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 27-28, 2012
Hyatt Rosemont, Chicago

Present:  President Tammy Allen, Immediate Past President Doug Reynolds, President-Elect Jose Cortina, Financial Officer Kathleen Kappy Lundquist, Julie Olson-Buchanan, Allan Church, Milt Hakel, Eric Heggestad, Laura Koppes Bryan, Rodney Lowman, Steven Rogelberg, John Scott, Lori Foster-Thompson, Deborah Whetzel, and Mike Zickar. Also present, Executive Director Dave Nershi and Awards Chair David Baker.

Absent: Dr. Kathleen Kappy Lundquist (would join via teleconference) and Cristina Banks (absent from Session I, would join for Session II)

President Tammy Allen called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM.

Session I, September 27, 2013

Dr. Tammy Allen welcomed Dr. Lori Foster Thompson back to the board.  Dr. Foster Thompson is filling the unexpired APA Council of Representatives term for Dr. Paul Thayer before beginning her own elected term in January 2014. President Allen welcomed Dr. David Baker, Awards Chair.

(Dr. Kathleen Kappy Lundquist joins via phone conference.)

Financial ReportDr. Kathleen Kappy Lundquist reported that SIOP is in good financial position. To prepare for the uncertainty of the Hawaii conference, we took steps last year by raising 2013 conference registration fees.  The dues increase hasn’t had a negative impact on membership retention as the membership total is about 100 higher than this time last year.

The Leading Edge Consortium is on track to provide an increase to our revenue.  The conference sponsorships are a little down but we haven’t yet fully implemented our marketing plan.  The expenses are tracking as expected. The balance sheet looks good and reserves are in excess of requirements.  As determined during the budget process, we will retain $150,000 of the net surplus from FY12-13 to cover our planned deficit position.  If we exceed our conservative estimates for Hawaii, we will be in good shape and may a good surplus next year.   Dr. Olson-Buchanan moved to accept the financial report, second by Dr. Milt Hakel. 

ACTION ITEM: Financial Report accepted.

ACTION ITEM: The consent agenda was approved upon a motion by Dr. Steven Rogelberg and second by Dr. Eric Heggestad.

SIOP Participation in FABBS AnnualSusan Fiske has been named first editor of this planned publication by the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (FABBS). The annual will publish invited articles that present reviews of scientific findings relevant to public policy. Dr. Fiske asked SIOP to be the featured society in first edition. 

There was a brief discussion about whether this format is the correct way to reach policy makers and well as the possibility of co-branding. It was also mentioned that there would be a charge for downloads and that SIOP wouldn’t own the content.

President Allen stated that a relevant question in considering our participation in the annual is whether we should continue to participate with FABBS.  We need to determine if our $15,000 membership fee is providing value.  The membership renewal request will come to the Administration Office in October.

It was noted that Paula Skedsvold stepped down as FABBS executive director. It is uncertain if this will result in an increase of service or if it is a sign of disarray.  FABBS appeared to be threatened by our intent to work with Lewis-Burke in the advocacy area. Mr. Nershi said he is not able to name anything they’ve done for us in recent years.  Dr. Allen said the current representative to FABBS typically gets action alerts only. This is available from APA and we could possibly find more areas of collaboration with APA. 

It was asked if we failed to communicate our goals to FABBS. Dr. Rogelberg mentioned that Lewis-Burke has been given metrics and told we want to see tangible progress to ensure our continued relationship.   Mr. Nershi said FABBS has to focus on the very broad interests of member societies as opposed to only advancing our goals. 

Dr. Heggestad made a motion to end relationship with FABBS, Dr. Lowman second.  Discussion ensued. The motion was restated.

ACTION ITEM: Motion by Dr. Heggestad, seconded by Dr. Lowman. SIOP will not renew its membership with FABBS for 2014 but will reevaluate in future years.  Laura Bryan abstains.  All others approve.

APA Good Governance Update and APA Report –Dr. John Scott reported that the newly revised Standards on Educational and Psychologists Tests were accepted by the APA Council of Representatives (COR) as was the Guidelines for the Practice of Telepsychology.  SIOP had considerable input and partnered with Division 13 to respond to the initial set of telepsychology guidelines.

Dr. Scott discussed a series of eight COR motions related to the Good Governance Project (GGP).  The goal of GGP is to make the APA board more nimble.  The APA Council meetings are attended by 170 reps and it’s difficult to make any decisions with so many involved, he said.  The proposals could change things from the current system whereby divisions get representation relative to their size (and the apportionment vote) and state and provincial groups get one vote each. One proposal would have representatives elected to represent focus or “pillar” areas. That suggestion did not get much support. 

Another option included state and lesser division representation.  So there is a chance that SIOP will lose seats, said Dr. Scott.  Since the issue was unresolved, an APA working group has been established to come up with a hybrid model in February 2014. SIOP Member Dr. William Strickland is on the working group. Many questions remain.

Potential Use of New Platform for My.SIOPA proposal from the Electronic Communications Committee to change the platform for the My.SIOP online community was reviewed. The ECC has encountered difficulty getting members to engage in the current program. To exacerbate the issue, our vendor GoLightly is no longer willing to make the customizations we need since the company was bought out. 

The committee recommended a change to DotNetNuke and its Evoq platform and to initiate this so it can be in place when the current agreement with GoLightly expires at the end of December. DNN has a more robust social networking platform, which will result in a better member experience.   There may be some differences, but pages will be modeled after the current my.SIOP site. The modules are easily customizable and the program will reside on our server.  This will be an improvement because database information won’t have to be synchronized with an outside party.

Dr. Laura Bryan asked if there are any staffing implications if the AO staff takes this on.  Dr. Hakel said that they feel that the current AO web developer, Emeka Ewuzie, can manage the process and he has shown that he can catch on quickly.  We will have the ability to configure the software as we need. The intention is to present this as a new version of my.SIOP rather than a brand new program.  Dr. Zickar said that we have a few months to get things moved over.  Dr. Zack Horn, ECC Chair, and the ECC have been working with DNN using a 30-day trial license and feels that completion of the project within the timeframe is feasible. 

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Zickar moved to approve the proposal to switch the my.SIOP platform to DotNetNuke/EVOQ.  The motion was seconded by Dr. Hakel.  There was brief discussion about customization of the software versus configuration. Dr. Reynolds would be onboard with a product that is configurable rather than customizable.   Hosting the program on the SIOP server was determined not to be an issue. The motion was restated and approved by unanimous vote.

Awards Committee Recommendations – The board moved into executive session to consider the recommendations of the Awards Committee.

At 4:32 the Executive Board returned to regular session.

Awards DiscussionDr. David Baker was asked to participate in a discussion on whether we can update the policy so that multiple Early Career Awards can be given if there are the outstanding candidates to warrant it.  A concern was expressed that this award has a small window of opportunity when the nominee can be a valid candidate.  Dr. Jose Cortina will work with Dr. Baker to develop a recommendation for the January board meeting.

Proposed Licensing, Certification & Credentialling Committee -- Dr. Allen referred to the proposal contained in the briefing book.  The responsibilities for these issues are distributed across a wide range of committees, she said.  Our institutional knowledge can be lost when committee membership changes.  She suggested that the structure used by SPARC (Support, Planning & Research Committee), with staggered five-year terms, would be more effective in dealing with these important issues.   Dr. Allen said it is important that this new committee be proactive as well as reactive.  This change would facilitate the ability of the committee to engage in more environmental scanning.

One concern with the present arrangement is that the various groups currently responsible for these issues (State Affairs, Professional Practice, APA Council Reps and various ad hoc groups) may not be configured in a way that facilitates working together. Dr. Reynolds wondered if this change will affect bylaws which would require a vote of membership.  Mr. Nershi said that if it were formed as an ad hoc committee, it would be a matter of policy and wouldn’t need a bylaw vote.  The benefits of this approach versus a standing committee were discussed.  The issue of getting members to serve a five-year commitment was raised.  Dr. Bryan said she believes that it will get wide support from members who would embrace SIOP’s greater involvement in the licensing issues.   It was determined that the LCC committee could be added as an ad hoc committee now and voted into status as a standing committee in the future. At that future time, this bylaws change could be bundled with other needed bylaws updates.

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Olson-Buchanan made a motion to approve a new Licensing, Certification and Credentialling ad hoc committee, Dr. Allan Church seconded.  Approval was unanimous.

The group then talked about possible candidates to chair this committee and ideas to make committees in general more effective. There appears to be a lack of coordination between efforts of committees working in the same general area. It was also suggested that it may be time to reorganize portfolio officer committee assignments to ensure more balanced workloads.  President Allen noted that SPARC is currently tasked developing processes for review of various policies and practices such as our governance structure.

Branding Initiative Update Dr. Chris Rotolo joined the meeting via phone.  Dr. Reynolds handed out a report: SIOP Brand Concept Testing Results & Strategy Recommendations.  He gave a summary of the branding project, which dates back to 2001 with the work of the Visibility Committee. There have been various starts and stops, but things took off again in 2012.

The presentation today concerns the concept testing phase. Our current logo has been around for many years and while our organization is known as SIOP it’s not included in our logo. Dr. Rotolo said the survey results show we haven’t been successful in our promotional activity. 
Four groups were targeted to identify the appeal of potential SIOP brand value propositions, taglines and logos:

  • HR professionals in mid-size to large corporations
  • Business leaders/professionals (non-HR) in mid-size to large corporations
  • College faculty primarily in psychology, business and education departments (expanded to other disciplines to complete sample)
  • Undergraduate students majoring in psychology or business

The committees work was rigorous and resulted in the testing of four value proposition concepts.  Using those concepts, we asked them if they saw these concepts in certain taglines/logos.  In addition to paid research panels, the committee asked SIOP members for their reactions.  The results showed that no matter the audience, the familiarity with I-O was higher than familiarity with SIOP.  Relative to other concepts, “solutions-oriented” and “trusted partner” were rated the highest, followed by “strategically-focused.” The results were surprising in that “scientifically rigorous” was rated lowest across all audiences. 

To help refine possible taglines, the task force worked with the tagline specialist who came up with the Got Milk? campaign.  The highest rated taglines included:

  • Psychology at Work
  • The Science of People at Work
  • Science for a Smarter Workplace
  • Shaping the Future of Work

Using psychology in the tagline when it’s in our name may not be optimal since this would be redundant when presented with our full name. The committee also showed preference for taglines that are aspirational rather than static.  The committee’s recommendation is “science for a smarter workplace. “

Dr. Thompson asked if the committee considered the international perception of the proposed tagline. Discussion then focused on the use of the word “smarter.”  Dr. Whetzel asked if demographics are available for the sample to see if this term is perceived differently across demographics.  Dr. Reynolds said this issue was debated multiple times by the committee, which eventually decided in favor of the recommended tagline.  IBM uses smarter in their tagline, he noted.  Dr. Hakel asked if the committee would consider a tagline of “science for working smarter.” 

Dr. Rotolo then explained the evolution of the proposed new SIOP logo. The effort began with an online design contest through 99 Designs. More than 500 designs and iterations were evaluated. From those efforts a smaller group of designers was chosen to enter the finalist phase. Two design elements emerged when they understood what we were trying to convey: a rising bar graph and upward moving arrow. From this effort a winning design was selected.

Mr. Bruce Yunker of Tandem Creative, who has been working with SIOP on the marketing of the Leading Edge Consortium and the 2014 Annual Conference, was brought in to fine tune the logo and ensure it would work in the variety of needed applications.  The integrated design that emerged includes both the bar graph and upward arrow within the “O” of SIOP. The “nearly final” design with gray and shades of red was presented to the board for review and discussion.

Dr. Cortina commented that he’s impressed with the amazing work of the Branding Committee and all concurred.  A big round of thanks was given to Drs. Rotolo and Reynolds for all of their work on this issue. 

Several board members inquired if we need to go out and get more data.  We still may need to consider our international markets.  It was suggested that board members ask some international colleagues their opinion of the tagline to ensure it doesn’t have a negative connotation.   It was asked whether the tagline should focus on “work” rather than workplace. The committee had hours of similar debate on both of these issues, said Dr. Rotolo.  Dr. Rotolo explained that some thought work was narrow and workplace broad but others thought the opposite.  The thinking is that workplace includes the full scope of the organization and not just the output of employees.

The board then turned its attention to a small graphic element, the “I” in SIOP. In earlier logo prototypes, the “I” was lowercase and had a dot. Dr. Olson-Buchanan said that some people have commented that our acronym can be mistaken as “slop.” The graphic dot is gone over the “I” in the final version. 

Next steps were discussed. When the “nearly final” logo design is combined with the proper tagline, it will be shared with the board.  Board members can then share with others, like internationals and get feedback.  Dr. Olson-Buchanan offered to share survey with her students who are non-majority and many non-English speaking.  Dr. Reynolds said that the committee might have to start at square one if there are any changes to the tagline.  He suggested that comments be gathered to see if others share the same concerns.  Dr. Whetzel shared concern that the term “smarter” could be perceived negatively because of controversy surrounding the use of general intelligence testing.

Dr. Rotolo reminded the board that the same issue was debated for many hours in use of better versus smarter.  In the end, the tagline was agreed to using ‘smarter’ even knowing that there might be minor negative issues.  The point was raised that the intended general audience won’t have a preconceived notion about general intelligence measurement that might raise a negative connotation. That is a concern of I-O psychologists.  

It was determined there are two items to be addressed:  Adjust the design to dot the “I” or otherwise lessen the chance that the “I” can be misread, and, make sure that ‘smarter’ doesn’t have problems with our audience.   Dr. Rogelberg did a quick search and found that Kenexa used “smarter workforce” in a title of a conference.  Dr. Zickar wanted to know if we can publish the marketing results as people should know about this. 

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Zickar moved to endorse direction of branding task force and investigate areas that were discussed by the board for improvements or unexpected reactions.  For example, look at design of the “I” and test use of word ‘smarter’ with international and diverse audiences. The motion was approved unanimously. 

The meeting recessed at 6:18. 

Session II, September 28, 2013

Dr. Allen called the meeting to order at 8:08 AM.

ACTION ITEM: Motion by Dr. Reynolds with a second by Dr. Lowman to approve the recommendations of the Awards Committee. Unanimous approval.

Practice Oriented Journal UpdateDr. Allan Church reviewed the Proposal for New Publication Concept – Working Title: Industrial- Organizational Business Review.  The goals for the proposed publication would be to:

  • Translate I-O science into practice
  • Codify and communicate best practices by and for practitioners
  • Provide rich application example to promote learning and guide future research

Dr. Church said there was much debate among the task force about how the goals could be accomplished.  One concept is that the publication would start with a dilemma scenario then solicit reactions from a practitioner and an academician.  The committee tested the concept by each gathering reactions from people with varying backgrounds.  The result was that 27 people provided feedback (they were a mix of practitioner, academicians, and younger people).  Some of the questions raised included:  Who is going to read this? Is it sustainable?  Who is the target audience?  Will the practitioner focus differentiate it from our journal, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice (IOP).

There were many opinions on what format would be best. Some said a good journal would be of use in a classroom setting while others said a two-page paper is what they need.   Publication board results were 67% yes, 17% maybe on the dilemma response type format.  There is some sentiment that it shouldn’t be labeled as a journal as that would be perceived as too academic. 

Many questions remain, including the editorial and publishing formats.   Who will do the writing is another issue. There is a great interest in the journal content, but a much lower interest in actually contributing writing to it. There are potential partnerships that could also be considered (e.g. APA, SHRM).

Direction from the board is needed to determine who is the target audience is and how to proceed, said Dr. Church.  A wide-ranging discussion on the proposal took place. A question was raised as to whether we could get SIOP members to write for the publication. Mr. Nershi suggested that we could use professional writers that interview the practitioners to create the articles.  The end result would be more like a magazine, similar to SHRM’s HR magazine but with SIOP rigor.  Dr. Banks likes the idea that we help practitioners with strategy.   Dr. Church likes the idea that we invest resources in writers. Another idea is to do a test of the magazine concept by taking two past focal articles from IOP and turning them over to writers and designers to develop a prototype. 

It was suggested that IOP’s content could be modified or a special issue produced to address the goals of the proposed publication.  Dr. Rogelberg thinks that we may find that if new content was included in IOP it would provide value to all of our members. 

Dr. Bryan said the question that comes to mind is why are we doing this? This brings us back to who is the audience?  If we use IOP as a format, we might expand reach but will it go outside of SIOP?  It was decided to work with Kevin Murphy to see how we might use IOP to test the different concepts discussed.

IOP Journal Publisher UpdateDr. Church provided a report on the current status of the publishing agreement with Wiley-Blackwell for the publishing of our IOP. Our contract was scheduled to automatically renew for a seven-year term unless we opted for a three-year contract extension or terminated the agreement with a 12-month notice. We notified Wiley of our desire to go with a three-year extension and they agreed in writing, but after 10 months they still have not sent us a written agreement. We don’t know if that means they are no longer interested in our relationship. 

We have been approached by Routledge with a proposal that would start in 2017, said Dr. Church.   We haven’t completed the evaluation of their proposal yet.  Bids from other publishers would also be entertained. We will ask some questions and maybe if we start another journal that may factor into the equation.  It may also be that we move the practice series from Wiley. 

Center for Organizational Excellence – Dr. Allen provided a handout of word cloud from previous board minutes.  Of note:  APA is large part of our efforts/discussions.  President Allen noted that based on previous discussions with board members we all have concerns that the COE was developed without input from or collaboration with SIOP. Where we diverge is the degree we perceive it as a threat and how we want to interact with it. President Allen suggested that where the COE is concerned that we should refocus our energy into considering ways to establish SIOP as the center of gravity on matters of worker and organizational health and well-being.  The Professional Practice Committee has begun working on this issue.

Dr. Cris Banks next led a discussion on the APA Center for Organizational Excellence. The overriding concern is that APA has launched this effort without reaching out to SIOP for our input when this is our area of expertise. She said since it’s unlikely that APA will change, the question is what can or should we do.  How can we refocus our efforts?  How can we get to the table with APA? 

If SIOP created avenues where members impact health and well-being perhaps APA would come to us and ask for help. This is a current trend, with health insurance coverage for all being on the national stage.  

Dr. Banks noted that APA’s Psychologically Healthy Workplace award is almost 10 years old and asked what impact APA has had in that arena.  It would be good to know which SIOP members are interested in this topic.

Dr. Lowman asked why the award alone didn’t cause concern for us but the COE does. It was noted that when the award program was initiated it was a cause for concern for SIOP. SIOP leaders have felt stymied in trying to work with COE Director David Ballard all along.  Dr. Reynolds sees it as a one-sided partnership with COE.  It’s hard to get them to accept our offers of help.   

It may be that the name of the center may be more of an issue than what they are actually doing at the COE.  At what point do we decide if what APA is doing is of concern to I-O psychologists.  Dr. Lowman doesn’t feel that we should walk away.  He said we should continue to expand our partnership with Division 13.  He said we shouldn’t stop at David Ballard, we may need to reach above to see if we can get our concerns raised with others at APA.  We want to make sure our science and brand are part of the COE.   

Dr. Jose Cortina is uncomfortable that APA is taking on this initiative with non-I-O people when it is definitely within our domain.  Dr. Rogelberg isn’t as concerned with the issue based on looking at the content on their web site. Dr. Lowman also concurs that the name of the center is of a concern and that we can’t ignore this.  Dr. Bryan echoed that we need to be part of the discussion. Let’s get to the table to provide our expertise and help them do this better.   Dr. Banks wondered if we actually want our name on this initiative headed by Mr. Ballard and can we make enough of an impact to get things right.   

President Allen stated that there appears to be the need for a two-pronged approach. First, SIOP will continue to encourage the Practice Committee to find ways to partner with others as part of our own efforts to expand efforts and visibility on healthy workplace issue.  Second, we should communicate with APA CEO Norm Anderson and let him know our displeasure at not being brought into the discussion about this initiative that so clearly comes under our domain. The site doesn’t even mention our division or other divisions that are also experts in this area. 

Dr. Hakel thinks changing the name is an issue and we should have APA Council Reps start conversations with others in APA about our concerns. Dr. Allen asked for volunteer to reach out to APA.  Dr. Reynolds is willing to be designated point person given his history partnering with Division 13 and prior communication with Mr. Ballard.  This might belay concerns that our leadership changes so often we can’t keep a message moving forward. 

It was suggested we work with other divisions and voice our concerns about the expansion to COE from merely an awards program without consulting SIOP.  Despite our annoyance, we should think of it as an opportunity.  

Dr. Reynolds isn’t as concerned with the COE and thinks we should simply get links to our resources on their site.  Dr. Cortina would rather not just be a small part of the COE and he doesn’t approve of what they did.  Dr. Banks feels that we can make a big splash on this issue in a big way and that we should take umbrage with APA developments and state we want a bigger role because we are APA dues paying members.   Dr. Lowman suggested that we involve APA’s Board of Scientific Affairs. 

2013 Leading Edge Consortium UpdateMr. Nershi reported that the refocusing of the LEC based on the recommendations of the advisory committee has started to produce results with almost 200 attendees.  The 2014 LEC will be in Chicago, which is in keeping with recommendations of the advisory committee that it be in a major city. 

Dr. Rogelberg asked if success continues onto Chicago, could we handle 300-350 attendees.  Mr. Nershi responded yes, but we may want to cap attendance for other reasons. Dr. Zickar asked why an academician isn’t on the committee.  The Executive Board, in approving the advisory committee report, required that a science advisor be added to the committee. Mr. Nershi said that LEC Chair Dr. Jeff McHenry had academicians who vetted content and presenter ideas, but were not a visible part of program.  Dr. Bryan suggested that we keep Baltimore in mind for possible venue.  Dr. Banks asked if we track demographics of attendees.  This might help with focus of topics going forward.  

Dr. Banks is overseeing the topic selection for 2014 and aims to have this done by the 2013 LEC.  She asked board members to suggest strong topic ideas.  Responses included personnel selection, senior management selection, leadership at the top, global leadership and executive coaching.  Dr. Rogelberg suggested that Dr. Banks look back to the advisory task force list for their topics.

Hawaii Annual Conference UpdateDr. Julie Olson-Buchanan reported that there were a record breaking number of submissions with more than 1,500.  There have been some changes for Hawaii as we want to cut down on some costs and think about how the venue might change the meeting.  We will start at 7:30 AM and end at 3:30 PM each day except Saturday.   We have combined the 3 consortia (Masters, Doctoral, & Junior Faculty) for some general sessions then they will have breakout sessions for topics that are specific to each group.  The Newcomer reception will be held in tandem with the Welcome Reception.  Fellows’ breakfast will be reviewed as the required start time might be too early to be practical.  The walk from the hotel to the convention center is about 20 minutes so we will hire shuttle buses. 

The receptions will be more like a late afternoon happy hour rather than evening events.  Kurt Kraiger is organizing a hooding ceremony for graduates who are missing their own to be at the conference.  The committee planning meeting in July was held in Hawaii with some committee members participating by phone.  The winter meeting won’t be in Hawaii due to the time difference and costs.  The conference planning committee will meet the day before the January Executive Board meeting in Austin, TX.   

Dr. Hakel asked if we are expanding poster sessions and Mr. Nershi said yes.   Mr. Nershi also commented that International submissions are up over last year.   The marketing efforts have resulted in the creation of a “justification toolkit” that includes template letters for use in asking employers to approve attendance.  Registration will open early, perhaps in November. 

Dr. Heggestad asked if rooms at a lower rate are still available. He said he checked and the lower room rates were only available during peak conference days.  Mr. Nershi said board members should check again as the inventory of rooms changes on a regular basis. We are monitoring availability.

Can we survey membership about potential attendance?  The APA convention reported attendance of 12,000 which was higher than previous year in Orlando.  Mr. Nershi said we need to determine if the Executive Board meeting should be held in same format and time. The board asked that this be finalized as soon as possible so that flights can be booked.

Advocacy UpdateDr. Rogelberg provided an overview of the progress with Lewis-Burke and reported that things are off to a very good start.  First phase was a meeting between Drs. Allen, Reynolds, Cortina, and Mr. Nershi at Lewis-Burke’s office to help set agenda during an advocacy retreat.  The get-to-know-you phase was intriguing, they looked at lots of our materials, and they asked good questions and seemed to really know what we are about.  When they are in meetings they introduce themselves as SIOP because they really do represent us.  They created materials to hand out to representatives on Capitol Hill. 

At the retreat, they talked about how we can create models to move forward, which metrics we can track, how to get funding, how to provide testimony, etc.  Lewis-Burke was comfortable with the list of items by which we said we would evaluate their success.   As part of the retreat, SIOP members met with senior staffers on the Hill. SIOP members split into two teams that each included a LB representative. Seven meetings were held that lasted from 30 to 90 minutes.  Staffers were very interested and seemed to be very intrigued by what I-O is about. 

Our advocacy message varied depending on the audience, e.g., Veterans Affairs was interested in SIOP helping them with succession planning while another office was interested in LGBT issues.   Lewis -Burke sent thank you notes to staffers who met with us. Going forward our SIOP infrastructure will include three layers: the alignment team which includes the presidential trio, Science and Research Portfolio Officer, Advocacy Chair, (Seth Kaplan has been asked to take on this role), along with Mr. Nershi. The group will meet monthly with Lewis-Burke.   

The advocacy team will be chaired by Seth Kaplan. This will be the active group. They will be aided by the ‘volunteer fire department.’ The latter group will provide materials and expertise for situations that arise (testimony, white papers, etc.).

It was suggested that it may be useful to tell Lewis-Burke which metrics should be given more priority;   two that come to mind are congressional testimony and getting SIOP members on key funding and advisory panels.  Lewis-Burke suggested we focus our approach by concentrating on three “buckets” of expertise.  After looking at the federal environment, they suggested we would excel in:

  • The Federal Workforce (for which congress has oversight responsibility)
  • Economic Recovery (We help businesses be more effective and grow )
  • Work in High Risk and Extreme Environments.   (Much interest in work being done for veterans)  

Dr. Banks asked if employee health and well-being fit in anywhere.   The impact of furloughs was mentioned in in conjunction with the first topic.  The three buckets will get the ear of people as we mention key topics that they would find of interest. 

Lewis-Burke will be at the LEC and they are interested in attending the Hawaii conference to learn first-hand about SIOP and our members.  APA also does this type of advocacy but Lewis-Burke is strictly focused on us. The entire process was very interesting and enlightening, said Dr. Rogelberg. 

Membership Issues UpdateDrs. Allen and Heggestad led this discussion.  Currently there are several interrelated issues that concern membership. One issue discussed at the April meeting is if membership in partner organizations should continue to be required to become a member of SIOP.  This topic was the subject of a report by SPARC.  Consideration of this issue was prompted by the worry that we aren’t transitioning students to full members because of cost barrier to joining APA/APS first.  One of our concerns is whether we have data to determine why they aren’t converting?   Should we wait for the next member survey?   A question was asked about whether this topic should be more strategic in nature?  Do we want to determine if we should keep ties with partner organizations rather than delving into data/survey results to get the reason why they did/did not upgrade? 

A second issue concerns the status of Associate members. A committee chaired by Mr. Adam Hilliard was tasked with looking at issues regarding Associates.  The committee report can be found in the my.siop library.  The committee interviewed SIOP members, which left the questions of why some members do not convert or why some members have exited the organization unanswered.

Dr. Bryan works exclusively with a Masters program and her students are very excited by I-O but they lose interest and don’t join and it would be interesting to find out why.  Many end up in organizational settings but don’t engage with SIOP. 

The group deliberated about how to address the needs of Associates including a potential path to full membership. Whatever is proposed should meet our strategic goals. If we make significant changes, we will need a vote of membership to update the bylaws.   We also need to keep in mind that any changes may affect our identity.  It was mentioned that our strategic goal says “Society of choice among I-O professionals”.  It doesn’t say PhD I-O professionals. 

Dr. Heggestad asked what the Membership Committee can provide for the January meeting.  The board needs data about the rate of Masters students that are dropping off.  It may be they move to generalist positions and don’t need SIOP.  We know of others with I-O PhDs that also drop off.

President Allen stated that we have done exit surveys of non-renewing members and the primary reason listed is similar for PhD and Masters – the cost of membership.

Careful consideration should be to the criteria in which we allow conversion to voting members.  If it is not strongly tied to I-O, would these new professional members add value to our society?  Would a change in membership criteria cause some professional members to leave SIOP?   If we opened a path, how many current associates would fit? 

Further discussion ensued about how and who to survey on this matter. Questions could be developed for senior Masters members. Non-renewing Associates could be surveyed.   Another option might be to ask faculty at Masters’ programs to reach out to their alumni. 

The Membership Committee will be asked to examine these key membership issues to determine if our current membership requirements and membership structure is in line with our current strategic objectives.

SPARC Assignment – President Allen tasked SPARC with the development of a 10-year calendar to guide the business rhythm of SIOP.  This was done to ensure that important policies and processes are reviewed and refreshed on a regular basis. SPARC s identifying the elements to be reviewed as well as the mechanisms for review. Mr. Nershi reported that the Committee has held a teleconference and that individual committee members are working on various assignments related to the task.

Election Committee Draft Guidelines for Using My.SIOP in Campaigns – Dr. Cortina led a discussion about the main issue of how to leverage my.siop to have the election process be more transparent.  The focus is on increasing the availability of information. Candidates can use my.SIOP once they are on ballot to state their case for being elected.  We can also use my.siop for promoting SIOP members for APA President. 

SIOP Members Running For APA President – Mr. Nershi mentioned it might be possible to endorse both SIOP candidates for APA President.  Voting runs through October 31. The question was raised whether the board should make an endorsement or simply say it’s important to vote and we have two SIOP members on the ballot for APA President.      

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Reynolds made a motion that the board sends an email to SIOP/APA voting members letting them know two SIOP members on the ballot and that it’s important to vote.   Dr. Bryan second.  All were in favor.  Note:   Dr. Lowman left the room during the discussion as he is running for APA President and didn’t participate in the vote. 

Dr. Hakel suggested we send another email to remind people on to make their nominations for SIOP officers by the deadlines since nominations are down significantly.

SIOP Foundation ReportDr. Milt Hakel reported that the Foundation Board is doing well and quite active.  The winners of the new HRM Impact Award will be announced on October 1 in San Diego then again at the LEC on October 18.  There were 21 applications received but the big question was would they be any good.   Dr. Wayne Cascio chaired the committee.  There were two private sector awards and two public sector awards with one honorable mention.

The Jeanneret Symposium steering committee will hold a meeting at the end of the LEC.  Most likely the topic will be focused around assessment.  The next step is to appoint a practice panel to identify the central question that will be the focus of the symposium.  The committee will be looking for something that is researchable and actionable within five years.  We have the funds from Dr. Jeanneret that will be used to host this event.  The long term goal would be to replicate this type of thing.  The idea of this field research consortium came as a result of the foundation’s strategic planning meeting in January 2013.

APA Program Committee – Dr. Julie Olson-Buchanan reported that APA Program related events over the past few years have been less than stellar and we feel that this gives impression that SIOP isn’t actively engaged in APA.  The committee is excited about the recent changes APA has proposed for the convention and the committee would like to use this as an opportunity to re-invigorate participation of SIOP members at the APA convention. 

The committee is seeking board support to encourage our members to attend and participate.  The reception was lacking and not having division ribbons hindered visibility.  The committee is ready to jump in if they get support from the board. 

One board member asked if there is value in being involved in the APA convention.  Dr. Banks suggested we use the “three buckets” concept and focus on those categories and draw members to present in those areas.  APA is now in Washington every three years.   Let’s look at this as visibility and have Lewis-Burke involvement.  They might be able to help shape sessions and get high profile speakers.  It’s an opportunity to get in the game and have our voices heard.  The program chair can make all sessions invited and have a theme.  There are several other divisions that might join us in the bucket topics.  (Divisions  5, 13, & 19). 

Other Matters – Dr. Rogelberg asked what can or should we do with the unused FABBS dues expense that is part of the budget.  One suggestion is to work with Scientific Affairs chair and the External Relations chair to see if they would have any ideas worthy of support.  They could be invited to provide ideas to the board. It was suggested that invitations could be sent to all chairs, but it was decided to keep it within the advocacy area since that is where the money is in the budget. Consensus around the board was that we should ask for ideas.  No vote was needed at this time since no funding was being requested or approved.

Dr. Bryan commented that the Masters guides haven’t been looked at in many years.  Dr. Stephanie Payne will chair this initiative.  Mr. Nershi will check APA rules to make sure that we don’t need APA approval for any changes.

Dr. Reynolds mentioned that the SIOP review of the Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures may require an extension in order to get the work completed.

Dr. Foster-Thompson commented on the UN activity.  She said the UN has been very supportive of our efforts and that progress has been made in a variety of areas.

The business of the Society being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 1:12 pm.