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

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Spring 2014 Executive Board Meeting

Hilton Hawaiian Village
May 18, 2014


Attending:  Tammy Allen, Alex Alonso, Christina Banks, Allan Church, Jose Cortina, Lori Foster Thompson, Milt Hakel, Eric Heggestad, Steve Kozlowski, Rodney Lowman, Kathleen Lundquist Fred Oswald, John Scott, and Evan Sinar. Also present were SIOP Conference Chair Robin Cohen, numerous committee chairs, SIOP Executive Director Mr. Dave Nershi, and April Burke, of Lewis-Burke and Associates, SIOP’s advocacy firm in Washington DC.

Absent: Deborah Whetzel, Laura Koppes Bryan


President Jose Cortina called the meeting to order at 8:10 am. President Cortina welcomed everyone, including the new Executive Board officers (Alex Alonso, Fred Oswald, Evan Sinar, and Steve Kozlowski), and the board members introduced themselves. Board members signed conflict of interest statements and President Cortina reviewed the day’s schedule.


Financial Officer Kathleen Lundquist introduced the financial report. She said SIOP had the possibility for a bad year this year if the conference did not turn out as good as it did. The administrative office and SIOP leaders did a great job in preparing financially. We are in a position that is not nearly as bad financially as it could have been. We are going to be able to move forward without too much of a bump in the road because of Hawaii. We have had good investment performance as well.

The unrelated business income tax that we found out about this year gives us a $34,000 hit to the budget. That covers the taxes for 2012-2013 as well as estimated tax for 2013-2014. This will be an ongoing tax that we have to pay going forward. They could audit us for unpaid taxes for previous years. Dr. Lundquist said she is not prepared to advise SIOP to spend the budget surplus right now, because of the unknowns. Since our investments have done well, we will likely have a surplus this year. Executive Director Dave Nershi explained that after changing audit firms the new company had a different view of some activities. It became apparent that we would have to pay unrelated business income tax, so we had to do the right thing and pay for it. This was not something that we thought was an issue before that time. Dr. Lundquist explained that because the auditors advised us that we didn’t have to pay the tax, the auditors will pay any penalties that may be responsible for. If we make it through this year without getting audited, we may avoid it long-term.

There was discussion of the conference. Mr. Nershi explained that we had about 2,900 registrants versus 3,110 that were projected. Expenses were pretty much in line with what we had planned. Sponsorships were down. We do not know yet the financials of the conference. Dr. Lundquist explained that we had quite a healthy profit last year. We put $100,000 into our long-term investments last year and kept out $150,000 as a hedge against lesser conference registration income. So we are in a good position financially and we will know more when we have all of the conference financials in. Dr. Cris Banks had several questions about the conference financial results. Mr. Nershi said a special report will be prepared for the board when final conference financials become available. Dr. Hakel motioned to accept the financial report. Dr. Alex Alonzo seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the financial report.


Dr. Alonzo moved to approve the consent agenda. Dr. Lundquist seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

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

    1. Approval of January Meeting Minutes
    2. Report on Interim Board Action
    3. Portfolio Reports
      1. Conferences and Programs – Evan Sinar
      2. Publications – Allan Church
      3. Communications – Alex Alonso
      4. External Affairs – Milt Hakel
      5. Membership Services – Eric Heggestad
      6. Professional Practice – Cris Banks
      7. Instruction and Education – Laura Koppes Bryan
      8. Research and Science – Fred Oswald


Implementation of SPARC Recommendations. Dr. Tammy Allen said we will be implementing the recommendations over the next several months. A software program will be used to track the needed approvals and action items.

Advocacy Update. Dr. Fred Oswald introduced April Burke, of Lewis-Burke and Associates. She gave a synopsis of what they have been working on over the last year and gave an overview of her team. She said they struggled at first to really understand I-O psychology, but they now have a good understanding of us. One of the things they launched into discussion on in their recent retreat was how political people process advocacy. They are opportunists. They look for places where they will be well-received and then step in. It seems somewhat random, but we need to find places where people are listening instead of trying to get people to listen to pre-designated topics or advocacy ideas. When the Federal government shut down, we jumped on the furlough issue. We had a great turnout to our events, and there was engagement at the congressional level. We have moved on since then to talk about unemployment and underemployment. We have identified some low-hanging fruit at the National Science Foundation.

The GREAT (Government Relations Advocacy Taskforce) Committee is doing a great job. We need to work on metrics for political engagement. The more clearly we ask, the easier it is to measure if we are successful. But what we are really trying to do is something much more sophisticated. We are trying to create sustainable relationships that last for a long period of time. We also need to understand that when a new player walks through the door, they disrupt things. There are other people in the room that we will have to compete with. We need to be strong and willful about not getting drawn into partisan issues. It’s very political between all of these groups. How do we weigh in on the science without being drawn into the politics of it? Dr. Banks asked why we wouldn’t want to get political. Dr. Oswald explained that we are setting up connections with these people. We do take a science-based stand, and sometimes that aligns with something partisan and sometimes it doesn’t, but over the long run we are not completely partisan. Ms. Burke explained that other organizations, such as SHRM, take sides. SHRM is an employer advocate. SIOP may not be interested in taking a side. We have a much greater desire in taking the side of science. Dr. Hakel explained that we are delving into a more volatile political environment.

Ms. Burke explained how the congressional process works from the inside. If we want to engage in a sophisticated way, we need to recognize how the legislative proposal process works and get in earlier when these things are being drafted. Relationships turn over quickly, so it is a never-ending task to maintain these relationships. President Cortina summarized that the message is not that SIOP will only get involved in issues that are politically neutral. The message is that we have a side that we take that is based on our science. Over time, it will be seen that our position will be based on what we discover through our science and practice efforts and that it is not based on any single ideology.

Update on Branding Project. Mr. Nershi explained that the new brand is launched and that there is a great deal of work left to do. The graphical look is only a part of it. A lot of people have been involved and deserve credit for the success. We will eventually have a brand standards manual as well as downloadable logos for committees’ use. We’ve had great feedback so far. Stay tuned for more information. President Cortina asked all board members to help communicate all of the steps that have been a part of the SIOP brand development over the years. This has been a very long, scientific process.

Special Practice-Focused IOP Issue. Dr. Allan Church explained that a year ago, Dr. Tammy Allen had the idea to look into a practice-based journal. They debated the idea and decided in January to have half an issue of IOP be practitioner-focused. A shorter focal article would be used and then responses solicited from practitioners. IOP Editor Dr. Kevin Murphy approved that idea. We are going to capitalize on the leading Edge Consortium and do an issue on high potentials. We can leverage the content of the LEC after the event is over. They will see if there is momentum and potentially continue with it. It will probably publish next fall. Dr. Steve Koslowski suggested opportunities for coordinating with other journals and special issues.

Dr. Church gave an overview of the search for a new publisher for IOP. We have not been satisfied with the partnership with Wiley. About a year ago we decided to look for a new publisher. The decision came down to APA or Cambridge Publishing. APA seemed to promise more money, but upon examination, it was unclear if that was the case. Both publishers had different profit models. With APA, they don’t seem to understand that IOP is a different kind of journal. Cambridge has a lot of creative ideas for a practice-based journal and they have an international push. Cambridge was very interested in engaging with us. They said they would give us 25% of revenue and 30% after a certain revenue threshold. In the contract, they have also guaranteed funds to us, which no one else was willing to do. They talked about creative ways to market the journal—multi-media sessions, translating the articles into practice, etc. They are also interested in helping us with the book series. They have talked about bundling book chapters with IOP articles.

Dr. Church made a motion to select Cambridge as the publisher for IOP. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion.  There was discussion of the where the guaranteed 25% would be coming from. Subscriptions and downloads. Dr. Church said it’s not a lot of money, but it is better than what we are currently getting, which is nothing. There was further discussion of details for how each publisher determined their projections. There was general agreement that Cambridge’s creativity is valuable and there was discussion on how IOP could be turned into a revenue generator with the help of Cambridge. There was further discussion of using the science in IOP to appeal to practitioners. Dr. Church reaffirmed that this is all about giving back to the field and not about making money. Dr. Banks suggested we vote on the publisher and then further discuss the possibility of translating Dr. Rodney Lowman abstained. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: The board approved Cambridge Publishing for a 5-year contract to publish the Industrial and Organizations Practice (IOP) journal.

APA Council of Representatives Report. Dr. John Scott gave an overview of the recent council meeting and several votes that took place there. Council voted to expand its focus on adopting a more strategic role. Council is moving toward addressing issues that align with a change in the APA governance model. The one vote per division and state issue is still out there, which is something that would affect SIOP influence in APA. Some additional models will be presented in August. The one vote per division idea does require a bylaws change and may not be passed. There was a discussion about APA Council Representatives, who are included on the SIOP Executive Board,. The changes being considered by APA would impact the number of SIOP APA Council Representatives and so also the number Executive Board members. No action was necessary.

SIOP Foundation Report. Dr. Hakel said the Foundation is in good shape. Yesterday the trustees voted to create the Fund for the Future. Up until now, contributions always went into the endowment. Foundations have the ability to exempt contributions and spend that money immediately instead of endowing it. The Fund for the Future is an opportunity for individuals who want to get a return on their gift in the near future rather than wait. The Fund will have a pilot project. We hope to have a tentative report by the September meeting and something that rolls out at the SIOP Conference in 2015. Henceforth, corporations and individuals can make contributions to this. We will focus the first pilot project around the communication of business value. We will have more information later.

HRM Impact Awards. There were 8 nominations this year, down from 22 last year. This was not a surprise. We are working to get a lot more mileage out of last year’s winning projects. We would like to have a case studies about the winning entries so best practices can be shared.

1-hour break for meeting between portfolio officers and committee chairs. President Cortina called the meeting to back order at 10:53 am. He summarized the training and portfolio chair discussions and assignments.

National Registry of Employee Health and Wellbeing I-O Consultants. Dr. Banks explained that the intention of the Interdisciplinary Center for Healthy Workplaces is to aggregate potential research projects and work in applied settings on employee health and wellbeing. They intend the center to be international. In order to populate these projects, they thought it would be a good idea to create a registry of I-O psychologist who would like to engage in this kind of work, people currently in the area of employee health and wellness. We also want to reach out to I-Os who want to apply their expertise in a new setting—developing workplaces. We anticipate that the center will be commissioning projects. These teams will be interdisciplinary. This is an opportunity for people to create holistic solutions as part of an interdisciplinary team. We may also get calls from people who want someone to be a part of their teams.

Dr. Banks said she would like SIOP establish an externally facing registry of individuals interested in doing this kind of work. Then we would decide the best way to find people interested in self-identifying for this. They would fill out some sort of short application, including a biography. The registry would be on the SIOP website as well as on the center’s page. Dr. Banks made a motion to establish a national registry of I-O psychologists who have an interest in engaging in work and basic and applied research on the topic of employee health and wellbeing. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion. Would there be vetting? No, the biography would speak for itself. There was a question about the registry being an implied endorsement on SIOP’s part. Would there be legal liabilities for SIOP if someone did not do good work? Dr. Scott explained that the UN group used language saying that we do not endorse each person. Dr. Oswald asked how this relates to APA’s Center for Organizational Excellence. Dr. Banks explained that we are building a bridge to COE. President Cortina explained that we are setting up the registry for SIOP’s purposes and that the COE could use it in the future. Mr. Nershi noted that we will be revising Consultant Locator using the my.SIOP platform. This could be repurposed to include this. There was discussion of options for authenticating the information in SIOP member’s profiles. There was more discussion.

Dr. Banks withdrew her original motion and made a new motion to approve the concept of establishing a national registry of I-O psychologists interested in doing research and consulting in the area of employee health and wellbeing. Dr. Hakel seconded. Dr. Banks abstained. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the concept of establishing a national registry of I-O psychologists interested in doing research and consulting in the area of employee health and wellbeing

SIOP UN Team Reporting. Dr. Scott gave a brief on Psychology Day and recognized Dr. Foster Thompson for her work on the event. He acknowledged the year’s worth of planning that went into this. It was a tremendous success. It furthered I-O psychology’s presence at the UN.

It’s been three years since I-O has been accredited with the UN. We have a number of public policy statements that come out and we need to decide whether or not we want to align with them. They seem neutral, but we should vet them because something might come back to bite us later on. Dr. Scott and Dr. Foster Thompson will be off the board. Is there a way to maintain the direct connection to the board that would allow us to respond within a few days to issues like this? Dr. Hakel suggested it become a standing committee instead of an ad hoc and continue to report through the International Affairs Committee. Mr. Nershi explained that until it is approved in the bylaws it would remain an ad hoc committee but of committee stature. He said we can include that in the next bylaws vote. Dr. Scott moved that the UN committee become a standing committee under the External Relations portfolio. Dr. Lowman seconded. Dr. Scott abstained. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: The board approved a motion that SIOP request a bylaws change so that  the UN committee becomes a standing committee under the External Relations portfolio.

Membership Criteria. Dr. Eric Heggestad explained the SIOP membership criteria. Business graduates have to submit additional materials if they have a non-I-O degree. Recently we have had applicants from universities whose I-O program name was changed to something similar that is not “I-O Psychology.” He proposed a change in the bylaws so that instead of just an I-O degree, “Organizational Psychology” degrees would also be acceptable. Dr. Kozlowski explained that historically this was to avoid allowing clinicians to join SIOP. There was discussion of the purpose of the requirement as well as the prevalence of non-I-O psychology degrees that were still I-O psychology subject-matter. Mr. Nershi said that to avoid a staff member having to make a value judgment on the degree name or program, all applicants that don’t meet the written degree requirements are sent an email requesting further documentation. We maintain a list of “green-lighted” programs. There was discussion of the criteria for green-lighting.

Dr. Heggestad made a motion to request a change to the SIOP bylaws so that instead of just an I-O degree, “Organizational Psychology” degrees would also be acceptable criteria for membership. Dr. Banks seconded the motion. Dr. Allen explained that she is concerned there are degrees in organizational psychology that really aren’t I-O psychology. Dr. Angelo DeNisi explained that Rutgers University has an organizational psychology program that is based in clinical psychology. There was further discussion of green-lighting specific programs. Mr. Nershi suggested making the decision dependent on policy established by the board instead of the bylaws.  

Dr. Heggestad withdrew the motion on the table and made a new motion that SIOP request a bylaws change to no longer state that an applicant’s degree must be in I-O psychology but that the degree “must meet the criteria as established in policy by the Executive Board.” Dr. Alonzo seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: The board approved a motion that SIOP request a bylaws change to no longer state that an applicant’s degree must be in I-O psychology but that the degree “must meet the criteria as established in policy by the Executive Board.”

Report on Membership Requirements and Structures. Dr. Heggestad explained the requirement to be a member of APA, APS, CPA, and EAWOP in order to become a member of SIOP. About 10% of members abandon the membership application process when asked to verify membership in one of the other organizations in order to upgrade from student to professional membership. They would have otherwise been qualified to become a member. Dr. Heggestad made a motion that SIOP enact a bylaws change to remove the prerequisite organization membership in order to become a member of SIOP. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion.

Dr. Scott asked if there were political implications. Mr. Nershi explained that in order to maintain Division membership in APA, we need only a very small number of APA members. It will affect our representation in APA as well. There was discussion of how APA representation is determined. Dr. Kozlowski asked if APA does screening for membership, which they do. SIOP does not rely on that screening. There was discussion of whether or not there are other ways we can focus on to increase potential members’ ability to join. Dr. Heggestad explained that he thinks this sends the message of being subservient to the other organizations. Dr. Lowman said it shows that you have met the credentials to be in one of these other organizations and there is some value there. President Cortina said there is anecdotal evidence that this is a hurdle to membership. The question is whether or not we want that hurdle there. Dr. Lowman said he did not see enough compelling information to do this. There was discussion of retention in SIOP. Dr. Hakel said he favors the motion because the evidence presented shows there is a barrier. Drs. Lowman and Scott expressed opposition. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved a motion that SIOP enact a bylaws change to remove the prerequisite organization membership (APA, APS, CPA, EAWOP) requirement in order to become a member of SIOP.

Master’s Level Members. Dr. Heggestad motioned for the board’s support to explore and eventually bring a proposal to the table on a path to make Associate Members full members. Dr. Alonzo seconded the motion. Dr. Heggestad explained that this is not to propose a bylaws change, but to explore a path to make Master’s-level I-Os full members. There are very successful individuals with Master’s degrees in our field that should be able to become full members. Meanwhile, someone with a PhD in a non I-O department can become a full member with supporting evidence. Dr. Lowman asked if we can figure out why Master’s-level and Associate members have high turnover rates in SIOP. Dr. Heggestad said he is not sure we can get that information. Dr. Scott added that at APA, once you are in for five years you can apply for full membership. Dr. Heggestad withdrew his motion and President Cortina appointed him to look into this issue and come back to the board with a specific proposal.

SIOP Conference Update. Dr. Cohen said the conference went really well. She thanked everyone for their hard work planning it. It could not have been better executed. People were in sessions and had fun. Receptions were great. We ended with 2,974 attendees, which all things considered, is great. She usually gets some sort of negative comments, she didn’t hear any this year. We will see what the conference survey says, but this has been a success.

Leading Edge Consortium. The SIOP LEC is coming up October 17-18, 2014 at the Intercontinental Chicago O’Hare. It is devoted to topics that are core to effective succession management. Sponsorship is doing well. All sponsorships except one have already been sold. Registration will officially open sometime in the next few weeks. In 2015 it will be in NYC area.

Alliance for Org Psych. Dr. Hakel gave a brief Alliance overview. They will be meeting in Paris in July for the International Congress. There will be some Alliance events there. They will also be working with SIOP in Philadelphia next year.

Professional Practice Mentoring Committee. Dr. Tracy Kantrowitz gave an overview and explained that it has seen great success and they have seen increased participation rates in the mentoring programs. A detailed 5-year anniversary report on the program has been prepared to review accomplishments. They ask for the continued support from the board moving forward. This has been one of the more successful initiatives the committee has run to date.

In closing, President Cortina asked for feedback on his presidential theme from the group. He said he would love to hear their thoughts. He closed the meeting at 12:02 pm.