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

Society for Industrial and organizational Psychology

Fall Executive Board Meeting
September 14-15, 2012
Hyatt Rosemont, Chicago

Members Present: Tammy Allen, Joan Brannick, Allen Church, Adrienne Colella, Lori Foster Thompson, Milt Hakel, Eric Heggestad, Kathleen Lundquist, Debra Major, Julie Olson Buchanan, David Peterson, Doug Reynolds, John Scott, Steven Rogelberg, Paul Thayer, Mike Zickar. Also present were David Nershi and Linda Lentz from the Administrative Office, and Branding Ad Hoc Committee Chair Chris Rotolo. SIOP Awards Committee Chair Leaetta Hough was also present Saturday.

 Members Absent: none.
   SIOP’s Relationship with Local I-O Groups
   EEOC/SIOP Collaboration Project Update
   Professional Practice Update
   ASPPB Meeting Attendance
   Educating the States Initiative
   Returning Veterans Program Update
   Branding Project- Phase II
   APA Items
   Revised LGBT Policy Statement
   Social Psychology Network Endorsement
   Diversity Leadership Conference Funding Request
   Strategic Policy Taskforce Report and Science Advocacy Funding
   Leading Edge Consortium Update
   LEC Task Force Report
   Professional Behavior Policy Revision
   Pro-Social I-O Webpage
   Proposal to Transition TIP to Digital Format
   Reminder: Sunset Reports Due in January
   Online Community Update (my.SIOP)
   SIOP Foundation Report
   Alliance for Organizational Psychology Report
   SIOP UN Team Report
   Executive Session Results
   Hawaii Conference Marketing
   International Affairs Committee Top International Poster Award
   International Affairs Committee Small Grant Award


President Reynolds called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. CDT. He welcomed new board member Allen Church to the meeting as well as Branding Ad Hoc Committee Chair Chris Rotolo and Administrative Services Director Linda Lentz. He recognized that this is the last meeting for David Peterson and Debra Major and thanked each of them for their service to the board.


Dr. Lundquist thanked the SIOP leadership for helping keep their budgets in check and also thanked Ms. Lentz for her work on the agenda and other financial tasks. We are moving forward with about $58,000 surplus if we spend all the money budgeted to be spent. She wonders if there are opportunities, if we don’t spend everything that was budgeted, to fund other projects we really want to do. We ended the 2011-2012 fiscal year with a $43,000 positive balance. Should we have an unfortunate experience with Hawaii, we will be well covered. Our conference and dues have been very positive. We have had a few things that have cost us money, such as EBSCO and my.SIOP. The Administrative Office found a way to come in $20,000 under budget. We are putting our profit back into investments. Dr. Allen asked if the investment firm change has been positive. Ms. Lentz said she thinks they are responsive and professional.

The external audit is complete and we have received a clean bill of health from the auditors. Dr. Lundquist would like to discuss travel expenses. Maybe we need to rethink the way we allocate our money so we are able to fund what we want. More revenue is great, but we probably also have an opportunity to reduce expenses. Some of our travel budgets are quite large. There was discussion of how much of the travel expenses are related to food and receptions, which are included in these costs. Mr. Nershi said the meals are necessary, as well as the coffee breaks. We could do more teleconferences, or meet virtually somehow, but we have to weigh that against the value of face-to-face work. There was further discussion of the benefit of face-to-face meetings and other possibilities for locations. There was discussion of other cost-cutting possibilities. Dr. Lundquist asked if there are any requirements to meet face-to-face a certain number of times. Mr. Nershi said he would have to look at the SIOP bylaws.

Dr. Rogelberg asked if we could analyze people who are not using their full budget. Dr. Lundquist said it is the people who are over budget who are the problem. There was further discussion of ways to cut food and beverage costs at the Fellow breakfast, coffee breaks, receptions, etc. Mr. Nershi said we could look at Board dinners and the reception at the end of the year. There was discussion about reception attendance, particularly at the Wednesday conference reception. Dr. Buchanan said we could cut Wednesday, but from what I have been reading we would rather make more money off of activities outside of the conference. Dr. Lundquist asked if we should consider asking people to pay separately for receptions. Dr. Allen said people seem to always want more food, if anything. Dr. Colella mentioned something the Academy of Management did that was called the Gallery. There was no band, just wine and beer. There was discussion of new subcommittee and groups wanting to meet face to face. President Reynolds said we should be thinking about ways to reduce expenses, but right now we do not spend a lot on outside projects. We are going to be looking at a report from Strategic Planning Committee for a way to fund outside projects. Mr. Nershi suggested making one of the receptions paid but putting the money toward a Foundation fund or project. President Reynolds asked the Board to keep thinking about this and noted an initiative by Tracy Vanneman to get lapsed members to pay their dues. Mrs. Lentz reminded the Board members to sign their Conflict of Interest statement and return it to her.


President Reynolds explained the contents of the Consent Agenda. Dr. Thayer moved to accept the agenda and Dr. Heggestad seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

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

  • Report on Board actions by teleconference/electronic vote
  • Notes from June Board teleconference
  • Approval of April meeting minutes
  • Annual 401k resolution for SIOP Inc.  attesting to previous year’s contributions
  • Conflict of Interest Statement
  • Portfolio Officer Reports: (written reports requested. Items requiring EB action will be considered under Other Matters).
    • External Relations Officer-Lori Foster Thompson
    • Communications Officer-Mike Zickar
    • Conference and Programs Officer-Julie Olson-Buchanan
    • Instructional and Educational Officer-Milt Hakel
    • Membership Services Officer-Eric Heggestad
    • Professional Practice Officer-Joan Brannick
    • Publications Officer-Allan Church
    • Research and Science Officer-Steven Rogelberg




SIOP’s Relationship with Local I-O Groups. Dr. Allen explained that this initiative is designed to strengthen our relationship with local I-O groups. The SIOP website currently lists 21 local groups. A lot of these groups have difficulties attracting and maintaining members. In reviewing the membership survey there were comments indicating that members desired strengthening alliances with local groups. One suggestion is to endorse local affiliate groups. We may want to think about establishing a network of affiliates. We hope SIOP can continue to host a meeting at the conference and list them on the website. Can SIOP assist us in identifying local members? These groups can help spread the visibility of SIOP on the ground, spread our brand, and serve as delivery vehicles for our projects and webinars. Maybe we can place some of these local group leaders in SIOP’s State Affairs Committee. We need general input from the Board, criteria we would use to endorse an affiliate. Some of these organizations include both SIOP members and nonmembers. Dr. Hakel suggested creating an ad hoc committee instead of assigning it to State Affairs. Dr. Olson Buchanan said we should find out how open these groups are to working within a network and becoming an organizational affiliate of SIOP. There was discussion of whether SIOP dues should be tied to local dues.

Mr. Nershi warned about being affiliated with groups because we need to worry about their actions and bylaws. SIOP would support these groups but remain separate. There was more discussion of how involved SIOP would be with local groups. Dr. Rogelberg noted that from a branding perspective, these are boots on the ground. There was general agreement that it would be a good idea to start an ad hoc committee for this. Dr. Heggested suggested creating a toolkit for starting a local group. Dr. Buchanan mentioned that this also relates to the potential plan to hold one-day workshops around the country and virtual LECs. Dr. Zickar moved to create an ad hoc committee to create a network of local I-O groups. Dr. Thayer seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board agreed to form an ad hoc committee to work on creating a network of local I-O groups.

The local group toolkit should be downloadable and free. President Reynolds explained it would be decided later where the ad hoc committee fits into the portfolios.

EEOC/SIOP Collaboration Project Update. President Reynolds explained that we have met with EEOC to see if there are areas of overlap. That conversation evolved into a discussion of collaboration. We are thinking of creating a small committee to work with EEOC to provide a modern interpretation of the Uniform Guidelines. There is general agreement that they are out of date. I have asked that the Professional Practice Committee establish a subcommittee. Eric Dunleavy will chair it. He writes the legal update in TIP and has longstanding relationships with the reviewing agencies. They want to identify members this fall. Those names would be reviewed by EEOC. They would do most of this over the phone, but they would love to get together face-to-face. We do not need to approve a budget for this yet. There was general agreement that this is a good idea. President Reynolds explained that revising the Uniform Guidelines is politically difficult. It doesn’t seem to be a priority. The Obama Administration has an initiative to review older rules. Each agency was asked to publish what they thought should be reviewed. SIOP and SHRM wrote letters requesting that the guidelines be reviewed. Dr. Lundquist said it would be important to know if the agency will be working with anyone else. President Reynolds said he believes it is currently only between SIOP and the EEOC. He said it would be nice if the Board endorsed the formation of the subcommittee and encouraged them to move forward. Dr. Thayer moved the formation of the subcommittee. Dr. Hakel seconded it. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board endorsed the formation of a subcommittee under the Professional Practice Committee to work on a collaboration with EEOC.


Professional Practice Update. Dr. Brannick said they had an RFP ready related to the I-O careers study that was approved in April. The budget has been approved, so they are ready to go. She asked Ken Pearlman to come on board. They will identify a small number of people from Divisions 13 and 14 to focus on this project. The State Affairs Committee is preparing draft comments on the tele-psychology guidelines coming out of ASPPB. When the draft is available, I will send it for review before it goes to ASPPB. The feedback deadline is the end of October.

ASPPB Meeting Attendance. Dr. Brannick said she does not think anyone will be attending the spring meeting because it overlaps almost entirely with SIOP. The president-elect cannot attend the fall ASPPB meeting this year. I am suggesting the Practice Officer attend. There was discussion that the Education and Training Officer or one of the APA council reps could serve as a backup. Dr. Colella noted there may be different people with interest in it each year. Dr. Brannick said we could handle it on a case by case basis. President Reynolds explained that it was important for ASPPB that the President-Elect was there last year. He suggested the Practice Officer take responsibility for finding someone if the president-elect can’t go. Dr. Hakel mentioned that a long lead time would be helpful in finding people to go. Do we have funding for another person? Dr. Brannick will take the president-elect spot at this meeting and no one will go to the spring meeting. President Reynolds said he wanted to send a second person to the fall meeting.

Educating the States Initiative. At the last meeting the board approved an initiative to educate the states regarding licensure issues as they relate to I-O. Dr. Brannick said they have prepared a short document for the state licensing boards. We are not advocating for or against requiring licensure, but we are trying to get information to them about our issues. The intent was for this to come from both Division 13 and 14. We have identified a small number of states to follow up with meetings and make personal contact: California, Georgia, Texas, Minnesota, and Ohio. Texas, Georgia, and California, have indicated a willingness to work with us on this issue. These states also have a large portion of members. There was discussion of specific language that Dr. Peterson felt was too nuanced, and not clear on whether we support licensure. Dr. Brannick said great pains were taken to word this in such a way that we would not give that impression. Clearly it is still there, so we need to go back. How can we better set the stage for our position? Any suggestions for how we can do this better are appreciated.

President Reynolds suggested making reference to the APA MLA, which does provide explicit language exempting I-O psychology. There was further discussion of wording and whether it should address the APA MLA. There was concern that the states would be more likely to look to the ASPPB MLA, which is less favorable to I-Os. Our plan was not to reference it at first and then use the APA MLA as an example. This could be summarized in an introductory paragraph. Dr. Brannick noted that she would like to see some of the states do education to other states so they are not only hearing from us but from their peers. Dr. Rogelberg noted a potential connection to the local I-O group initiatives. Dr. Brannick said she will write the introductory paragraph, and send it to President Reynolds to okay.

Returning Veterans Program Update. President Reynolds explained that we endorsed a small ad hoc committee to establish a program to help returning veterans integrate into the workforce. We have two co-chairs. Nate Ainspan and the chairs have been working on training materials for members. Our members would be trained on what it’s like to be a returning vet, resources to help them, etc. and ideas for translating military experience to the civilian workforce. They asked for an initial slate of volunteers. We did some selection, and we will run the pilot. The training is complete. They are in the process of assembling lists of returning veterans. Nate has a connection in the Boston area. They can get us 2,000 names. This is an issue of national importance. We could get a lot of attention to this. There is a general trying to establish a program at USF that is trying to do the same thing and wants to partner with us. The undergrad SHRM rehabilitation group wants to work with them. They are bracing for the number of veterans who need vocational skills and adaptation to be able to work. President Reynolds asked all of those who have connections or want to bring something to the attention of the committee to talk to him. Should we focus on people training for one-on-one or should we be packaging the training materials for everyone to use? Dr. Major said Karin Orvis has been assigned to a task force that is looking at returning veteran programs. She might be good to talk to.


Branding Project- Phase II. President Reynolds summarized the progress thus far. We invested in an external consultant, Andrea Goldberg. Dr. Chris Rotolo leads a task force to manage this project. This project dates back to work being done on the Visibility Committee. The AO has been working on this with them for years. It was a major finding on the member survey that we need to do more to get the word out about SIOP. President Reynolds asked Dr. Rotolo to keep a rapid pace on this. We would eventually take the information collected and put it into actionable items. Dr. Rotolo explained that we had an informational meeting in August where we presented some of this. We wanted to take a pause with the Board and make sure we are on the right course before we move ahead. We have wrapped up the discovery phase and the next step is to take these concepts and go into concept testing with our key stakeholders. From there we would put our messages out and then, we are hoping, launch at the conference. There was discussion of how the concept testing would take place. Dr. Rotolo said he does not think we will yield more information by talking to our membership further. I am concerned with going to our external stakeholders for concept testing. Dr. Rotolo went over the report, explaining the suggested brand attributes. His opinion is that the website and logo should only be revisited once the brand strategy is set. Dr. Rotolo then explained the brand promise and positioning statement.

First, we would look at the data that has been collected to see what we can glean from a brand strategy standpoint, but also look at the current initiatives. The brand promise says that by doing work with an I-O psychologist or SIOP you will get this. As psychologists, we understand human behavior. We are an authority on workplace topics. There was further discussion of the brand promise and what it is used for. Dr. Rotolo explained that we are not trying to brand membership in SIOP. There might be common messages we want to portray to both members internally and to nonmember externally, but there are other messages that will differ depending on the audience. The goal is to find what is common amongst all audiences.

Dr. Colella mentioned that she didn’t see anything about education and training in the branding proposal, even though a large number of members are involved in this. Other problems mentioned included integrating science and practice into one brand and the use of the I-O job title by members. There is a problem of a lot of the public not knowing who we are. Dr. Rogelberg said that is also a licensing issue. Dr. Rotolo explained that then we also get into problems of “What is an I-O psychologist?” Without licensure or certification or anything, it’s kind of an open field. Mr. Nershi said it is probably fair to say we are the largest and the foremost I-O organization. Dr. Church said we are also missing a lot of people in companies who get further in the field and longer think they need us. Dr. Rotolo summarized that the next step is to develop the marketing communications. Once we choose the statements for each audience, we will write the copy. President Reynolds summarized that the initial reaction is that education and training is missing, and science and practice impact each other.

The board broke into small groups to brainstormed messages and needs of specifics audiences. By the conference we would be thinking about what initial splash we would want to make and how. We need to think about how to get broader input and outside data. There was further discussion of the SIOP/I-O names and the image they present. President Reynolds explained that our budget currently includes the amount that was estimated for phase II of the project. Dr. Rotolo explained that he sees Andrea Goldberg’s role as being conceptual. The task force would take the driver’s seat around the work, and we would take Andrea’s proposal and use our own discretion of when and where we need the external help, such as crystalizing the concepts, logos, web design, brand strategy, etc. President Reynolds said this is in the general domain of the agreement we have with her. There was discussion of the timeline for implementing this. Dr. Colella suggested the board have a discussion in January about how we are going to announce this. President Reynolds summarized that Dr. Rotolo wants endorsement from the board to move forward, and encourages them to continue their direction and provide back an update quickly regarding the next steps to move forward with phase two. Dr. Hakel motioned for the board to endorse the work of the Branding Ad-hoc Committee and approve them to move forward with Phase II of the branding project. Dr. Colella seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board endorsed the work of the Branding Ad-hoc Committee and approved for them to move forward with Phase II of the branding project.

President Reynolds awarded a SIOP coin to Chris Rotolo. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

President Reynolds called the meeting to order at 8:08 a.m.


APA Items. Dr. Major explained that at the last council meeting they came to fruition with the Good Governance Project. APA has hired a consultant and come up with three suggestions. Council voted for a mid-range to clean slate change, so it seems others share our frustration with how slow things move. The next step is to come up with actionable ways the changes can happen. Both the clean slate and mid-range plans deal with doing away with council as we know it. We might not have council reps in the future. Dr. Thayer said there is rumbling that this will disenfranchise the states. The council reps also had the opportunity to meet with staff members from the APA Practice Directorate. I think it’s useful to know that’s an option. Since the meeting, they have been in touch with us more. Dr. Peterson explained that they told this group specific issues we would like to know about. They were very open to that. Council also voted to approve $3 million to fund accreditation for internships. It doesn’t create new internships but accredits some that already exist. Dr. Thayer added that we already have a great deal of clinicians and it is already a saturated field. Dr. Major explained that it’s a big crisis for clinical.

Revised LGBT Policy Statement. The Board passed this in April. Dr. Heggested explained that they have been working to revise it. They have also been working on a press release, and they are almost ready to go. It will include a quote from President Reynolds. The committee is asking the board to approve the revised policy statement so they can release the press release and make the approval date today. Dr. Major asked about legal implications. President Reynolds explained that they were going to check with legal counsel on it. Dr. Major said she thinks APA would support this, but she wants to make sure. Mr. Nershi said he believes we are reflecting APA’s policy. Dr. Major suggested contacting Jesse Raben in APA legal. Dr. Church motioned to approve the revision of the policy statement contingent upon the committee contacting the APA legal rep to okay this before going public. Mr. Nershi explained that we would just be asking for their input, not asking for permission to release the statement. Dr. Major stated that we might also want to go to Heather Kelly to help release this. President Reynolds explained that EEOC is also interested. Dr. Buchanan seconded the motion. Dr. Peterson abstained. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: The Board approved the revision of the LGBT policy statement contingent upon the committee contacting the APA legal rep to okay this before going out to the public.

Social Psychology Network Endorsement. President Reynolds explained this is a way of helping boost the network’s readership. We could also use their network for our own announcements and calls. Dr. Colella asked for clarification of what we would be endorsing. President Reynolds explained that we could propose alternate language. There was discussion of the language edits. President Reynolds explained that he does not see this as risky. It is a network of psychologist that wants to share information. Dr. Major asked if this could set a precedent for other entities wanting to be endorsed. We do it on a case by case basis. They already have several divisions that have endorsed it. Dr. Hakel moved to approve the Social Psychology Network endorsement with modifications as suggested by the Board. Dr. Allen seconded the motion. Dr. Thayer voted no. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: The Board agreed to endorse the Social Psychology Network with any language modifications suggested by the board.


Diversity Leadership Conference Funding Request. President Reynolds said APA asked each of the groups for $1,500-2,000 to help support this. It is more of a round table. The people attending are all leaders representing an underrepresented group. There were about 30 people they wanted to invite. They would discuss developing leaders in underrepresented groups. Dr. Colella said the expected outcome would be knowledge and training for leadership in fostering diversity in these groups. President Reynolds explained that he thinks this will also give the divisions visibility in front of organization leaders. Dr. Colella explained that the money is to support the conference. Five or six divisions have already kicked in money.

Dr. Allen asked if this includes funding to send people from SIOP. Dr. Colella said there was a specific request to support the conference and a casual request to fund people to attend. Dr. Colella suggested asking Kizzy Parks what money would be needed to attend the meeting. Dr. Hakel suggested this go to the Emergency Action Committee after further fact-finding. Dr. Major explained that the value of our participation relies on us having representatives at the meeting, in front of the leaders. President Reynolds said he wonders if the funding for travel of SIOP representatives was included in the initial cost of the meeting. Dr. Lundquist asked if our member reps would be funded to travel there and speak. President Reynolds summarized that Dr. Lundquist will contact Kizzy Parks to get more information from her on this, and then it will go to the Emergency Action Committee. Mr. Nershi said he will post information to my.SIOP about the program.


Strategic Policy Taskforce Report and Science Advocacy Funding. President Reynolds explained the background of the project. We thought at the time that we need to be thinking about a much different way to fund our activities. The group is meant to touch on long-term, strategic issues. We are under no obligation to act on their findings. We will see how this goes for a couple of years and are hoping to eventually make it a standing committee. Dr. Major explained that the first specific issue was figuring out how to fund the Science Advocacy position. Dr. Allen said she would like to discuss the funding models and consider the dues increase. She would also like us to consider forming a hiring committee for the Science Advocacy position. She would like the Board to consider forming a committee to follow up on the revenue generation ideas. Mr. Nershi explained the proposed models. There was some agreement that revenue generation needs to be considered outside of whether or not we fund the advocacy position. There was discussion of how the pay was determined by experience. This person would be working in the APA building. Dr. Hakel asked the opinion of the group on a government relations title as opposed to science advocacy. There was discussion of using a consultant or part-time person. Dr. Major explained that a full-time person could help us make better use of FABBS and other resources and would be entirely devoted to SIOP. Dr. Brannick said she thinks this should be positioned to the membership as benefiting all of SIOP. She noted that it is also important to determine who will set the advocacy agenda. Dr. Hakel suggested a government relations ad hoc committee that sets these goals. Dr. Major said she feels comfortable saying this would be that person’s first task. Dr. Brannick noted that she thinks members will want examples of missed opportunities this person could have helped us with or specific future opportunities they will help us with. There was more discussion of defining this person’s role. There was further discussion of the optimal experience level for this person as well as pay. There was discussion of organizations this position could help us work with. There was further discussion of whether the Board should know what they want out of the position before hiring someone or if they should hire someone and have that person help define the position. There was a suggestion that Heather Kelly from APA could help us with this. Dr. Rogelberg explained that he has already done a lot of work to define the role. Issues such as the proposed changes to No Child Left Behind and Ben Bernanke making statements of economists needing to consider the value employees bring to organizations could be examples of an initial advocacy agenda. There was discussion of how the position would be funded. Dr. Lundquist suggested splitting the dues discussion out and decide on that independent of the advocacy position.

There was further discussion of the feasibility of several dues increase models and how to properly communicate the Board’s intentions to members. President Reynolds asked if communications on the dues increase plan was feasible by January to implement an increase in the next dues cycle. Mrs. Lentz explained that we will start collecting the next year’s dues in March 2013. There was discussion of the amount of the potential dues increase, timing, and their relation to the cost of APA and APS membership. There was discussion of SIOP’s relationship with these other organizations from which SIOP requires membership for admittance. Dr. Peterson noted that decreasing APA membership might decrease our APA council reps. There was discussion of the time table for a potential dues increase. There was further discussion of how members would react to a dues increase. Dr. Zickar moved that SIOP increase dues for the maximum this budget cycle and that we come back with a rationale and messaging for a larger increase to be voted on by members at a later date. Dr. Lundquist noted that we are also raising conference fees in this same year. There was discussion of a one-time increase versus a staggered increase. President Reynolds suggested proposing a small ad hoc group. Dr. Thayer moved to create an ad hoc group, led by Tammy Allen, to look at creating several options for dues increases, including communications to membership and potential conference and other revenue generation increases, and to bring these options to the board no later than the January 2013 meeting. Dr. Rogelberg seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Dr. Allen asked if this would give us enough time to enact the increase by the next dues cycle. Mr. Nershi explained the bylaws procedures for the dues increases and communication with members.

ACTION ITEM: Board created an ad hoc group, led by Tammy Allen, to look at creating several options for dues increases, including communications to membership and potential conference and other revenue generation increases, and to bring these options to the board no later than the January 2013 meeting.

Dr. Brannick asked if we could have a reminder on the SIOP dues payment page that would not be public but would remind people that they do not need to maintain their APA and other society membership. Mr. Nershi said he believes it is in our best interest to be transparent in saying that it is not a requirement. But again, we do have a relationship with APA, so we don’t want to undercut that relationship. President Reynolds explained that we have not made a decision for how to move forward with the advocacy professional. This would include goals, issues that are ongoing, etc. Dr. Brannick said she thinks it might be premature until we have a better idea of the funding. We have the funding process underway with our previous vote on the dues work. There was discussion of bringing the advocacy person onboard by June 1 of 2013. There was discussion of what the next steps should be on the task force for the advocacy position. President Reynolds suggested we need an onboarding plan in addition to a marketing plan for members. Also, if we change the language from science advocate to government relations, all of the language in the current information needs to be replaced. President Reynolds suggested a small ad hoc group to create the onboarding work. He asked people interested in this to come to him. We also need messaging for both the dues increase and the position in particular. He will work on creating this ad hoc committee. He summarized that he and Dr. Tammy Allen suggested doing a joint session in January to discuss our strategy and how it fits in with all our projects. He suggested reducing the amount of tasks for the strategy committee so they can focus on the onboarding and marketing issues for the advocacy position. They will meet again and come back to us in January. Dr. Major suggested putting a timeline on the APA/APS membership issue. President Reynolds requested January.



Leading Edge Consortium Update. Mr. Nershi explained that the attendance for this will be the worst we have ever had. We are estimating an attendance of 55 people. We only have 27 people paid at this point. The second lowest was last year at 88 attendees. We have a few pretty good sponsors: SHRM and Johnson Controls. We are also trying the virtual forum this year to live stream our program Friday. We have 11 sites signed on around the country to facilitate this. We have seven people signed up for this right now. The topic does not seem to be a popular one with members. We are looking at some financial concerns. We budgeted for a loss of $21,000 and we might not even achieve that. We make a commitment to sell a certain number of rooms at the hotel. They have started selling our rooms. That could relieve our potential penalty. Dr. Hakel said the virtual forum may present opportunities for the Hawaii conference. There was discussion of travel costs and topics.

Dr. Lundquist asked how much we are marketing the virtual LEC outside of SIOP. Dr. Colella had offered to send marketing from her databases of the general community. Dr. Lundquist has asked us if we can get help from Mark Schmidt. President Reynolds encouraged the Board members to each use their special discount coupon to encourage attendance. Dr. Foster Thompson explained that we have had two books come out on this topic, so she doesn’t understand why we don’t have more interest. We should ask the authors of all of those books to attend. Give them the discount coupon?

LEC Task Force Report. President Reynolds noted a lot of the recommendations seem to be things that have worked in the past. Dr. Rogelberg said the committee thinks we should solidify the idea that this is a conference for I-O professionals by I-O professionals on topics that are relevant to I-O professionals in cities where we have a lot of I-O professionals. We think topics should repeat themselves. There was a discussion of whether all of the chair positions are necessary and how science would fit into the LEC. Mr. Nershi said the most valuable contributions of the chairs are that they bring their networks to the table to garner speakers. Mr. Nershi could probably do most of what a general chair does. There was more discussion of the focus of the LEC. The original intent was to bring back the practitioners who do not go to the SIOP conference anymore. President Reynolds said he likes the topic proposal for the committee but that he would suggest adding Visibility and Scientific Affairs members to it. Dr. Colella asked if we should discuss cancelling Richmond. Mr. Nershi said there is no doubt in his mind that we would make money next year if we implement these suggestions. In terms of our reputation in the hotel field, we do not want to cancel the hotel. Mr. Nershi explained that the biggest derailment is the topics tended to drift. Dr. Lundquist asked if there was any way to choose a topic for the next LEC that would make Richmond seem like a logical choice for it. President Reynolds noted that we have a number of things happening on the policy front. Legal updates are popular for workshops. There was discussion of how the topics relate to specifics job titles and interest areas of I-Os. Dr. Zickar asked when we cut this if it keeps going downhill. President Reynolds explained that it should be included in the sunset report. Dr. Brannick will kick off a short-term task force that will pick a topic. Dr. Rogelberg said it might be good to go back to the most successful topic we have had to date. Talent Management was the highest.


Professional Behavior Policy Revision. President Reynolds explained that this deals with what goes to the board and what stays in the Emergency Action Committee. Some people said they could come forward with information but they didn’t want their names attached. These are also time-consuming issues. If we could allow them to be resolved in an informal small-group basis, it would be efficient and more private. Dr. Thayer moved for adoption of the revisions. Dr. Buchanan seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board accepted revisions to the Statement and Guidelines on Professional Behavior regarding what issues are taken to the Executive Board versus those resolved by the Emergency Action Committee.


Pro-Social I-O Webpage. President Reynolds said he is working with Electronic Communications Committee on this. He hopes to show drafts to the Board by the next meeting.



Proposal to Transition TIP to Digital Format. Mr. Nershi gave an introduction of the TIP proposal. We would initiate this change July 2013. We think this is the future of publishing. A lot of members already do not get the print edition. Mr. Nershi highlighted a number of advantages of digital TIP. We would save money. Right now we are losing $12,000 per year because our ad revenue is not covering expenses. We are budgeted for a loss this year. Right now it is very difficult to have something timely in TIP because there is a 3-month production schedule. We can also now have new content: video, hyperlinks, etc. Other organizations are doing this, such as the APA Monitor. It is also very expensive to have color in a printed magazine. That will no longer be a limitation in digital TIP.

Dr. Lundquist asked if there was a way to solicit comments on each article. Not sure. Digital TIP would be accessible on a number of different platforms. Using this technology, we can also publish our publications as e-books (white papers, etc.). We would also be more green. The software is only $2,700. We could have a commemorative edition with a history of TIP. Dr. Zickar asked why only 27% of members currently opt out of printed TIP. Mr. Nershi said it may be because not many people know about it. Dr. Zickar explained that TIP is a gold-standard for newsletters. This could be seen as cutting back on something, especially with a dues increase. Dr. Lundquist suggested pitching this as an example of us being more cutting edge. There was general agreement that the prototype is good. Dr. Church said his only concern is shifting TIP editors at the same time we transition to digital. Maybe we could extend the editorship for a few months? Dr. Hakel moved approval of all three requests: to purchase 3D Issue Online Publishing software at a one-time cost of $2,699, to go digital with TIP for the July 2013 issue (Volume 51), and to print a special commemorative issue for the final print issue of TIP.  Dr. Lundquist seconded the motion. Dr. Rogelberg suggested that instead of having a commemorative TIP we put the money into promoting the new digital TIP. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said it would be good if the editor has experience in digital publishing. Dr. Hakel made a friendly amendment on the third request that the TIP editorial board take this issue and decide what to do with it. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved request to purchase 3D Issue Online Publishing software at a one-time cost of $2,699 and approved going digital with TIP for the July 2013 issue (Volume 51). The TIP committee will look into the option to print a special commemorative issue for the final print issue of TIP.


Reminder: Sunset Reports Due in January. Mr. Nershi said this was just a reminder. He will provide the committees with questions for this.


Online Community Update (my.SIOP). Mr. Nershi noted that we have averaged about 732 visitors per month since we launched my.SIOP. We average more than 8 page views per person. He provided further statistics about traffic. We saw a sharp rise in usage over the conference but have not seen a large increase over the summer. The Electronic Communications Committee is working on a landing page update. Progress on the Consultant Locater service has been slow. It will use my.SIOP as the search engine platform. Members will have the opportunity to opt-in to Consultant Locater for free. Dr. Colella asked if there was any way to get more revenue from this. Mr. Nershi said right now it is being marketed as a member service. There was discussion of other suggestions for improvement of my.SIOP.

SIOP Foundation Report. Dr. Hakel explained a proposed memorandum of agreement for creation of an HRM Impact Award. We have a partnership agreement written up between SHRM, the SHRM Foundation, SIOP, and the SIOP Foundation, to present this award each year. The awards carry no cash. Dr. Hakel said he would like the Board to authorize the president to sign the final agreement once the attorneys have given their okay. The awards would be presented at the LEC. Dr. Thayer moved for the SIOP President to approve the language of the award and sign the final agreement once the attorneys have given their okay. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: The board authorized the SIOP president to approve the language of the SIOP Foundation HRM Impact Award and sign the final agreement between the participating parties once the attorneys have seen it.

Alliance for Organizational Psychology Report. Dr. Hakel explained the upcoming programs. The Alliance is strongly contemplating incorporation in Singapore to show that we truly are an international association. The requirements are much less than the U.S. or Europe. The other suggestion is the Netherlands. Many groups have shown interest in joining us. Dr. Scott asked if there would be submissions from the Alliance for the conference. Dr. Hakel said he is communicating with people who have indicated interest. We have six proposals and currently three of them are allotted.

SIOP UN Team Report. Dr. Scott explained that the next meeting will be the sixth annual psychology day at the UN after SIOP this year. The intent is to explain to UN ambassadors, diplomats, staff, etc. what psychologists can do to help the UN. This year we will focus on global violence: human trafficking, bullying, etc. In July the annual ministerial review occurred. As part of our status, we were able to present a paper that this group produced on workplace abuse. Our paper was accepted and Walter Reichman was invited to present it. The Coalition of Psychology NGOs will be meeting soon. They want to foster collaboration among the NGOs so we can have greater impact. We have joined the conference of NGOs. Our team of UN representatives has also created a mission statement. They have short and long-term goals for achieving their mission. We also participated in an event discussing the role of I-O psychology in poverty reduction. Dr. Foster Thompson also represented us there. The speakers from other areas of psychology now have a better idea of what I-O psychologists do.

Board went into Executive Session to discuss Awards Committee recommendations. Board resumed regular session at 12:30 PM.

ACTION ITEM: Approved motion to accept the recommendations of the Awards Committee.

ACTION ITEM: Approved motion to approve creation of External Awards as a subcommittee under the Awards Committee. Luis F. Parra will serve as initial chair.


Hawaii Conference Marketing. Mr. Nershi noted that in addition to promoting Houston for next year, we are looking into ways to promote Hawaii as well.

International Affairs Committee Top International Poster Award. Dr. Foster Thompson explained that the committee would like to stimulate more cross-cultural work. The cost to SIOP will be minimal. We would use proposals that have been identified as international. The award would include a banner as well as recognition at the international reception. The costs will be for the banner (one-time) and the plaques. Dr. Buchanan suggested including people in the pool who list “international” as second or third content area. Dr. Hakel motioned to approve the award. Dr. Scott seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the creation of the International Affairs Committee Top International Poster Award.

International Affairs Committee Small Grant Award. Dr. Foster Thompson explained that this is to encourage international collaboration and it should be awarded for an international issue. It would be a $3,500 award. It is in the IAC budget for this year, but IAC would not be funding the award every year. The Alliance for Organizational Psychology would fund it after that, and it would be administered through the Alliance. The money would be used to purchase research materials, travel, etc. The emphasis is on this being a small grant, rather than an award. It would help you do something, not recognize what’s been done. Dr. Hakel said the Alliance might commit to funding the award for three or four years. It is also on the Foundation’s agenda, but something needs to be thought about for this three to four-year time frame. We have funded international initiatives like this before. Mr. Nershi asked if the applicants would be SIOP members. Dr. Hakel said he would anticipate that groups of nonmembers could apply in the future, but that has not been decided. Dr. Hakel recommended that this be funded for four years. Dr. Heggested said it needs to be clear that if we approve this for four years, it is not necessarily budgeted for four years. Dr. Hakel motioned for the board to approve the amount of $3,500 for four years, with the expectation that they will decide each year if they would like to budget it. Dr. Allen asked if there was a smaller amount that would be acceptable. Dr. Hakel said the group wanted to make it large enough to be worth applying for. This award would go out in the call next May and be awarded the following year. We already approved the money for this year in the budget. Dr. Thayer seconded the motion. Dr. Zickar opposed. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved $3,500 for the International Affairs Committee Small Grant Award for the next four years, with the expectation that the Board will decide each year if they would like to budget it.

Dr. Zickar moved to adjourn. Dr. Buchanan seconded. Meeting adjourned 1:27 p.m. CDT.

Back to SIOP Governance and Meeting Reports/Executive Board Page