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

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Spring Executive Board Meeting

Philadelphia Marriot Downtown
April 26, 2015

Present: Alex Alonzo, Cristina Banks, Jose Cortina, Lori Foster Thompson, Milt Hakel, Deirdre Knapp, Laura Koppes Bryan, Steve Kozlowski, Rodney Lowman, Fred Oswald, Jim Outtz, Deb Rupp, Evan Sinar, Scott Tannenbaum, Mo Wang, Deborah Wetzel. David Nershi, Linda Lentz, April Burke, Laura Uttley and various committee chairs were also in attendance.

Absent: None.

CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS

President Kozlowski called the meeting to order at 8:32 am. He welcomed the new officers:
James Outtz (President-Elect), Scott Tannenbaum (Financial Officer/Secretary), Mo Wang (Membership Services Officer), and Deborah Rupp (Publications Officer). President Kozlowski asked the board to thank Past President Jose Cortina for his leadership over the last year. President Kozlowski discussed the schedule for the day.

FINANCIAL REPORT

Dr. Tannenbaum gave an overview of the financial report. He explained that we are doing well, we are solvent. On the income side, we only have two income streams, dues and conferences. Dues are up from the prior year. We are at 40% of budgeted dues, but the numbers look normal compared to last year at this time. Conference registration and workshop income are both up from Hawaii and Houston, and we look to exceed the forecast. Booth and other sponsorships were higher this year as well. We will look more closely at final numbers later this year. JobNet is also up. Placement Center is up from Hawaii and about the same as Houston. LEC registration is up. Sponsorship for LEC is down a little bit from last year, but up from Houston. Dr. Evan Sinar asked how much it matters that some of the numbers are down if they are still on target with budget. Ms. Lentz explained that some of the income flows through two fiscal years, so in the course of the next two months we hope to hit our budget number with increased income through LEC registration. SIOP’s portfolio right now is heavily balanced toward cash because of the conference and needing to write a lot of big checks. The SIOP Administrative Office will be hiring a senior IT Analyst soon, and they have identified at least one candidate. Dr. Hakel asked if there were any thoughts about budget preparation for the coming year. Ms. Lentz explained that they are on track to get things moving smoothly by July. Dr. Hakel moved to accept the financial report, Dr. Banks seconded. Financial report passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the financial report.

CONSENT AGENDA

Dr. Koppes Bryan moved to accept the consent agenda. Dr. Lowman seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board passed the consent agenda:

    1. Approval of January Meeting Minutes (pgs. 19-29)
    2. Report on Emergency Action Items/Interim Board Action (page 32)
    3. Portfolio Reports (Written reports requested. Items requiring EB action will be considered under Other Matters.)
      • Conferences and Programs – Evan Sinar
      • Publications – Deb Rupp
      • Communications – Alex Alonso
      • External Affairs – Milt Hakel
      • Membership Services – Mo Wang
      • Professional Practice – Cris Banks
      • Instruction and Education – Laura Koppes Bryan
      • Research and Science – Fred Oswald

AGENDA ITEMS

Implementation of New Bylaws Amendments

Mr. Nershi explained the status of preparations for the bylaws amendments to go into effect May 13. We have some more forms to update, etc. Dr. Sinar asked, regarding the associated organization membership bylaws change, if we can track how this affects APA membership amongst SIOP members. Mr. Nershi said we will do our best to measure that. Mr. Nershi continued providing an overview of the bylaws changes. The SIOP Membership and the Education and Training committees are working on the ramifications of the bylaws changes. For example, how do we vet new members? Dr. Wang explained this briefly. They are working on how the processes will work. Mr. Nershi explained that we also have a green light list for universities that seem very reputable. Dr. Koppes Bryan explained that we do need to further discuss how to handle the programs that are not specifically I-O, which we will do later today.

Dr. Hakel moved to approve the policy “Establishing a Pathway to Member Status for Associate Members.” Dr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Note: It is only a result of the motion that the board just passed that someone can begin the pathway to membership process. It will all be implemented May 13.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the policy for “Establishing a Pathway to Member Status for Associate Members.”

Society Associate Members who meet the following eligibility requirements may apply to become a Society Member:

  • Society Associate Member status for a period of at least 5 consecutive years.
  • Be engaged in professional activities as described in Article II, 2c of the Society Bylaws.
  • Submit a letter of nomination from a Society Member or Society Fellow who can attest to your professional activities as described in Article II, 2c of the Society Bylaws.
  • Have obtained a Master’s Degree that meets criteria as established in policy by the Executive Board.
  • Have attended three official meetings of the Society in the last five years.

Dr. Knapp asked if we will be able to track how many people are taking advantage of this change. Mr. Nershi said we are hoping to track this and report back to the board, though we are only expecting about 300 people who will be eligible for full membership. We might be looking at half that actually using it.

Advocacy Update

Ms. April Burke, President of Lewis-Burke, gave a brief presentation about SIOP’s work with the organization in D.C. This relationship began about two years ago. She gave a brief overview of Lewis-Burke. She explained that they are trying to advocate for I-O amongst the stakeholders on Capitol Hill, including Congress, the White House, federal agencies, likeminded organizations and the scientific community. They have been working on determining what is it that they want to do for SIOP. In the previous report there were some specific options worth pursuing. We have learned that I-O in and of itself is something that people understand is important right away, but trying to tie that to government outcomes is harder. They are hoping to increase opportunities to engage with federal and congressional support for I-O research, increase external visibility with federal decision-makers, and increase activities to enhance SIOP members’ understanding of federal policies, funding, and processes. We should try to latch onto current issues that we can speak to even if they aren’t necessarily the most important issues to I-O at the time. One example is veterans in the workplace, also workforce aging and retirement issues, etc. Ms. Burke also discussed opportunities for outreach with the National Science Foundation. They have reached out to AARP and we are trying to find ways to reach out to the White House group on aging. Before you can activate members in a society to become advocates, you have to know what your specific goal or message is. We need to do better to figure out what that space will be for SIOP, what will that message be? Policymakers see the connection between I-O, workplace wellbeing, and indicators for the economy. What can I-O tell us about the health of the economy? We have something people want, but we need to figure out how to say it without being drawn into partisanship.

Dr. Tannenbaum asked if we will ever get to a place where people in the government reach out to ask us for help. Ms. Burke explained that this has happened to us a few times. Dr. Kozlowski explained that we are not good working that way. We need to better identify where we have enough people with an interest in an issue for it to become an issue that SIOP represents or speaks to. Dr. Tannenbaum added that it seems like we would be making progress when they come to us, and we need to be able to respond quickly. At the VA, they asked if SIOP could do a review of all of the VA programs and they were willing to pay for this, but we are not really set up to do that type of a review.  Dr. Kozlowski explained that the I-O registry may serve as a model for this type of work. Self-organization is tricky, but this is one of his goals for his presidency. Dr. Banks said she thinks the registry needs to create a body of interested parties who have the credentials and then they could meet regularly to discuss what they are interested in working on. Dr. Koppes Bryan asked what other organizations have done to be ready for this type of request. Ms. Burke explained that other organizations have chosen specific topics to focus on and then they are writing white papers. Congressional testimony is really easy to do. You just submit it on behalf of the thousands of people in the society, etc. She would love to see us have relationships outside of the typical allied organizations you would normally think of, and then perhaps designate someone to speak on behalf of that group. Dr. Hakel asked if Lewis Burke thinks any other agencies or universities may be amenable to partnering with us. Dr. Burke explained that we could do joint briefings with other organizations. There are a lot of natural allies. Dr. Outtz commented that law enforcement is a hot topic currently. We may be able to work with local organizations, police or fire departments to share our knowledge of selection and promotion best practices. Dr. Rupp explained that we could also use this strategy for work with the United Nations. Dr. Oswald explained that we need to think about “safe” topics that are non-partisan. Ms. Burke explained that topics move quickly in D.C. One area where we almost tripped up was the President’s Partnership for Public Service, which is very pro-union, and we had to back out of that.

Awards Committee Conflict of Interest Policy

Dr. Wang explained that the idea is when people are serving on the Awards Committee they are not supposed to be nominated for awards or self-nominate. We want to specifically state this is not allowed. If you are sitting on the committee, this statement would say that you exclude yourself from the awards. Dr. Hakel stressed that this should say you should neither apply nor be nominated. Dr. Hakel asked that this nomination phrase be included. Dr. Wang agreed to edit the language to include, “or be nominated” in addition to apply. Dr. Wang agreed to add this language. Our existing policies already cover this for regular nominations; this statement would extend that to instances where there are no nominations and people suggest themselves. Dr. Rupp moved to accept the awards conflict of interest policy. Dr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the amended Awards Committee Conflict of Interest Policy.

National Registry Project

Mr. Nershi explained that as a result of the previous board discussion of the Health and Wellness I-O Consultant Registry there is a registry test site online. We are working on the wellness registry at this point, but this could be developed into other registries or used for an advocacy resource.People would opt in through their my.SIOP profile. President Kozlowski explained that this needs to be something that is easy to pull people out of. That is, that the data base is structured so that SIOP leadership can search for members with credentials and expertise in a given area of advocacy. There was discussion of the UN Development Goals project database for submitting information about resources and member expertise to SIOP. This was developed for times when we receive calls for help on specific goals and need a quick turnaround. Dr. Banks explained that the registries are a repository of expertise. President Kozlowski said he would like something that is more self-organizing and something that anyone in SIOP can start. There was further discussion regarding the mechanics of creating lists. Mr. Nershi explained that we have options for creating special interest groups within my.SIOP. Dr. Alonzo explained that the Electronic Communications Committee is working this year to decide how they will use the new my.SIOP platform to solve the problems we face. Dr. Hakel suggested videos to explain how to edit your my.SIOP profile. Dr. Alonzo said they are doing that.

Association Management Software Project

Ms. Lentz gave an update on the AMS project. She thanked the board for approving the AO’s proposal for this project. We have looked at 14 different companies and narrowed it down to a few key players. A lot staff and Program Committee were involved. We needed the AMS software in addition to abstract management software. We have narrowed this down to JL Systems’ NOAH. This could take 5-6 months. We expect everything to be done by early October. We are working with a recruiter to find a candidate with Dot Net Nuke experience to help with this. The recruiter does a heavy vetting process and they will share that information with us next week. This will be used for reviews this December. We will still have Program Builder ready to go in case we need it. Dr. Sinar said he is very excited about this new program. Zack Horn, former Electronic Communications Committee chair is excited about it. He lives only a few miles away from the DNN headquarters and has been a liaison with them. We have been approved by the EB to spend $100,000 toward this and we expect to send $70,000 in the implementation phase, so we should have a pretty good cushion of funds.

HRPS White Paper Proposal

Dr. Banks explained the types of people that make up the Human Resources Planning Society (HRPS). They are similar to us, but the membership is less than 10% overlap with us. Their interest is to educate and improve the evidence-based basis of the practice of HR. One of the offerings they have is a white paper series. It is similar to our collaboration with SHRM. We have been asked to be a contributor to the white paper series. We spoke about this at the January meeting. They want the white papers to not only perform on the science side, but also to make the business case. They are interested in evidence-based decision making, gathering HR metrics, etc. Many of their topic interests overlap with ours. Dr. Alonzo explained that they are looking for 4-6 white papers per year on these topics for senior-level HR executives. Dr. Banks asked, how do we invite people to write these white papers given the co-branding of them? Dr. Cortina asked if HRPS will only be interested in certain people. Those topics are very general. We have a lot of members to choose from. Dr. Knapp mentioned that we may be able to find people who are looking for more visibility. President Kozlowski mentioned that we need oversight. Where does the oversight come from? The SHRM-SIOP series falls under Dr. Alonzo, but the oversight really falls under Mark Poteet, chair of the Professional Practice Committee. The first six of the SIOP-SHRM white papers are among the most downloaded documents on SHRM’s website. Dr. Lowman asked if these would be co-owned by both organizations. They would be. Dr. Kozlowski asked if they would have anything to share that we would want. They have a strategy journal. Dr. Tannenbaum explained that members would be interested in getting their work out to that audience. Mr. Nershi explained that HRPS is also a prime target for LEC attendance. Dr. Banks explained that the benefit to SIOP would be if we could get some of those people to go to the LEC. The problem is that our conferences and events overlap. The next step is how we advertise this to the SIOP membership. She will speak with Mark Poteet to see about getting members involved.

New Editor for IOP Journal

Dr. Rupp said there was an open call for editor in November and December. There are only a few select individuals who are qualified for such a specific role. Dr.  John Scott was suggested for the journal editor position. We met with Editor Kevin Murphy yesterday about this and he was amenable. Dr. Scott will have a 3-year term.

Status of Professional Practice Book Series

Dr. Rupp explained that we have gotten to a point with Jossey-Bass where they are rejecting all of our prospectuses for new books. Mr. Nershi has notified them that we are terminating our agreement. We are now in the process of looking for a new publisher. We are looking into whether or not we can purchase the rights to the series name as well as the backlog of literature. Dr. Rupp, since she has begun her role, has made this a priority. She and other members of the leadership are looking at publishers and she has no doubt that we will be able to forge a successful relationship with a new editor and that the series will continue. President Kozlowski explained that one of his issues is translational science and making it more useful to non-I-O psychologists. Mr. Nershi explained that since the publisher has not been accepting any of our proposals, we are worried about the pipeline going dry. We need to move forward with a new publisher soon. Dr. Kozlowski explained that we should have proposals in the pipeline when we approach a new publisher. There are proposals in the pipeline that were rejected that we could go back to.

APA Council of Representatives Report

Drs. Whetzel and Knapp explained that they will be rotating their reports. Dr. Knapp gave an overview of the January meeting. This was the first time we were there under the new governance structure. Dr. Lowman is chair of the council leadership team. He gave a presentation explaining some of the organizational development aspects.  Dr. Foster Thompson also gave a presentation. The report will be included in the next issue of TIP. The financial health of APA continues to be quite good. They do have some anticipated budget shortfalls for this year, but they continue to be financially healthy.

Dr. Lowman explained that APA Council of Representatives has split up the functions and delegated responsibility to the Board of Directors for fiscal responsibility as well as internal operations of APA as an organization. What is left for council to do is focus on psychology as a discipline, and its function will be policy. We are still trying to figure out what this means. Part of the challenge is to help organize council to be able to deal with substantive issues in a proactive way as well as to prioritize issues. Dr. Lowman also noted some controversy related to APA’s alleged role in torture allegations under the Bush Administration. They are expecting more articles in the New York Times to appear. They will take action if there were bad things done.

APA is potentially getting back into the question of whether the doctoral level is the only level at which practice is recognized. It is clear that the doctoral level is necessary for practice in the healthcare industry, but this is not so clear outside of healthcare. There is an opportunity that this question may be opened and we have a chance to add to the discussion. Dr. Knapp said that it could be a meaningful message back to APA that we are encouraging full membership of non-doctoral members. President Kozlowski asked how we are planning to communicate that to APA. Mr. Nershi said a communication from the president would be appropriate. President Kozlowski noted a communication from our APA reps would also be appropriate. Dr. Lowman also explained that perhaps the SIOP membership personnel should notify the appropriate division office at APA. Mr. Nershi explained that this should not affect their membership largely since members already are not required to maintain membership in APA after the initial SIOP application. We need to communicate the value of APA and that we will not discourage people from applying for APA membership. Dr. Lowman said he believes this is a good time for SIOP to get involved in APA. Organizational psychologists and consulting psychologists are becoming more respected. I think this is an opportunity to make a bigger impact. One of the things that would help us as APA representatives is to know what messages you want us to take to APA. What is our short list? There was discussion of topics SIOP might be interested in pursuing.

Break-out meeting with portfolio officers and chairs, 11:30-12:15.

Lunch 12:15-1:15.

Called meeting back to order at 1:18 pm.

Dr. Cortina presented a gift of appreciation to board with the book Moneyball. This is not a book about baseball, this is a book about I-O psychology, he noted, and encouraged the board embers to read it and enjoy.

Institutional Research Committee Proposed SIOP Survey Policy

Dr. Oswald explained that this was created to prevent “survey fatigue” and consolidate the surveys sent to SIOP members. As surveying becomes easier and more technology-based, it becomes easy to overwhelm people with surveys. We would like more planning and scheduling of surveys several months in advance to help promote efficiency. Email reminders of surveys should also be reduced so that we are not constantly reminding people of them. Mr. Nershi said that SIOP does have a survey policy, but this is a clarification of the policy. He noted that the reminder limits are particularly necessary. The Conference Survey was recently revised to reduce the completion time. It had grown a lot also because people continued to add questions, but questions that were no longer relevant were not removed. Dr. Sinar explained that they went through to determine what was actually necessary and where there items gathering the same information. Dr. Tannenbaum asked if SIOP has an option for opting out of surveys. Dr. Oswald said he will look into that as well as the option of opting in to other surveys. There was discussion of how to better develop surveys and survey questions. Dr. Knapp described one survey question in particular that was frustrating because none of the options appeared to categorize her work appropriately. That becomes a problem when the survey data is used to make decisions. Dr. Oswald noted that the committee certainly wouldn’t want any SIOP members to feel disenfranchised or put off by poorly crafted surveys or questions and he will look into it. Dr. Banks moved to approve the survey policy. Dr. Oswald seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.

Action Item: Board approved Institutional Research Committee proposal for SIOP Survey Policy.

Advocacy Update (continued)

Dr. Oswald continued to speak briefly about SIOP’s advocacy work. We have the CNSF exhibition next week. This event is essentially showing what National Science Foundation (NSF) is funding. These are apparently very well attended. The Workforce Aging briefing is May 12. Dr. Foster Thompson explained that probably Lewis-Burke’s biggest challenge is understanding what SIOP wants. Dr. Banks explained that she sees the main issue being that SIOP needs to be able to respond quickly when people ask us for help or information. There was further discussion of how SIOP decides what its advocacy goals will be. Dr. Knapp explained that the External Relations Committee is working to maintain institutional memory. We are not nimble enough to be able to react to something right away. If there were a way to develop a list of I-O psychologists in the DC area who could be trained and speak at a moment’s notice. There was discussion of having a multidisciplinary approach.

SIOP Foundation Report

Dr. Hakel noted that the Foundation Trustees are grateful for the $40,000 contribution from SIOP that was approved in January, We would, of course, gratefully receive any future contributions. The funds will be used to create an endowment. There is a lot of interest in how we can mentor early career and mid-career people more directly. Presently we are looking for corporate foundations and corporate partners to help our Fund for the Future. This is a more short-term fund rather than an endowment. One of the topics we have recently discussed is the future of I-O within psychology departments. Is there some way to increase collaboration among departments that will help increase the impact of I-O amongst the collaborating departments? One aspect of the conversation is that SIOP might be able to create some type of institution that would create SIOP Centers for Excellence. This would be a place others could go to find information on specific topic areas. No specific proposal yet, but possibly something in September. Dr. Rupp has been putting on brown bags lunches called I-I-I-O. They are looking for ways to connect students and faculty across several universities. Another idea for a SIOP Humanitarianism Award that might be given in recognition to a member or even a non-SIOP member, it might be simply recognition or an award with a cash prize, or an award that goes to an organization that supports that. No action on this for a while, but he asks that the board would consider that possibility. President Kozlowski brought up the idea that SIOP select someone outside of SIOP who exemplifies our values. Possibly a senator or congressperson who supports science. They could come to SIOP and speak, etc. Dr. Hakel said the Foundation would be open to discussing that. Dr. Hakel thanked Dr. Outtz for his work in establishing his grant as well.

Alliance Update

Franco Fraccaroli, Rosalind Searle, and Donald Truxillo are the new Officers of the Alliance for Organizational Psychology, Inc.  They have assumed office as President, Secretary-General, and Treasurer respectively. Dr. Hakel also explained the SIOP members who represent SIOP as representatives on the Board of Delegates to the Alliance and attending various events. The Alliance is now on the verge of inviting other organizations to join it outside of the founding organizations. They will eventually want access to the SIOP member list to allow people to opt in to the Alliance itself. We will also want links to the Alliance website on the SIOP website.

Leading Edge Consortium

Dr. Sinar reported that the marketing is starting to ramp up for this. We are going to try to make use of the funds for speakers and other activities that the board extended to the LEC at the last meeting. The subject is “a fresh look at performance management.” One of the most popular sessions at this conference was a debate on performance reviews that included LEC Chair Elaine Pulakos, so this a very relevant topic.

SIOP Time Capsule

Dr. Jeff Cucina, SIOP Historian, explained that they have a few ideas and items right now for inclusion in the SIOP time capsule. They are in talks with the archives for storage. We may not want to leave it at the Administrative Office because the office may move once the lease is up. Members are supposed to contact him regarding ideas for what to include. We are looking for things from 2015, especially those that may not be around in 30 years. We will also accept older items.

SIOP Annual Conference Update

Dr. Eden King thanked the SIOP Executive Director Dave Nershi and the SIOP Administrative Staff for all of their hard work. Program Chair Dr. Kristen Shockley did a great job and Dr. Sinar provided a huge help. We have a total of 4,325 conference registrants. Despite some issues with the hotel that were dealt with by the AO, we had a successful conference with a lot of very full sessions, engaged attendees, etc. Dr. Sinar reminded everyone to please upload their presentation materials to my.SIOP. They will receive an email next week. Dr. Outtz asked if there was any way to set up a repository so others could view the posters, specifically, afterward. We could do this just like the other presentations and post to my.SIOP. Mr. Nershi explained that we might be able to look into digital poster sessions. There were questions about proceedings. Mr. Nershi commented that there may have been questions in the past regarding whether or not conference proceedings would be treated like publications, and that was why we did not pursue it.

Anaheim Conference Planning

We are looking forward to Anaheim. The conference chairs are set, etc. and we are making good progress and look forward to seeing everyone next year.

OTHER MATTERS

SIOP Education and Training Committee
 
We are looking to changes to the guidelines for doctoral and master’s degrees. We are not even in line with the APA guidelines on guidelines because they have not been updated in so long. We would like input from the Executive Board in terms of what we should look into to make changes to the guidelines. Dr. Whitney Botsford Morgan said that we would like to look into what is essential. We would like to pare our guidelines down. A concern raised among the program directors is that we remain broad and acknowledge that there are other ways to achieve the outcomes associated with the guidelines beyond classroom education. We have two sets of guidelines, one for masters and one for doctorate, and there is a lot of overlap. There has been a push to having only one set of guidelines with perhaps different proficiency levels for master’s vs doctorate students. We are thinking that perhaps we should move away from the guidelines and instead move toward the outcomes we would like to see. What are the reactions to the idea of guidelines versus outcomes? What are your thoughts on the idea of one model as opposed to master’s and a separate doctoral?

Dr. Koppes Bryan explained that when the group was looking at master’s versus doctorate guidelines, they weren’t really finding many differences. So it appears that maybe it is really just an issue of proficiency. President Kozlowski asked what the goal is in having these documents. Part of this was to help institutions develop curricula and I-O programs. Dr. Koppes Bryan explained that this was the original goal, but more goals have come up in recent years regarding the idea of somehow recognizing I-O degree programs or designating them as I-O psychology degree programs so that when they are competing with APA clinical programs, they have something to leverage. This also has implications for membership. In some ways we already have SIOP green-lighted programs now. Mr. Nershi explained that another use for these guidelines is that we refer a lot of students to these guidelines so they understand what is involved in a post-graduate I-O degree. Dr. Koppes Bryan explained that she does not think anyone wants to move toward accreditation or anything like it, but the program directors tell us they need more leverage when competing with consulting programs that are certified by APA.

There was discussion regarding the difference, or potential difference between the master’s and doctoral guidelines. There was discussion of the mechanics of moving toward a SIOP-recognized list of programs. SIOP would need to find a way to put a stamp on a program and evaluate it against these guidelines. President Kozlowski explained that he does not see a way around this tension, so perhaps we should save it for a separate conversation. Dr. Banks suggested syncing the competencies with the international standards as well as licensing standards. We do not want to develop something that will derail those who want to be licensed or disenfranchise those who do not want to be licensed. Dr.  Koppes Bryan asked if our competencies are reflective of our science and practice today. It sounds like the subcommittee should continue to do its work and look to other programs and committees and for direction. Dr. Janet Barnes-Farrell explained that we will need to look into who (programs and programs directors) is listed on the SIOP website versus who is actually communicating with SIOP and responding to emails, etc. There was further discussion of complying with APA’s “guidelines on guidelines.” Do we have to send the master’s guidelines to APA, and would they vote them down since they don’t recognize the master’s level designation? Dr. Lowman explained that it is true that anything designated as a guideline would have to go through council, but he does not think APA would automatically not recognize master’s guidelines simply because they believe the Doctorate is the minimum for practice. Dr. Cortina explained that we should probably do what we can to avoid APA bureaucracy. There was further strategy discussion. President Kozlowski asked what the goal is for today. Dr. Morgan said she would like to know whether this is going in the right direction and an appropriate level of communication about it to the board. We will have data for the board at the September meeting and hope to actually have a draft of the guideline/competencies by January. Then we would hope to allow the members to comment after January and hope to have them ready to be voted on at the April 2016 board meeting. President Kozlowski asked that they receive a draft before the board meeting in January to provide input. How should we approach APA? President Kozlowski suggested Dr. Koppes Bryan speak with APA reps about this issue. President Kozlowski asked the committee to continue their work.

Closing Comments

President Kozlowski discussed his goals for the coming year. It’s a short year, and he will need help from those in the room to make an impact. My goal is to have an impact. We do a lot to have an impact, but it is not always visible to everyone in SIOP. We should think broadly and identify where I-O is relevant. He requested suggestions from committee chairs and the board for things that we can translate (science) into usable practice and suggestions to businesses. He also said we need to identify “bottom-up” opportunities for members to get involved. Mr. Nershi gave final remarks about the Executive Board dinner.

President Kozlowski closed the meeting at 3:12 pm.