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

April 17, 2016
Hilton Anaheim

Present: Alex Alonso, Janet Barnes-Farrell, Georgia Chao, Lori Foster, Milt Hakel, Deirdre Knapp, Steve Kozlowski, Gary Latham, Mort McPhail, Fred Oswald, Deb Rupp, Rob Silzer, Evan Sinar, Scott Tannenbaum, Mo Wang. Staff members present were Dave Nershi, Linda Lentz, and Tracy Vanneman. Executive Board member Mikki Hebl was unable to attend due to a semester at sea.

CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS

President S. Morton McPhail called the meeting to order at 8:02 am.

President McPhail welcomed the Executive Board and the larger group of ingoing and outgoing committee chairs and chairs-in-training. The group shared a moment of silence in memory of Dr. James Outtz. The Executive Board and Committee Chairs then split into concurrent sessions.

The Executive Board meeting was called to order by President McPhail at 8:16 am. President McPhail welcomed the new board members, including Dr. Janet Barnes-Farrell (External Affairs Officer), Dr. Milt Hakel (Instructional and Educational Officer), Dr. Rob Silzer (Professional Practice Officer), Dr. Michelle (Mikki) Hebl (Research and Science Officer, although Dr. Hebl was not present,) and Dr. Fred Oswald (President-Elect). President McPhail also shared thanks with his good friend, Dr. Kozlowski, for his leadership and service as President for 2015-2016.

Dr. Kozlowski expressed appreciation to his fellow board members and provided branded SIOP baseball caps as gifts to his board colleagues and for the Administrative Office staff.

The first order of business was to review the Executive Board conflict of interest policy, sign the conflict of interest statement, and review the SIOP whistleblower policy. Dr. Kozlowski advised board members that, when in doubt, it is better to disclose potential conflicts than not. President McPhail identified page 50 of Briefing Book as the Statement and Guidelines on Professional Behavior within SIOP, of which all board members should be aware and to which they should adhere. Dr. Knapp stated that she is participating in an upcoming APA panel regarding organization-based conflicts of interest that includes Dr. Steve Reisner and others. She expects this to be an interesting exchange and will report back to the Executive Board about this experience.

FINANCIAL REPORT

Dr. Tannenbaum confirmed that SIOP is solvent and in a strong financial position. Membership revenue is healthy. Although our membership growth may be in part attributable to the bylaws amendment removing the APA/APS/CPA/EAWOP prerequisite membership requirement for SIOP professional membership applicants, the dues that flow from APA to SIOP as collected for Division 14 remains steady, but will continue to be monitored. The Associate to Member path upgrade has been approved for 11 individuals.

Annual conference revenue is strong, with attendee registration reaching 4,338 (making SIOP 2016 the third largest SIOP conference). There were fewer registration cancellation requests than last year, due in part to there being more available hotel space. The sponsorship and exhibit revenue was also high. The participation for the Frank Landy 5K Fun Run was lower than in the past but purchases of conference t-shirts was higher. The Preconference Workshops met 96% of budgeted revenue, due in part to increasing the workshop registration fee. Dr. Tannenbaum advised the Executive Board to continue monitoring registration fees and adjust accordingly.

Regarding the Leading Edge Consortium, Dr. Tannenbaum stated that it was too early to discuss the financials but noted that we do already have paid registrations despite not yet advertising the event. He continued that publications revenue is down due to the absence of the online SIOP Store for some time during the ongoing association management software implementation.

Dr. Tannenbaum then discussed the position of the SIOP investment portfolio. Investment shifts were made in late 2015, just prior to the recent market correction, and those shifts helped, but SIOP did still see an effect in our portfolio from the correction. We currently have 51% of assets in cash and cash equivalents, but we will soon be back in line with the SIOP investment policy of 30% to 50% in cash and cash equivalents. There is a large influx of revenue prior to the conference due to registration income. It can be difficult to compare expenses year to year because of timing differences of when bills come due (i.e. when the conference hotel requests payment of the bill).

President McPhail asked about projected conference registration for Orlando in 2017. Mr. Nershi indicated that such a projection is premature, but Dr. Tannenbaum affirmed that Mr. Nershi is remarkably adept at tracking/estimating attendance. Mr. Nershi explained that SIOP negotiated a multiyear discount with Sheraton/Starwood for the 2017 (Orlando) and 2018 (Chicago) events, and the back to back locations in proximity to Disney properties was the result.

Dr. Hakel reminded the Executive Boar of last year’s $40,000 surplus distribution to endow the Distinguished Awards. He acknowledged that the SIOP Foundation would continue to welcome such distributions for future available surpluses. Dr. Tannenbaum indicated that such discussions would be held by the Executive Board in the future, if merited.

Mr. Nershi confirmed that, as the conference grows and improves, we are also incurring new costs (i.e., rigging fees for hanging aisle markers in the exhibit hall and projection systems in the plenary). Dr. Sinar desires to monitor conference registration fees and better align them with these new and increased expenses. In doing so, an increase in registration fees is explainable because of the visible improvements to the conference and attendee experience. Both external market trends and internal actual costs indicate that the conference registration fees should be raised. President McPhail prefers to make incremental registration fee increases. Conversely, Dr. Hakel noted that dues were raised in lump sum in the past ($69 to $100) and it did not negatively impact membership numbers. President McPhail responded that the absolute dollars of dues remain small enough so that this is not an equivalent comparison. In conclusion, Dr. Tannenbaum stated that SIOP needs data to inform our future decisions regarding conference registration rates.

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

  • Approval of January Meeting Minutes
  • Portfolio Reports
    • Conferences and Programs – Evan Sinar
    • Publications – Deb Rupp
    • Communications – Alex Alonso
    • External Affairs – Janet Barnes-Farrell
    • Membership Services – Mo Wang
    • Professional Practice – Rob Silzer
    • Instruction and Education – Milt Hakel
    • Research and Science – Mikki Hebl
  • Report of Interim Executive Board Action

ACTION: Dr. Latham moved to accept the Consent Agenda. Dr. Wang seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.

AGENDA ITEMS

GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN INDUSTRIAL-ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Dr. Hakel reported that the SIOP Education and Training Committee has prepared the final recommendation for new Guidelines for Education and Training in Industrial-Organizational Psychology, and there are no proposed revisions to the document provided in the Briefing Book. He stated that the new guidelines are elegant and that it makes good sense to put both masters and doctoral guidelines into a single publication, rather than separate documents as in the past. Mr. Nershi said that the Executive Board has received the revised guidelines before and has provided input and also the SIOP membership has had the opportunity to review and comment.
Dr. Hakel mentioned that there is a good deal of eagerness on behalf of program directors for the new guidelines to be published.

Dr. Sinar asked if there are other structures within SIOP that will need to be considered based on the revised guidelines, as this is a taxonomy for the I-O field. He asked if the competencies identified in the guidelines should be considered when preparing the conference program content areas, for instance. Mr. Nershi added that the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) makes use of our guidelines and will take the new ones into consideration.

President McPhail added that he met with the president of ASPPB while in Anaheim. Amongst other purposes, this organization prepares the EPPP (Examination for Professional Practice of Psychology) and provides a model licensing act (one that differs from APA). President McPhail stated that ASPPB remains open to hearing from SIOP whenever we are willing to talk to them, and a SIOP leader regularly attends the ASPPB annual meeting. President McPhail continued that ASPPB takes seriously the SIOP licensure policy. The current model licensing act indicates “APA or equivalent accredited psychology program,” and so ASPPB is trying to help psychology boards better understand what a qualified Industrial-Organizational psychologist is. President McPhail said that this is an opportunity for ASPPB to pay attention to and help SIOP. He also noted that he made the ASPPB President aware of the revised E&T Guidelines and ASPPB is eager to incorporate them in this guidance to the Boards.

Dr. Hakel added that there are additions to competencies since the prior version of the guidelines but there were no significant changes to existing competencies.

The new Guidelines for Education and Training in Industrial-Organizational Psychology will immediately become SIOP policy, but will also be submitted to the American Psychological Association (tentatively, for the August Council of Representatives agenda) for adoption. The APA Council Representatives acknowledged that they are prepared to respond to any concerns.

ACTION: Dr. Hakel moved to adopt the new Guidelines for Education and Training in Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Dr. Wang seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.

PROPOSED BYLAWS AMENDMENT ELIMINATING THE INTERNATIONAL AFFILIATE DESIGNATION

Dr. Wang requested that the Executive Board approve a vote by the membership to remove the International Affiliate membership type from the bylaws. He discussed the implementation of removing the International Affiliate membership type for future membership applicants and the process by which current International Affiliates will be transitioned to a new membership type.

Dr. Sinar asked if the ability to track SIOP’s international reach will be negatively affected by removing this designation. Dr. Wang indicated that the International Affiliate membership type currently does not accurately reflect reach due to who is eligible for it (Americans living abroad are, but international individuals living within the United States are not). SIOP will continue to encourage members to fill out their membership account profile during each dues cycle and we can adjust which profile items are required fields. Dr. Oswald stated that data could be fed back to the International Affairs Committee for them to track as desired. Dr. Tannenbaum asked if we intend to provide services based on residency. Dr. Knapp confirmed that we want to continue to collect data such as ethnicity to help track efforts to diversify our membership, although reporting such information should remain optional.

Dr. Tannenbaum confirmed the importance of communicating the reason for this bylaws change to the SIOP membership. Dr. Foster offered that APA recently had a similar conversation around their international membership designation and suggested that we reach out to them to discuss.
Mr. Nershi and Dr. Wang will work in concert to prepare the wording for the bylaws amendment, which will be shared with the Executive Board at the September 2016 meeting.

ACTION: Dr. Wang moved to present the proposed bylaws amendment eliminating the International Affiliate designation for approval by the voting membership. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.

LEWIS-BURKE ASSOCIATES LLC ADVOCACY UPDATE

At 9:00am there was a timed agenda item consisting of a presentation from Lewis-Burke representatives Ms. Laura Uttley and Dr. Elizabeth O’Hare. The presenters described the Lewis-Burke organization and the advocacy partnership established with SIOP in July 2013. The SIOP Advocacy Review Committee has provided recommendations to Lewis-Burke that they have taken to heart. One recent example of the advocacy partnership at work is the policing reform initiative on which Dr. Outtz was working. Policing reform is largely a state and local issue. Dr. Outtz gathered a working group to develop guidance documents. This serves as a model for SIOP member participation in an advocacy initiative on a popular I-O topic also of federal interest.

Dr. Kozlowski defined SIOP advocacy as being for the purpose of general awareness of I-O (if something is a workplace issue, I-O psychologists and SIOP should be there) as well as for particular hot topic areas, such as policing.

Dr. Alonso asked Ms. Uttley and Dr. O’Hare about partnering with federal agencies to lobby on Capitol Hill. Ms. Uttley replied that the Department of Justice and The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services were next on the list to meet with at the time of Dr. Outtz’s passing.

Ms. Uttley continued, stating that GREAT and Lewis-Burke are working on an advocacy registry to help identify SIOP members in job roles that could be of help to advocacy initiatives. Dr. Alonso informed Ms. Uttley that SIOP Member Dr. Amy Grubb had reported to Dr. Outtz her interest in policing. Dr. Wang added his support, and reported that Dr. Grubb is the only GS-15 industrial-organizational psychologist employed by the FBI.

Dr. Knapp commented that the language used when working with federal government employees who are SIOP members is important. Ms. Uttley stated that Lewis-Burke is accustomed to crafting this so as to follow the law and avoid any role confusion. President McPhail would like a conference call with the policing committee to identify new SIOP leadership for that. Ms. Uttley stated that Mr. Bill Ruch is main point of contact at Lewis-Burke for this initiative.

In other Lewis-Burke news, the Coalition for National Science Funding poster session and reception takes place April 26, 2016, at which SIOP Fellow Dr. Debra Major will present to attending members of congress and the NSF staff. SIOP continues to submit comments with regards to NSF proposals. Additionally, Dr. O’Hare is working with the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to include social-behavioral sciences in the definition of STEM. She will continue working to advance this cause with the national academies, HumRRO, other stakeholders who are active in the space.

Dr. Rupp asked if SIOP tracks federal research funding that our members receive, and Dr. Alonso added that it would also be good to know about the successes of federally-funded projects. Dr. Kozlowski replied that Dr. Tammy Allen collected such information from members, and Dr. Rupp asked if we could find out from public record rather than soliciting members again. Dr. Oswald added that he lives in the district of U.S. Representative John Culberson, Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee, which funds the NSF.

Dr. Kozlowski would like members to self-report from where they are getting their research funding in general, and Dr. Barnes-Farrell would like a sense of breadth of funding sources. Dr. Alonso suggested we prepare an annual report on how SIOP makes an impact in the world.
Dr. O’Hare identified several mechanisms in place that Lewis-Burke uses to communicate with the SIOP membership and leadership, such as regular contributions to TIP, articles in Newsbriefs, and attendance at SIOP events.

Looking ahead, advocacy goals for Lewis-Burke and SIOP include federal investment in social and behavioral sciences, focusing on students in the I-O pipeline, cross-cutting topics to elevate I-O in federal priorities, and integrating I-O measures as an indicator to evaluate the economy. They will prepare a comprehensive transition document to share with presidential campaigns in the general election and for the benefit of the president-elect and throughout the beginning of the new presidential term. Dr. Kozlowski asked about workforce effectiveness metrics, to which Ms. Uttley advised using existing indicators rather than preparing new algorithms for workforce effectiveness.

Ms. Uttley concluded by saying that SIOP and I-O are exceptionally well-received on the federal stage. She looks forward to working with Dr. Christopher Rotolo in his role as grassroots coordinator. Dr. Kozlowski asked about a strategy meeting and Ms. Uttley replied that they are working on identifying the best time to meet.

PROPOSED BYLAWS AMENDMENT REGARDING PRESIDENTIAL RECOGNITION

President McPhail introduced a bylaws change for consideration regarding recognition of an individual who is elected SIOP President but is then unable, due to death or illness, to serve in the role. It would not affect the line of succession but would provide for recognition of that individual as having been elected SIOP President. A number of board members eagerly agreed.

President McPhail added that taking bylaws changes to the membership can be complex and time consuming, so we will work to compile a number of changes at once.

ACTION: Dr. Alonso moved to present the proposed bylaws amendment regarding presidential recognition for approval by the voting membership. Dr. Tannenbaum seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.

CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT FOR ASSOCIATE TO MEMBER PATH

Dr. Wang sought input regarding the conference attendance requirement for the Associate to Member path. The Membership Committee wants to ensure that their approval/denial decisions are in line with the spirit of the requirement that states an individual must “have attended three official meetings (includes the SIOP Annual Conference and SIOP Leading Edge Consortium) of the Society in the last five years.” May other meetings (APS, AOM, etc.) be considered?

Mr. Nershi stated that he is not interested in promoting the conferences of other organizations. Dr. Knapp thought maybe other I-O conferences could be considered. Dr. Hakel said the requirement as written is a high bar because we do not know our own attendance rates of our members at our own meetings. President McPhail countered that it is a low bar because SIOP involvement can be gauged by attending SIOP meetings, especially because they are a good value. Dr. Barnes-Farrell posited that we have APA and APS Program Committees and we encourage our members to present their work at those conferences, so why wouldn’t that be relevant? Dr. Kozlowski indicated that this requirement was related to the passing of the bylaws and so the three out of ten SIOP events within a five year period is a low bar, particularly because you previously could not become a Member if you were eligible only for Associate. President McPhail tied membership in SIOP with commitment to attending SIOP events.

Dr. Wang concluded in saying that the conversation mirrored what he was hearing from the Membership Committee and others.

ACTION: Dr. Wang recommended observing data patterns in the Associate to Member upgrade activity to see if there is any need to change the meeting attendance requirement.

“FRIENDS OF SIOP” CHANNEL OF MEMBERS

Dr. Wang sought input regarding a “Friends of SIOP” channel of membership. He described how the bylaws define the educational requirements for the Member and Associate membership types (for Member, "an earned doctoral degree based in part upon a psychological dissertation," for Associate, "completion of at least two years of graduate work in psychology" or "completion of a master’s degree in psychology".) The document in the Briefing Book from the Membership Committee provides recommendations on what can be done to address membership interest by individuals who do not meet the educational requirements of Member or Associate.

President McPhail was concerned with the wording inconsistency for degree type between Associate and Member. How does SIOP define what is needed to identify with the I-O field? Dr. Kozlowski pointed out we have already opened our view by creating the Associate to Member path. As more people take advantage of it, we will see how it changes the characteristic of the organization amongst the voting membership.

Dr. Rupp sees a benefit of the “Friends of SIOP” opportunity in relationships that we are building in the business community (for example, it would be a membership opportunity for someone like closing keynote speaker, Laszlo Bock). Dr. Tannenbaum reminded the group that SIOP membership is not a certification of someone’s legitimacy in the I-O field. Dr. Silzer said that blurring could occur when people who have nothing to do with I-O psychology start listing SIOP membership on their resume, and Dr. Knapp echoed this concern. Dr. Barnes-Farrell countered that already people can list an affiliation with SIOP for a number of reasons. Dr. Alonso suggested benchmarking other associations that have a “friends” category for reference.

ACTION: Dr. Wang will share this input with the Membership Committee to explore “the middle ground or less” in regards to the recommendations the committee had provided.

A brief break was taken at 10:04am. The meeting was called back to order at 10:26am.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY FOR SIOP AWARDS

Dr. Wang reminded the group that there have been Executive Board discussions in the past about conflict of interest concerns during the awards process, which lead the SIOP Awards Committee to propose a policy for adoption. President McPhail commented that with industry consolidation creating increasingly larger consulting companies it may be more difficult to know who works with whom, and so he suggested moving item #7, “Works for the same employer or university as the nominee” from the “Disclose and Recuse” section to the “Disclose and Decide” section.

ACTION: Dr. Wang moved to adopt the new Conflict of Interest Policy for SIOP Awards, with the inclusion of the change as requested by President McPhail. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.

ACTION: Dr. Wang moved to eliminate APA and APS membership as eligibility factors for awards nominators. Dr. Alonso seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.

AWARDS COMMITTEE DIVISION OF LABOR

Dr. Wang introduced the Awards Committee recommendations regarding structure and criteria for managing awards application reviews. It was reiterated that the role of the Awards Committee is to manage, not create, awards.

President McPhail asked for the following changes to the recommendations:

  • Replace the “and/or” with “or” in the “Recommended Change” language for each award.
  • Add the word “have” following the word “who” in the “Recommended Change” for the Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award.
  • Add “or have more than 10 years’ work experience as a practitioner” to the “Recommended Change” language for both the Distinguished Early Career Contributions – Practice Award and Distinguished Professional Contributions Award.
  • Replace “The award winner will be appointed to the respective award committee the following year.” to “The award winner will be asked to serve a three year term on the respective award committee beginning the following year.”

Dr. Silzer raised a concern regarding the small pool of Fellow practitioners available. He appreciated the goal of setting high standards and injecting rigor by asking Fellows to be awards reviewers, however, he was concerned about institutionalizing bias within the review pool. He stated that frequently the winners of the award winners are academics and researchers. Dr. Silzer would like a larger discussion on how to better recognize the 45% of the SIOP membership who are practitioners, and he suggested that most practice awards are going to researchers.

Dr. Kozlowski acknowledged that these are important issues to discuss; however, the focus of the awards committee division of labor proposal is to get appropriate expertise to review the award nominations. It is an issue for the Practice Portfolio to encourage those with Fellow status to nominate others for Fellow and to help identify ways to count their work, which admittedly is not as clear for practitioners as it is for academics.

President McPhail stated that he does not see this organization of awards committee work as institutionalizing bias. Dr. Rupp added that science work is considered strongly during Fellows review and that people are encouraged to keep renominating and improving the nomination package so as to continue coming up for consideration.

Dr. Tannenbaum said maybe what is needed from the SIOP Foundation perspective is donations made for awards targeted for smaller firms that are out making a difference in practice. Dr. Hakel confirmed that evidence-based work is being funded. There can be employer-imposed hurdles for practitioners (for example, Frank Smith of Sears became a SIOP Fellow by sharing his technical reports but he was prohibited by his employer from publishing his work.) The SIOP Foundation President and donors work in concert to define criteria for awards and then the proposals are reviewed and approved by the SIOP Foundation Board and SIOP Executive Board. Dr. Hakel states that the IRS requires the SIOP Foundation Board maintain arm’s length separation in order to preserve the charitable contribution deduction. Dr. Tannenbaum said it is difficult to ask donors for the addition of a practice or science component to an award proposal, but what we can do is define/refine the requirements and reviewer group. Dr. Barnes-Farrell suggested the idea of a “Champion of Science-Based Practice” award.

Dr. Silzer requested relabeling “Academic” to “Researcher” for the Awards Chair/Associate Chair balance, and President McPhail supplanted the suggestion with the friendly amendment to relabel from “Academic” to “Scientist.”

ACTION: Dr. Wang moved to approve the Awards Committee recommendations for division of labor, with the inclusion of the changes as requested by President McPhail. The motion was seconded and approved, with one nay vote noted.

The meeting broke at 11:00am for Executive Board members to meet with committee chairs. Lunch was served at noon. The meeting reconvened at 1:14pm.

SPARC COMMITTEE REPORT

Dr. Kozlowski stated that the Bureau of Labor Statistics listed I-O psychology as the fastest growing occupation. Where are these people coming from? Where are they going? SPARC will look into this further under the auspices of the plan discussed at the January Executive Board meeting to collect information on demographic and educational changes in the I-O field. Of particular interest are potential changes to the make-up of SIOP membership as a result of the recent changes to membership requirements.

STATUS OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE BOOK SERIES

Dr. Rupp announced that SIOP has signed a contract with Oxford University Press to publish the SIOP Professional Practice Book Series, and we are awaiting Oxford’s signature to confirm the agreement. President McPhail reported that the Professional Practice Series Editorial Board met with the new editor and confirmed alignment with SIOP values. Dr. Tannenbaum stated that the agreement is a good deal, and Dr. Kozlowski declared it a major achievement. The group applauded Dr. Rupp for her efforts.

NATIONAL REGISTRY PROJECT

Dr. Kozlowski reported that the first SIOP registry - Health, Safety, and Well-Being – has launched, spearheaded by Dr. Cristina Banks. An advocacy registry has also been approved. Subsequent registries will go through the process of a written proposal for board approval.

President McPhail entertained new business from Dr. Rupp and Dr. Hakel. Dr. Rupp proposed a registry for corporate social responsibility as a follow up to the CSR event in Anaheim. The CSR event was limited to 50 people but had 175 people requesting involvement. Participants in a CSR registry would be people with expertise in CSR topics. Dr. Hakel proposed a registry for the assessment of leaders of leaders as a follow up to the Jeanneret Symposium.

Dr. Sinar asked about how a person working within a larger company can participate in a registry. Dr. Rupp stated that this is individually-based and controlled by a SIOP member opting into the registry. Dr. Tannenbaum asked about the granular nature of this and how we determine which topics should be put into registry form. Dr. Rupp gave the example of a United Nations related session desiring a registry. Dr. Hakel asked if encouraging self-organization will help keep people in a group or encourage outgrowth.

Dr. Kozlowski asked for written proposals from Dr. Rupp and Dr. Hakel so as to follow the process in place for consideration of new registries. President McPhail said that approvals can be handled at the emergency action committee level prior to the September board meeting if there is an urgency to establish the new registries.

Dr. Barnes-Farrell discussed the breakfast meeting that took place on Friday morning at the SIOP Annual Conference with Dr. Banks and those who have opted in to the registry and/or have an interest in health, safety, and well-being. Dr. Barnes-Farrell indicated that there was enthusiasm but there also seemed to be confusion about the purpose of the registry. A question was how the registry itself is to be used. What is the special thing a person will get by being a part of the registry? Why not go outside of SIOP and create a group devoted to the topic area?

Dr. Rupp posited that registries are broadly about discoverability. The question was asked, if SIOP does not know how the registries are to be used, then how will others? Dr. Kozlowski indicated that registries are for members to discover each other and also for SIOP leadership to find people with interests for such things as advocacy. Dr. Rupp hopes as many registries can be produced as possible to find SIOP members quickly, particularly for United Nations working group uses that sometimes require quick turnaround of recommendations for participants.

Dr. Tannenbaum suggested that expectations be managed and that registries are not working groups and may not lead to immediate action and involvement. Mr. Nershi requested that Dr. Barnes-Farrell share with the board the notes from the breakfast group meeting with Dr. Banks.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SEARCH PROCESS

Dr. Kozlowski informed the group that not much has changed since the January meeting where the process, structure, and search committee membership were proposed for the Executive Director search. He explained that there is a committee of experts (Search Advisory Committee) to conduct the search, with reporting responsibilities to the Search Steering Committee composed of Dr. Kozlowski, Past President Dr. Jose Cortina, Dr. Oswald, President McPhail and Dr. Tannenbaum, and that recommendations will be brought to the Executive Board. President McPhail indicated that Dr. Bill Macey is ready to move and, with Dr. Oswald, will be capturing knowledge from Mr. Nershi to develop a job description. President McPhail would like to see a new Executive Director named in time for that individual to attend the January board meeting, with sufficient time to shadow Mr. Nershi before his retirement.

APA COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES REPORT

Dr. Knapp reported that, for some time to come, APA will continue to deal with the outcomes of the independent review (Hoffman report). Most motions passed at the February council meeting related to establishing work groups to examine APA’s organizational functioning (e.g., how it establishes task forces).  The APA ethics committee was also required to consider  alternative wording for Standard 3.04, and SIOP prepared a response to two proposed alternatives that were posted for public comment. The council representatives are working in a new caucus – general applied psychology – to optimize that group to be more influential within APA. An ongoing concern is that changes in the ethics code be directed at behavior and not work settings.  Despite the nearly $5 million that APA paid for  the Hoffman report, APA is now paying the Hoffman firm another $200,000 to address criticisms that were made about the original report.

There will be an election for a new president-elect for APA. SIOP is usually fairly quiet on APA elections. Dr. Knapp indicated that candidate Dr. Steven Reisner is focused on one issue only. SIOP Fellows Dr. Kurt Geisinger and Dr. Rodney Lowman and are both running for APA President, and Dr. Bill Strickland is running for Treasurer. Dr. Knapp states that SIOP should continue to have a presence on the APA Board of Directors which will benefit I-O psychology.

There was a Community of Interest session at SIOP 2016 exploring this situation and how SIOP should continue paying attention to ethics. The COI participants encouraged more sessions on ethics as well as discussion even in plenary sessions about SIOP’s perspective on ethics. There will be more information in the next TIP report as well.

Dr. Chao reminded the group that Dr. Outtz was on the search committee for the new APA CEO and she asked if SIOP can/should replace him on that committee. President McPhail asked who should reach out to APA about this. Dr. Barnes-Farrell indicated that the External Relations Committee had made recommendations about who in SIOP should be on the search committee. The board generally indicated support for President McPhail to contact Dr. Susan McDaniel, APA President, regarding involvement by a different SIOP member on the search committee.

Mr. Nershi suggested piggybacking the meeting with the APA President while SIOP holds its annual meeting with Lewis-Burke. The APA President-Elect, Dr. Tony Puente, is interested in SIOP and is approachable for informal conversations about what SIOP can do (for example, Division 13 offers free coaching to the incoming APA president.) The APA strategic plan has expired. Dr. Knapp states that we want to be on the committee for revision of ethical standards.

Dr. Latham reported that at the inaugural meeting of the general applied psychology caucus there were 20 people present, including Dr. Puente. Dr. Latham said this is SIOP’s golden opportunity to help APA move forward in recovering from the organization’s turmoil. Dr. Knapp passed out a document outlining the five key issues, as boiled down from the Hoffman report by Dr. Joel Lefkowitz. Dr. Latham said that it pays for SIOP to visit APA and “join at the hip” with their president, such as was done in his term as SIOP President with then-APA President James Bray.

Dr. Knapp acknowledged that the key issues as outlined by Dr. Lefkowitz do not have one right answer. She would like more guidance from the board on how to be an effective voice of reason for APA. Dr. Latham reiterated that APA is seeking a set of principles to move forward and, if not Division 14 providing leadership on those organizational principles, then who?

President McPhail identified three potential avenues – a proactive reach-out to APA to offer our help, an effort to get representation on the ethics revisions committee, and a communication to Dr. Lowman regarding the thinking of the SIOP Executive Board as APA conducts its CEO search process. Dr. Latham does not think it is too late to get a new SIOP representative on the search committee. Dr. Silzer reminded the board of the organizational development consulting expertise among SIOP members, such that we can offer process expertise and not just content creation (i.e., the rewriting of principles).

Dr. Hakel asked about the current rules regarding how to support both I-O psychology candidates in the APA presidential election. President McPhail requested that the rules be reviewed regarding how SIOP officially responds to campaigns of I-O psychologists for APA office. Dr. Hakel stated concern about splitting the ballot and suggested that SIOP members be encouraged to vote the SIOP candidates as their top two choices in whatever order they like. He also encouraged the council representatives to be prepared for a SIOP response in the event that Standard 3.04 is brought up for discussion.

CONFERENCE UPDATE

Dr. Sinar thanked the efforts of Mr. Nershi and the Administrative Office, along with the SIOP Conference and Program Committees, on the success of the 2016 SIOP Annual Conference. The post conference survey will provide further feedback on the event. The conference financials were strong. Anaheim was a test case for the adjacent convention center event model, which addresses meeting room size issues. Mr. Nershi said that a SIOP conference venue needs more than 1,000 hotel rooms and more than 20 meeting breakout rooms plus ballroom space for plenaries and receptions. Some properties have the quantity of breakout meeting rooms needed but the room size for those breakouts is not always satisfactory in all 20 rooms. The use of a convention center opens us to such cities as Seattle, where the convention center is one block from hotels, thus avoiding the need for shuttle service. One disadvantage that Dr. Sinar pointed out is that the use of a convention center may mean that we are sharing the meeting space with other organizations and groups and, in the case of Anaheim with the cheer and dance competition, which can be a distraction. In conclusion for SIOP 2016, Dr. Sinar stated that the Laszlo Bock closing keynote presentation set the bar high for future keynote speakers and the closing plenary session was well-attended.

Dr. Sinar said that, looking ahead to Orlando, challenges may exist due to the technology switch (new association management software) and its impact on production of the program. Remaining logistics are being planned for but much active work is still needed to develop the platform. The 2017 Call for Proposals will open in two and a half short months and the program technology will be worked on in the meantime.

Dr. Daisy Chang reported that there may be marketing challenges in terms of hosting conferences back to back near Disney properties. The Conference Committee is exploring how to maximize the benefits of going to Orlando. They are also mentally prepared for the challenges ahead with the Program Committee and the use of new software. Dr. Chang added that they are walking away from Anaheim with a positive outlook and considering options for the closing keynote speaker, and that she is open to suggestions. Dr. Kozlowski offered a tie in with the proximity to Cape Canaveral, fitting President McPhail’s theme of looking to the future.

LEADING EDGE CONSORTIUM

Dr. Sinar reported that the LEC committee is a good group of organizers and that 80% of speakers have been identified. The committee is still seeking keynotes. Dr. Sinar believes that SIOP can bring a strong voice to the topic area of Big Data.

SIOPSA COLLABORATION

Dr. Hakel reported that Nadene Venter, COO of SIOPSA, had been in recent communication with Dr. Outtz, and so Dr. Hakel will pick up where they left off. He informed graduate program directors in Anaheim about identifying students interested in doing exchanges with SIOPSA.

Franco Fraccaroli is now the President of the Alliance for Organizational Psychology. There is particular interest in reaching out to China, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere to expand the reach of AOP. A meeting was held in Zurich and focused on rigorous research, in part due to the replication problem in social psychology research. Dr. Kozlowski indicated that everyone is facing the same types of problems. We want to provide organizational support gently so that SIOP does not appear to be running the Alliance. Dr. Kozlowski reported that a manifesto summarizing that meeting’s work will be circulated.

Dr. Hakel continued, stating that internal work is being done in AOP, for example, organizing committees. The AOP sessions on the SIOP program will continue, as well as submissions to EAWOP. There are efforts to publish whitepapers emanating from the Alliance as well as to work on SIOP whitepapers of international interest.

Dr. Tannenbaum asked about AOP’s finances. Dr. Hakel said that AOP has not identified a revenue stream for itself besides from the treasuries of the organizations involved. There is some concern regarding what projects AOP should take on and there are difficulties in proposing projects when there is not necessarily funding available. The AOP does not intend a budget ask of SIOP for the coming year. Dr. Kozlowski stated that holding small meetings is not sufficient.

SIOP FOUNDATION REPORT

Dr. Hakel reported that there is $3.25 million under the SIOP Foundation’s belt at this time, and two new awards have been announced – the Schmidt-Hunter Meta-Analysis Award and the Graen Student Research Grant on the Development of New Professional Knowledge Workers. The SIOP Foundation Trustees would like to see growth in the small grant program. Dr. Hakel replied to President McPhail’s inquiry regarding the inflow of dues donations. Dr. Hakel reminded the group of the $40,000 donation from excess reserves last year that was transferred from SIOP, Inc., to the SIOP Foundation to endow the SIOP awards and reduce operating expense on the SIOP, Inc., books.

Dr. Hakel stated that matching gifts have trailed off since 2008. He gave brief overviews of the “fund for the future” for the administration of grants, along with the HRM Impact Award partnership. Because of confusion between Dr. Hakel and Dr. Rich Klimoski, the January TIP did not include a Foundation Spotlight column. Instead, all members were emailed and, in response, 40 members stepped forward to assist further development of the HRMIA, with a breakfast meeting held in Anaheim of these working groups.

OTHER MATTERS

Dr. Kozlowski announced that the Journal of Applied Psychology will turn 100 years old in March 2017 and that a special issue will be published, edited by Dr. Gilad Chen, Dr. Eduardo Salas, and Dr. Kozlowski. He is interested in obtaining program time for this to celebrate the outstanding effort of the field.

Dr. Knapp requested that the memory of Dr. Outtz be represented through Executive Board and committee work throughout the coming year.

Dr. Kozlowski moved to adjourn. Dr. Wang seconded. The meeting adjourned at 2:49pm.