premature to put a specific budget request on the table. Would it be helpful to have general motion for approval of the direction? Yes. Then come back with specifics for the budget. Dr. Lundquist asked if we could get the budget request by June. Dr. Brannick said that up to this point, this has been led by the Professional Practice Committee. Though this is looking at all SIOP members, do we anticipate any reaction that this is led by Practice? Dr. Scott said he thinks it will be fine as long as Board approves the direction of the career study as proposed in the description here, to include the formation of the steering committee, and begin planning the budget item for the next fiscal year. Dr. Hakel moved. Dr. Brannick seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the direction of the Professional Practice Committee’s work on a career study, with the expectation that the committee will approach the board in the near future with a specific budget request.

ASPPB Meeting Update. Dr. Brannick explained that they have two meetings per year. Two topics: tele-psychology or tele-practice and accreditation. APA and APS have historically operated independently around guidelines, licensure, etc. It is clear they are starting to work together on more projects. There is a push toward the states to be more consistent across in terms of licensure requirements. ASPPB can push, but the states are not obligated to take their recommendations. While it’s important to go to APA and ASPPB meetings and monitor, it is equally important if not more so that we form stronger connections with states. President Reynolds mentioned that the president-elect attends the ASPPB conference in the fall. They were very useful and welcoming of our presence and views. It would be nice to continue.

APA Model Licensure Act Letter Update. Dr. Brannick explained the letter exchange dating back to 2010-2011 over the APA MLA. We are in the midst of preparing a response to the last APA letter. Brannick is working with council reps on the response. We will be asking APA to do certain things in the letter and we will see where we go from there. She will be revising over the next few weeks and will send out to the board. Dr. Colella asked how we should proceed with the State Affairs Committee in regards to the idea that most of the action needs to go through the states. Just like External Relations is working to create a database of SIOP members involved in other organizations, we thought that would be a great idea for State Affairs. State Affairs has agreed to take this on so we can leverage the existing relationships we have with states. We want to focus on the states where we have a lot of members and where we have a lot of impediments to licensure. Dr. Hakel suggested using my.SIOP for this so we can get real-time feedback.

SIOP Research Access Update. Mr. Nershi explained what the SRA is and that we have less than 300 subscribers. We need 500. We have seen a bump in the number due to the membership dues year renewal period. EBSCO has a booth at the conference, so that may help. Dr. Brannick explained that the dues renewal process hasn’t really started yet, so we still have time. Dr. Cober asked that we do more communications. Mr. Nershi said we will have a promotion plan. President Reynolds said we should not underplay the other resources involved in SRA.

Returning Veterans Program Update. President Reynolds explained that Nathan Ainspan suggested this project. It would be for veterans who are looking to get into the civilian job market but have only ever worked in the military. He is moving forward. He is doing some background research and is in a revision process for the training. We are going to seek a few volunteers for a pilot project. We have an article that will go in Newsbriefs explaining the project and soliciting volunteers. The training provides background on converting your resume to a civilian format as well as other issues that might arise with job seekers, such as PTSD. He wants to carefully select the next wave of volunteers. We may use the my.SIOP platform for training. There should be some activity in the next few weeks for volunteering with the pilot. If the pilot is successful he would look into expanding the program. He has also involved two other members.


Feedback from Town Hall Meeting. President Reynolds said there were 12 people there, which is not bad compared to past years. Dr. Colella reviewed some of the current board initiatives and President Reynolds reviewed his goals. Dr. Colella said that one person asked why SIOP is not involved in the Healthy Workplace Initiative. The subject of master’s levels candidates being able to vote was brought up. Dr. Dave Baker said someone else brought up the branding project in light of the member statistics from the plenary. No one mentioned elections. Dr. Colella asked if there was a better way to do this. Mr. Nershi explained that we have tried various formats and times, but the attendance tends to be low. Dr. Allen asked if we have tried it after the plenary session. Dr. Hakel said he thinks it is necessary as an open forum. President Reynolds suggested having refreshments next year. Dr. Olson-Buchanan added that between now and August she will send an email requesting suggestions for the EB block of sessions at next year’s conference. If you have suggestions, go to her. There was agreement this should exist, however small it is.

Committee Sunset Reviews. Program APA: Dr. Olson-Buchanan explained that this committee has a history of success and adherence to goals. We are going to have a manual for everything under this portfolio at the end of the year. We are considering changing the tenure for this position so you spend more time as chair in training. They will request funding separately for these items. President Reynolds asked if the recommendations from the sunset report could be passed onto the committee chair for next year. We have already taken care of some of these issues. Dr. Hakel moved to accept the recommendation of Dr. Olson-Buchanan for the continued existence of the APA Program Committee. Dr. Thayer seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the recommendation of the sunset report to continue the APA Program Committee.

Program APS. Dr. Olson-Buchanan explained that his committee is not in the administrative manual though it is in the bylaws. She requested it be added to the list of committees. Since it is not a standing committee, and it is ad hoc, should we have a sunset review? Yes. This committee has had great success. She recommends that they continue the committee. Dr. Hakel moved to accept the recommendation of the sunset report to continue the APS Program Committee. Dr. Zickar seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the recommendation of the sunset report to continue the APS Program Committee.

Visibility. Dr. Foster Thompson said there have also been a lot of successes with this committee. There were comments regarding the budget for the committee as well as examining the subcommittee structure. Although the committee has been successful, it could do a lot more with a larger budget. She recommends that it continues. Dr. Olson-Buchanan moved to accept the recommendation of the sunset review to continue the committee. Dr. Zickar seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the recommendations of the sunset report to continue the Visibility Committee.

Membership Survey. Dr. Rogelberg said there was miscommunication about who was responsible for the results of the survey. Institutional Affairs clarified that they are not doing the analysis. Dr. Kim Smith-Jentsch said we have the member survey data as well as the exit survey data. She submitted some analyses with her report. They have suggested a TIP article on the results. It will probably be many articles. She would like the board to prioritize the results they would like. She explained some of the results and provided details. President Reynolds asked for the descriptives (standard questions) to be published first followed by special topic articles. Mr. Nershi explained that we also need the descriptive data to be published on the website. Dr. Brannick suggested organizing the follow-up articles based on sections from the survey. If any committee has requests for information, contact Dr. Smith-Jensch. Dr. Major noted that the Strategic Planning Task force would be interested in descriptives and possibly other data. We will publish the results on the Executive Board site as well.

SIOP LGBT Statement. Dr. Brian Roote presented a policy statement originally submitted in 2008. The feedback from that was, is SIOP really ready to release a policy statement? APA released a statement supporting LGBT people in military service in 2004. It is time for us to be the experts and be the voice for how a policy should be in the U.S. I am sure APA would pass this, but I don’t think they are experts in the area. We are advocating that SIOP be the authority on this topic. He hopes we could use this as an example for other areas. Dr. Scott explained that if we want to raise our visibility, this is the type of work we need to do. Dr. Zickar asked about lines including those with physical and racial disabilities and those in ethnic and racial minorities. Dr. Roote explained that they wanted to highlight the racial and other diversity within the LGBT group. Dr. Roote said he can follow-up with what guidelines are specific for APA’s policy statements. Dr. Kraut explained that he doesn’t think we should include any group that is already protected by law. He noted two phrases regarding the differentiation between subtle and overt discrimination. Shouldn’t they just be considered discrimination? Dr. Roote explained that those words came from our literature. Dr. Kraut said that it might be easier to get others involved if we use their same language. President Reynolds asked what SIOP’s obligation would be. Dr. Roote explained that he would want the LGBT committee to lead this. We could also call APA to help promote this and get the SIOP administrative office to draft a press release. Dr. Eden King explained that her committee is looking for guidance for what to advocate. Dr. Olson-Buchanan suggested replacing “creed” with “religion” since creed is not protected. Dr. Hakel said he would move to adopt this as a policy statement by SIOP and as press releases are prepared, they don’t have to quote this explicitly. Dr. Fred Oswald suggested language about what we do that exemplify the types of actions we support. Dr. Lundquist said she is a little uncomfortable adopting this with regards to changing specific wording. Dr. Major asked if we would want a legal review. Dr. Hakel’s motion allows for input to go back to the committee. It approves the idea, but allows for minor changes. His motion is to approve this as a statement of principle with the expectation that changes would be made over time and we could expand on this policy statement. Dr. Scott seconded the motion. We would be voting to pass this in good faith and that before this gets finalized we would review this with the current president and Eden King and LGBT committee. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Approved the policy in good faith with the expectation that this would be reviewed in light of the editorial suggestions from the board and finalized by the president, president-elect, LGBT committee, and Eden King.

President Reynolds proposed that the board look into creating criteria for policy statements. Is anyone interested in following up with the APA standards? Dr. Scott said he would follow up. Secondly, what if this was 1962 and the issue was race? What would we have wanted to vote? He said this is how we would have wanted to have voted and he is pleased to be a part of this.

Diversity Task Force. Dr. Colella explained that in January we started a diversity task force. We have the members, and the committee is looking to add others. We have membership data that says our student members are very ethnically and racially diverse but not our full membership. The proportion of minorities in Associate and Full Membership is way lower than it is for students. We tasked the task force with looking at why this is the case and what we can do to support ethnic and racial minorities. The committee would like some sort of vote from the EB that we support this task force. Dr. Rogelberg asked how we were factoring in master’s programs, because he suspects master’s programs are more diverse than doctorate. President Reynolds explained that we know we have issues converting student members to full members, why not look at that issue with particular focus on how to help diverse students make that jump as well? Dr. Colella explained that she thinks this will also be applicable to all student members and getting them to become professional members. The task force is looking for a motion, President Reynolds explained. Dr. Hakel moved for the board to support the task force’s work going forward. Dr. Thayer seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved a motion in support of the Diversity Task Force moving forward with its current activities.

APA Council Representative Report. Dr. Major explained that council has experienced some frustration in being the end point for all issues coming to APA. They want to spend more time in strategic work. They have started an initiative to make these actionable items that APA could vote on very soon. One of the things approved is convening a board of educational affairs task force with revising the undergraduate guidelines for majors in psychology. We want to make sure I-O is included in that. The Standards are also coming up soon. Nancy Tippins currently serves on the Committee on Professional Tests and Assessment. We want to weigh in during that period of public commentary and perhaps provide a white paper with our position. Council members will need to be debriefed about it. At this conference in conjunction with External Relations Committee the four council members met with SIOP members currently serving on the APA board or a committee. It was an excellent conversation and we got a lot of ideas. People want to share information with SIOP, but they don’t want to have to do a lot of work to get it to us. APA does not track a lot of the division’s people on the board and committees. They are looking into getting a new membership program and we requested it be able to give us a list of who is in SIOP on their committees and board. John Scott and she will be doing a session at APA in Orlando on how SIOP members can get involved in APA and vice versa. David Peterson and she are both in their last term, which ends in December. There is an election to elect two new council representatives. It will be one list and the top two vote getters will serve on council. President Reynolds explained that in the past there have been issues with the paper ballots mailing late. Let us know if there are issues. It will probably wrap up the last day in May.

Educating State and Provincial Licensing Boards. Dr. Brannick explained that in October President Reynolds attended the ASPPB conference. He made eight recommendations. Per those recommendations she asked the State Affairs Committee to put together a strategy for what an influence policy would look like. Dr. Mark Nagy explained that we know we want to become more involved with APA, ASPPB, but also with the state boards directly. Our proposal is to identify four or five key states or provinces where there are some licensing issues that may directly impact the practice of I-O. We also want to take into account the states where we have the most members. Then we would identify members who reside in those states and ask them to get involved in educating the state boards about the practice of I-O and let us know if they are preparing to implement anything that would affect us. We would ask them to document their experience and create a best practices document we could share with SIOP members. This would empower members to become more involved and show them how to do so. I would like the EB to tell us whether or not they think this has merit. If so, do you agree with the outlined approach? If I receive your blessing I would put together anticipated costs. We don’t expect them to be large sums. Could 4-5 people get reimbursed for costs to a state psychological board meeting? We anticipate that much of the communication would be done electronically. There was general agreement that this is a good idea. Dr. Peterson suggested guidelines for what we would ask the four to five people. Judy Blanton could help with this. Dr. Brannick said she has seen the materials they use and it was very balanced. Dr. Thayer made a motion in support of the direction the State Affairs Committee is taking, with the expectation that they would do analysis and then get the numbers into the budget and come back in September or give some estimates for the budget for June. Dr. Peterson seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board passed a motion in support of the direction the State Affairs Committee is taking with the ASPPB outreach, with the expectation that they would do analysis and then get numbers into the budget and come back in September or give estimates for the budget for June.

International Affairs Award Proposal. Dr. Donald Truxillo explained that the International Affairs Committee had discussed giving a non-monetary award for the top-rated international poster. This deals with the content of the poster being international, not necessarily international authors. A domestic author team could designate their submission as international. Dr. Truxillo explained that it could be work done internationally or cross-cultural comparison. Dr. Rogelberg asked what the goal is. Dr. Truxillo: two issues, creating more international author teams, and we also want more presentations on international topics. We would also possibly want to increase international representation at the SIOP conference. Dr. Zickar noted that we have a lot of awards. Dr. Hakel added that there are other awards in the pipeline as well. Dr. Rogelberg said that if we are trying to welcome more international visitors to the conference and international participants, there is a more direct route. Also, is this more important than encouraging research in other areas? What is to stop the other committees from wanting an award? Dr. Colella noted that it doesn’t cost us anything. Dr. Truxillo said he thinks it would be another sign of support for international members. Dr. Kraut mentioned that the topic content is generally the same for those who do research in the U.S. or outside the U.S., so we need to understand what it is we are trying to promote. Dr. Eden King said she would be willing to work with Dr. Truxillo if he wanted it to be about international authors instead of international research. Dr. Olson-Buchanan explained that the precedent for going with research over authors is already there with the LGBT award. Dr. Rogelberg explained that a lot of international members may not do international research, so if we want to support international members attending the conference, perhaps we should make it an award for collaboration. Dr. Major noted that she likes outside North American as defining international, not Canada. Dr. Truxillo will take this feedback to the committee.

Going Digital with TIP July 2013. Mr. Nershi said we have 2,000 members who elect to view TIP online. We would save $50,000 annually as well as be environmental if we went entirely digital. I suggest we move to a digital platform that can be accessed online via all mobile devices. The April 2013 issue would be the last print issue and would be a special commemorative issue. The staff developed a working prototype. This would reduce costs, increase efficiency and provide greater service. We wouldn’t want to lose TIP revenue, but we probably would lose some. Dr. Lundquist explained that the saving in printing would offset the loss in ad revenue, which is $28,000. Dr. Major said this would also shorten the amount of time between when publications are printed and when things are due. Would there be a backlash from members? Dr. Rogelberg said he is not ready for this. TIP is one of the few things he still reads cover to cover. Dr. Tonidandal suggested making people opt-in for the paper copy to get an idea of how many people want it in print. President Reynolds suggested up-charging for print. Mr. Nershi said the current print TIP is outdated as soon as it is published. Dr. Kraut said we should consider the advantage of analytics for digital TIP. Dr. Fred Oswald asked how much of the paper cost is fixed and would not change no matter how many we print. Mr. Nershi said he will check on that. Dr. Peterson said the current electronic format is not easy to use. Mr. Nershi said he wants to find the industry leader for the new format. Dr. Kraut said he thinks we need to find out how many people want paper. Dr. Brannick asked if we could incorporate the opt-in feature with the upcoming dues renewal. Dr. Heggestad said we should have the final digital version ready first in order to have a fair comparison between digital and print. Dr. Major said she is also concerned about taking away paper TIP at the same time we are considering a dues increase. Mr. Nershi explained that TIP is labor intensive and we could have much later deadlines with digital. Dr. Heggestad noted that we are only putting out four a year so it will still be outdated. Also, adding links etc. to digital would be labor-intensive. Dr. Thayer said the Nook and Kindle would not be able to play videos. Dr. Heggestad said he would like to see a prototype. Dr. Heggestad moved to move forward with further exploration of the concept of a digital TIP with the expectation that the Administrative Office will report at our next meeting with specifics, which might include evaluation by the membership committee. Dr. Major seconded. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: Board agreed to move forward with further exploration of the concept of a digital TIP with the expectation that the Administrative Office will report at our next meeting with specifics

My.SIOP Online Community Update. Mr. Nershi said we currently have more than 900 engaged users on my.SIOP, so we think it has been quite successful. Dr. Rotolo said he thinks we will see it grow and evolve. Dr. Olson-Buchanan asked if there is an app. Dr. Rotolo said to go to my.siop.org and it will direct you to a mobile site. You have to login using the SIOP website, which is not a mobile page, so that is one glitch. President Reynolds asked if there will be a consultant locator feature. Yes, the work is underway. Dr. Nershi thanked those involved.

SIOP Foundation Report. Dr. Hakel explained that Howard Klein, who is president of the SHRM foundation, talked with many leaders from SIOP about an award. It has evolved as an HRM Project Impact award with no cash value but to recognize the implementation of evidence-based practice in regards to making I-O more visible. The partner organizations would be the two foundations and the two associations. Next steps would be oral and written briefings for the SIOP EB about this potential award program. If we get a go-ahead on this it will go to the SHRM Foundation in June and the SHRM board itself for their review. A memorandum of understanding would then be drawn up over the summer, potentially making the first awards in 2014. Yesterday, the Foundation Board unanimously endorsed this. I am requesting your go ahead with this project. We want this to focus on HR practices, so Impact Award or HRM Impact award. Dr. Rogelberg said he thinks any partnership with SHRM is a good partnership. He asked about the language of this being an historic award. Dr. Hakel said they do not want fads. They want evidence that this is durable impact that would survive multiple CEOs. There was general agreement that this partnership with SHRM is good. Dr. Rogelberg made the motion to adopt the award as written. Dr. Colella seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Accepted a proposal from the SIOP Foundation to create a new award for HR impact, to be awarded jointly by The SIOP Foundation, SIOP, SHRM, and the SHRM Foundation.

One other thing that has been going on with the SIOP Foundation is the SIOP Scholar program. We have also created a my.SIOP community for SIOP scholars and we hope it becomes central.

Alliance for Organizational Psychology. The board met Wednesday morning. Dr. Hakel said they had a wonderful turnout. The Alliance will become incorporated in the U.S., Holland or Singapore sometime during 2012. We have not decided yet. That will happen by July. They are interested in using my.SIOP. We will be working with other conferences with the other organizations to make sure there are Alliance events on those programs.

Report on SIOP UN Team. Dr. Scott said the workplace abuse statement will be viewed by all 192 member states and we are looking to get a speaking part for Walter Reichmann. There is a lot of interest with this. I don’t foresee any problem getting volunteers. We participated in Psychology Day last week at the UN and discussed what impact psychology can have on vulnerable populations around the world. I was elected as chair of that last year. We joined the Conference on Non-Governmental Organizations (CONGO), to link governments with NGOs. Within CONGO are specific committees, so we can join them all and work our way up to leadership roles. We are also joining forces with a coalition of psychology NGOs. They are working on bylaws and I will follow up with the board. We also plan to put a page on my.SIOP.


Dr. Rogelberg suggested making the briefing book electronic. President Reynolds is publishing a calendar of Executive Board calls to update on critical issues. He would like to propose a 90-minute conference call on June 22. It is not a proper board meeting. He encouraged portfolio officers to take actions from the board to their committees so they can act on them right away.

Dr. Reynolds closed the meeting at 4:38.