SIOP Executive Committee Meeting, Sunday, April 14, 2013
Hilton Americas Houston
Present: Tammy Allen, Doug Reynolds, Jose Cortina, Kathleen Kappy Lundquist, Paul Thayer, Deborah Whetzel, Julie Olson-Buchanan, Allan Church, Milt Hakel, Cristina Banks, Laura Koppes Bryan, Paul Thayer, Rodney Lowman, John Scott, Deidre Knapp, Mike Zickar, Eric Heggestad, Chris Rotolo.
Absent: Steven Rogelberg
President Tammy Allen called the meeting to order at 8:23 AM.
Dr. Allen congratulated Conference Chair Robin Cohen, Program Chair Eden King and Executive Director David Nershi on another great conference. Welcomes were extended to new board members Cris Banks and Laura Koppes Bryan, re-elected board member Milt Hakel and President-Elect Jose Cortina.
Board members were given conflict of interest policy statements, which they signed and returned.
Financial Report – Financial Officer Kathleen Kappy Lundquist reviewed the financial statements for the period ending March. The balance sheet reflects total equity of more than $2.5 million. This amount is an improvement of more than $300,000 in the bottom line; however this is deceptive because of the timing of certain payments. We are about even with last year.
Dr. Lundquist said conference registration income and expenses are the greatest factors in our budget. Our dues receipts are on schedule and an improvement has been made on board expenses. She expressed thanks to board members for keeping expenses down.
Director of Administrative Services Linda Lentz was thanked for putting the information together. The budget for the next administrative year should be approved by end of June. Dr. Hakel asked about dues and the proposed dues increase. If the dues increase passes, it will be implemented within the current dues cycle, replied Dr. Lundquist. Dr. Banks asked for some clarification of budget. The Leading Edge Consortium meeting and the Hawaii annual conference could be issues. Dr. Allen suggested that portfolio chairs discuss budgets with their chairs.
ACTION ITEM: The January minutes were approved after a motion by Paul Thayer and second by Allan Church.
ACTION ITEM: The consent agenda was approved following a motion by Julie Olson Buchanan and second by Eric Heggestad.
Strategic Planning and Policy Ad Hoc Committee Organizational membership Requirement Discussion Paper – Deirdre Knapp then reviewed the SPPAC report on prerequisite organization memberships. The main question is: Should other organizational membership (APA, APS, CPA or EAWOP) be required?
The general opinion of SPPAC members is to continue to require it for initial membership but convey that continued membership is not required but does help further SIOP goals. It is evident that not all members know that membership in one of these organizations is required for initial membership, but is not a continuing requirement.
Rodney Lowman asked what problem we are trying to solve. He asked if there was evidence suggesting that students were not becoming full members because of the requirements. Evidence is not conclusive in this regard. Doug Reynolds said that conversion of student members to full membership was a primary driver but also that the dues increase was an additional factor. People do not understand that they do not have to keep up additional organizational dues, he said. Dr. Lowman questioned this.
Dr. Olson-Buchanan commented that the report explained why the organizations were coupled and some of the information is surprising. She said it is a good time to evaluate our intentions. Why or why not should these organizations be coupled?
Dr. Thayer said the idea was to maintain linkage with other organizations. Dr. Hakel said the initial intent was for members to continue these affiliations but enforcement is problematic. The policy should be reviewed.
Dr. Bryan expressed concern that only new members will be linked to affiliate organizations. Dr. Knapp agreed. Dr. Heggestad said members may not find personal value in the affiliate organization membership.
Dr. Knapp said she wonders if our affiliations help with our strategic goals. Members can be ambassadors to other organizations and should be acknowledged and rewarded, she said. Dr. Banks said we should imagine SIOP going it alone and the lack of impact and influence if not partnered with other organizations. We need to leverage those partnerships, she said. John Scott said we are actually trying to expand those partnerships.
Dr. Heggestad said there might be a bystander effect that members will expect others to join. Mike Zickar said that we are in fact going alone and that our advocacy position shows that. Dr. Church said many colleagues question the value of these other organizations and even SIOP. He wondered if changes could be phased in over time and if there are differences of opinions based on academic or practitioner orientation.
Do members see prerequisite organizations as a tax, wondered Dr. Olson-Buchanan? Dr. Lowman said we need more information to know the problem. Are members not keeping up these prerequisite memberships because they are entering the end of their career or are grad students not converting to full members in the other organizations? Dr. Reynolds said we should be clear that it is a personal choice but conveys to APA that we want our members to be a part of them but we need to know how to better convey the benefits. Dr. Thayer said that looking at demographics would be helpful.
Dr. Allen said the committee recommends we continue the current policy of requiring initial membership in a prerequisite organization but then preparing communication to let members know they do not need to continue that membership as an ongoing SIOP membership requirement.
We should inform but not broadcast the fact that continuing prerequisite membership is not required, said Nershi. Cris Banks made a motion to table the matter and vote later. Deb Whetzel says we need to show APA has value. Dr. Zickar says that APA should convey its own value. Laura Koppes Bryan questioned the strategic value of a single year of membership in a prerequisite organization like APA.
Dr. Allen said a motion on this issue would be postponed. The Membership Committee is to determine what additional data is needed, working with the APA representatives. Board members should contact Dr. Heggestad if they have suggestions. Doug Reynolds questioned whether a formal communication to members was needed at this time. It was determined that we needed to decide a course of action (e.g., continue with current policy or not require membership in prerequisite organizations) before communicating to members. The next member survey is in October. Dr. Allen asked Dr. Heggestad to look at issue to see if anything should be done before the survey. A report should be presented at the September board meeting. External Relations will continue to tout the benefits of APA to SIOP members.
SPPAC Charter document – Dr. Knapp presented the SPPAC charter document, which is intended to clarify the role of this planning group. One recommendation was to change the name and acronym to the Support, Planning, and Research Committee (SPARC). Part of the proposed charter states that SPARC will not make executive decisions or exercise executive authority, but rather provides input on which the board may act. The charter proposal states that the past Financial Officer would be invited to join the group.
Dr. Lowman asked about requirements for committee membership: Should they have strategic planning experience? There are no firm requirements at this point, but roles will become clearer as the committee works on projects. Dr. Allen moved to accept the charter and Dr. Zickar seconded. Upon discussion, it was decided that a change should be made to the charter proposal and this would best be accomplished with a different motion. The motion under consideration was not approved. Doug Reynolds suggested the language be softened to not require commitment of past financial officer.
ACTION ITEM – Dr. Olson Buchanan moved approval of the SPARC charter document with the removal of language requiring that the outgoing financial officer be invited to join the group before anyone else is appointed. Dr. Scott seconded. Motion approved.
Status of Branding Project – Branding Taskforce Chair Chris Rotolo next reported on the status of the project. The group is now ready to do concept testing. Mr. Nershi has negotiated with Qualtrics to obtain sampling panels at a discounted rate. The survey is programmed and should be sent in about two weeks
A “tagline guru” was hired to assist with work in this area. “Science” and “workplace” are key words that should be in the tagline.
A design competition was held on the 99Designs website to get logo options. We received more than 500 logo submissions from 300 designers. The group is being narrowed to a short list of 12 designers. Some rules have been established for the design: 1) No graphics of heads, 2) The graphic must have meaning, and 3) The look should be modern but not futuristic. Dr. Church asked whether the cost included the rights to the artwork. It was clarified that we have all rights to design. This is the same process that was used to design the my.SIOP logo. Dr. Bryan offered to help put committee in touch with deans and provosts for opinions. The branding board in the Wi-Fi lounge at the conference did not generate much input, but it was visited by attendees. Dr. Reynolds’ presidential address, which mentioned the importance of branding, was very helpful. Dr. Rotolo asked for help in unleashing the “brand splash.” Dr. Banks said a marketing firm might be useful at that time.
Use of my.SIOP for Campaigning – Dr. Allen led the next discussion, which focused on the use of SIOP digital media for election purposes. She said there were two distinct issues: use in SIOP elections and use in non-SIOP elections. The issue has now been brought to the forefront in the APA presidential election.
Two SIOP members are running for president of APA. Statements were posted on the my.SIOP forum during the nomination phase. These were posted by SIOP staff and the statements conformed to a word limit. Forums permit moderated responses from members. Dr. Allen asked if this is a good use of my.SIOP.
Mike Zickar said he is in favor of anything that draws traffic. Mr. Nershi said he wants to ensure fairness in the process. He said that since the nomination period is over that he implemented a policy that there would be no further candidate statements posted until a month in advance of the APA presidential vote. He believes this is ample time for members to get the needed information.
Dr. Scott asked if the resistance is due to the administrative office having to moderate the forum. Mr. Nershi said that he wanted to keep campaign activity to an appropriate level, especially since this is not for SIOP, but another organization.
Dr. Bryan questioned the precedent. Can members use it to run for local government? Dr. Church said he is OK with the use of my.SIOP for campaigning it if it benefits SIOP directly (APA and SIOP elections, not local). Dr. Bryant concurred.
Dr. Reynolds said that the freedom of social media makes keeping inappropriate comments out difficult, so it is best to regulate. Dr. Olson-Buchanan likes the idea of a regulated forum as well. The alternative, Dr. Allen stated, was that SIOP members can do whatever they want on my.SIOP. Dr. Hakel said if we want influence, we should do all we can to promote SIOP candidates for APA office.
Dr. Allen suggested that the External Relations committee determining guidelines for external elections, like APA, and the Elections Committee develop guidelines for internal (SIOP) elections. A policy is needed. Dr. Hakel mentioned having rules for non-SIOP members who are supported by SIOP.
ACTION ITEM: A motion was made by Dr. Heggestad and seconded by Dr. Olson-Buchanan to charge External Relations committee and Electronic Communications Committee with drafting policy on the use of SIOP digital media in external elections. Motion approved.
Use of my.SIOP for SIOP elections – The use of my.SIOP in the SIOP officer nominations process was then discussed. Mr. Nershi said guidelines were needed. There are many factors to consider. Dr. Hakel said that SIOP could provide a service for anyone interested in serving as an officer. It was noted that the number of nominations almost constitutes a runoff election. Dr. Banks said the use of my.SIOP could facilitate elections.
This could help eliminate inappropriate campaign emails. Relying on email lists is unfair to some candidates because others have access to longer lists, said Dr. Banks. Dr. Zickar said that my.SIOP being open to all makes it less likely to be negative. Dr. Allen suggested that all the statements from prospective nominees could all be done in a single forum. Dr. Zickar said that would produce more visibility. Mr. Nershi said that the number of nominations is very important in determining who gets on the ballot and the use of my.SIOP would be a more visible process for all. There would be no actual nominations, just information. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said it might reduce number of nominations because you would be seeing who else is being nominated for the office. It was remarked that this would increase the transparency of the nominations process.
ACTION ITEM – Dr. Allen summarized that my.SIOP is an appropriate tool for the SIOP elections process, but we need guidelines. She requested that Dr. Cortina and the Elections Committee review the matter and develop recommendations. The group is to look at what is currently in place and see what changes are needed for the nominations process as well as the election.
International Congress on Licensure, Certification, and Credentialing of Psychologists – The next item for consideration by the board was the question of sending a representative to this meeting in Stockholm in July. Dr. Hakel said the Emergency Action Subcommittee approved $5,000 for travel for a representative to explicitly represent SIOP at the congress. He said SIOP needs to be there because licensure is an ongoing issue. Though Dr. Hakel does not expect decisions to be made, information will be gleaned. Dr. Banks expressed that we need to be involved in the process. Joan Brannick will be the representative.
Policy on Policy Statements – Drs. Scott and Reynolds led the discussion on the proposed Guidance on the Adoption of Policy Statements. The guidance says information supporting five criteria should be submitted to the board when considering a policy statement:
- When the statement is provided, is it relevant to SIOP strategic goals?
- Is the issue important and relevant to SIOP?
- Are there empirical findings?
- Is there evidence that this is in our area of expertise?
- Will it have constructive impact on field or public opinion?
Dr. Banks suggested that we should consider precedent. Have we issued statements for other groups in similar situations?
Dr. Lowman questioned the Executive Board being obligated to ensure that the statements reflect the most relevant scientific literature available. After some discussion, Dr. Thayer made a motion that the statement and policy be amended to remove an absolute responsibility to vet the research and replace the verbiage with less forceful words. This was seconded by Dr. Lundquist and approved.
ACTION ITEM – Executive Board approves Guidance on the Adoption of Policy Statements with the removal of the following line: “As such, the EB is obligated to ensure that these statements reflect not only the most relevant scientific literature available but also that they align with SIOP’s mission, vision, values and long-term goals.”
The meeting recessed so that Portfolio Officers could meet with respective committee chairs
Following lunch the meeting resumed.
Science Advocacy Update – Via telephone, Steven Rogelberg reported on science advocacy efforts. This work began about 4 years ago. One recommendation was to hire a director of advocacy, pending funding. Then the direction was amended to looking for a consulting company that could provide advocacy support and then potentially adding an in-house person. An RFP process was initiated and two organizations emerged as best. Lewis-Burke, a Washington-based consulting firm, seems the best fit after meetings with both.
Dr. Rogelberg said that SIOP would also work to build its advocacy infrastructure. In line with this an ad hoc task force would serve as an intermediary between the consulting group and the membership.
Dr. Allen stated that if the dues increase does not pass SIOP should consider partnering with Lewis-Burke for a shorter period. If the dues increase passes, we would consider a one- or two-year contract. If the dues increase fails, then perhaps a six-month contract to create an advocacy agenda might be in order. We also hope to work with APA and the Federation.
Dr. Banks said she understands advocacy to be a strategic plan to get the right audiences and plans and then actually do it. Can the firm get us the audience we need and if so, who will do the actual advocating?
The question was asked as to why the firm won’t advocate for practice. In response it was noted that the plan is to advocate for the presence and importance of I-O psychology. As visibility becomes greater, it should help all in the I-O domain. Dr. Hakel urged the board to continue to call it Science Advocacy and Government Relations. External Relations will create a list of advocacy issues. Lewis Burke would work collaboratively on this aspect.
Potential New Practice Journal – Dr. Church next introduced the topic of a possible new practice journal. The purpose of the journal would be to translate science, make science more accessible, generate revenue, and provide publishing opportunities for members.
This concept is in a preliminary stage with many questions. Questions include whether the idea is sustainable, is it broad-based or internal and who will write it.
Dr. Church said there are two potential audiences: A broad HR audience to be provided with a high-level translation of I-O perhaps in collaboration with SHRM or, 2) SIOP practitioners who want hot topic and trending information. If the latter, there would be a need to survey members.
Dr. Banks suggested collaborative articles whereby the practitioner brings the issue and an academic writes the article. Drs. Olson-Buchanan, Zickar, and Heggestad like the idea of a best practice case study journal. Dr. Hakel mentioned that the HRM Impact Award could provide case studies.
Dr. Bryan suggested using the conference submissions to provide content. Dr. Lowman mentioned that Division 13 produces a practitioner-based journal published by APA, which makes money. Dr. Heggestad said a case study journal would also be useful in the classroom to explain how the science actually works as well as to show clients to explain the usefulness.
Dr. Banks likes the idea of commentaries like those currently used in the IOP journal. Dr. Reynolds recommended looking at this from a product development standpoint. We have the enthusiasm and now need to refine the product. It was asked why practitioners would want to publish. While it may be a positive for some, it could be a negative for others who are constrained by proprietary information and prohibition against “airing dirty laundry.”
APA Council Representative Report – Dr. Thayer then provided an APA update. Council voted themselves an extra $500 for the APA Conference meeting in Honolulu. The Good Governance project is looking at possible restructuring to streamline APA governance. Three models are under consideration.
APA is trying to get involved with violence issues and this will be major topic in Hawaii. The APA presidential initiative on returning veterans has a large health focus but I-O can be involved also. Dr. Thayer is resigning effective 5:00 PM today as representative. President Allen will appoint a successor. Dr. Lowman said the APA Good Governance initiative changes fiduciary responsibility to the elected APA board from the Council of Representatives. SIOP’s APA program chair may miss Hawaii due to lack of funding.
APA Center for Organizational Excellence – Dr. Reynolds reported that APA has established a new Center of Organizational Excellence. This new center encompasses the Psychologically Healthy Workplace award and seeks to become a resource center for psychology in the workplace. They are interested in possible collaboration with SIOP. This could include white papers, webinars, and possibly consultant locator. He asked how we should approach the partnership. This new center will keep growing and SIOP should not be left behind. All content would be SIOP branded.
The process for the PHWP awards is extensive and the network of volunteers is large and already has I-O involvement at state and national level. Dr. Banks explained that our endorsement is critical for credibility but they have not engaged us to help build it. We should not expect anything back from APA, she said. Dr. Reynolds said they have 20,000 people signed up for a newsletter so at the very least it is a good channel. Dr. Hakel wondered if someone should be monitoring this. Dr. Reynolds said it is being monitored, and it may warrant increased scrutiny in the future.
White Paper Review Process – Dr. Zickar next covered the issue of SIOP white paper guidelines. He said the excitement is there to produce white papers but we need to police the quality. He said committees should have autonomy but the criteria should be explicit: up to date research and balanced perspective. The Visibility Committee uses someone outside the committee to review.
Dr. Zickar said monitoring is needed so that papers are not being produced on same topic simultaneously in different committees. Some standardization is requested and needed, including templates for authors, he said. Dr. Reynolds said perhaps the papers could be in a tiered system to differentiate the different length papers. Mr. Nershi said a graphic template making the look consistent is important. It was noted that groups are good at generating content but not getting it seen. Dr. Lowman said the papers need to be monitored to make sure quality is high when representing SIOP.
Conference Update – Conference Chair Robin Cohen provided an update on the Houston conference. She said there were 3,887 in attendance. There were no issues and people loved the hotel. The food and parties were great. On the topic of the 2014 Hawaii conference, there is some concern about attendance and the number of exhibitors. A Conference Committee planning meeting will be held in July. A virtual placement center as an idea to keep revenue up has been discussed. Mr. Nershi told the group about the activities of the Hawaii Outreach Taskforce. They have made a database of Pacific Rim members and companies, and are exploring the idea of travel awards for students. Program Chair Evan Sinar stated there are questions about Hawaii on the Houston post-conference survey that will assist in our planning. Marketing of Hawaii is to begin in May.
Clarification and Communication of SIOP’s Policy on Remote Conference Presentation/Attendance – This matter was presented on behalf of the Conference Committee. Numerous requests have been received over the years for speakers to participate remotely in conference presentations (i.e. conference call, video streaming or Skype). This has been against policy, but there is a need to clarify and communicate this as it is anticipated that the number of requests may increase for the 2014 Hawaii annual conference. The Conference Committee recommended the following:
Remote participation – either presentations or attendance – should be firmly and explicitly prohibited, for all future conferences, or until amended at such time as conditions dictate a review and revision of this policy.
The written proposal outlined a number of points to support this including avoiding a decline in the quality of presentations, increased costs and perceptions of inequity by those attending in person and bearing full costs.
ACTION ITEM – Dr. Olson-Buchanan made a motion to accept the clarification on communication of SIOP’s Policy on Remote Conference Presentation/Attendance. Seconded by Dr. Zickar. Upon discussion an amendment was suggested by Dr. Hakel and approved that this would apply to submitted sessions, but not to invited sessions. Motion approved.
History Presentation – Dr. Heggestad reported that a special “living history” session was presented at the conference in the form of an interview with David Campbell. This special session was suggested by SIOP Historian Kevin Mahoney. The interview was videotaped so it can be added to the website as part of a “living history” library. He said the board should consider continuing this in the future and perhaps making this part of the EB programming block.
Leading Edge Consortium Report – The 2013 LEC will be held October 18-19 at the Omni Richmond hotel in Richmond, Virginia. Consortium Chair Jeff McHenry is focusing on broadening the appeal of the event, getting a group of high level attendees and utilizing innovative formats. Talent management with a focus on leaders is the topic and the committee is working on developing subtopics and the agenda. Dr. Zickar asked about a science person on the committee. Dr. Olson Buchanan said that there was strong science representation on the steering committee. A science advisor will be used in the planning of the event.
Local I-O Group Initiative – Dr. Heggestad updated the group on efforts to establish links between SIOP and local I-O groups. This is an emphasis area for President Allen. There were questions as to whether SIOP will endorse local groups and if they would be vetted or considered affiliate groups.
Dr. Olson Buchanan asked about initial response to the idea and Dr. Allen said it has been positive. Rich Klimoski mentioned Academy of Management and SHRM as two organizations with affiliate groups that could serve as models. Dr. Banks inquired as to what constitutes a local group. The response was that these groups vary considerably and range in size from 20 to more than 1,000. The main criterion is to self-represent as an I-O group.
SIOP Foundation Report – Dr. Hakel, who also serves as SIOP Foundation President, presented a brief report on that group. He said the Foundation is in good condition and had a strategic planning meeting in January in Houston. Many ideas came out of the meeting including the concept of a Praxis consortium through which a focal question with significant potential impact on applied I-O work would be explored in depth. The feasibility of such a consortium will be field tested through the financial support of Dick Jeanneret. The Foundation gave out awards at Wednesday evening Foundation reception for first time and it was very successful. The Foundation is also looking at taking over funding of the SIOP Distinguished Awards. The possibility of frequent flier mile donations to support student travel to the Hawaii conference is also being explored. Dr. Klimoski said the Foundation is looking at visionary ways to influence the future. A major initiative is the HRM Impact Award, which is a joint effort of SIOP, the Foundation, SHRM and the SHRM Foundation. Information about the award is available online.
Alliance for Organizational Psychology Report – Dr. Hakel provided an update on Alliance activities. He said the group began at SIOP 2008 in San Francisco. The articles of incorporation have been filed. Other administrative paperwork is being filed. Members include SIOP, Division 1 of IAAP, and EAWOP (Canada, South Africa, Australia and South America considering joining). The Alliance had sessions on SIOP program and will have some in Muenster (EAWOP) and in Hawaii. The group is also keeping an eye on standards and licensure issues that may surface at international meetings.
Report on SIOP UN Team – Dr. Scott reported on SIOP’s UN team activities. Psychology Day at UN will be held April 25 with the theme: Psychology and Violence in the Global Context. Dr. Scott and SIOP member Walter Reichman are co-chairing the event. Some of the sessions including information on child soldiers, sex traffic, torture, child abuse, and others. Workplace violence will be brought to fore. Lori Foster Thompson will run next year’s event. UN personnel, ambassadors, students, teachers, and government personnel attend and 170 attendees are expected. The program may be available as a video. The group applauded Dr. Scott’s hard work on this project. SIOP will be featured prominently and APA promotes this. Some changes may be necessary in the group of SIOP representatives, Dr. Scott said.
Veterans Program Update – Dr. Reynolds gave a progress report on this project in which SIOP volunteers are paired with veterans to assist them in transitioning to nonmilitary jobs. This effort is not unique, but SIOP approaches it differently. Many groups charge for this but SIOP does not. There are 94 volunteers but not that many veterans who are seeking this service right now. The program is still in pilot phase. There have been some successes and good results are expected.
The group then gave a round of appreciative applause for Dr. Reynolds and his work as SIOP president and for Dr. Thayer for his service as Executive Board member.
The business of the Society being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:09