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

Hyatt Rosemont – Rosemont, IL
September 26-27, 2014


Note: A fire in an air traffic control center in Aurora, Illinois, caused disruption to scheduled airline flights. As a result, many board members were not able to attend in person, but participated by teleconference.

Attending:  Jose Cortina, Laura Bryan (teleconference 9/26, in person 9/27) Milt Hakel, Fred Oswald, John Scott, Lori Foster Thompson (absent 9/26, in person 9/27) Director of Administrative Services Linda Lentz, and Executive Director Dave Nershi.

Teleconference Participants: Tammy Allen, Alex Alonso, Christina Banks, Allan Church (absent 9/26), Eric Heggestad, Steve Kozlowski, Rodney Lowman, Kathleen Lundquist, Evan Sinar and Deborah Whetzel.


While waiting for a quorum to sign on to the conference call, those present listened to the APA representatives report. A major topic from the August APA Council of Representatives meeting was the restructuring of council. An implementation working group is looking at changing duties of the council and refining the structure. The biggest issue is whether to continue the current apportionment method of allocating representatives, move to a one unit/one vote system or a system under which each division has one representative but whose votes are weighted by apportionment. Dr. Rodney Lowman commented that it has been a frustrating experience. Dr. Milt Hakel said that there appears to be “recycling” of council representatives.

When the quorum number was achieved with teleconference participants, the meeting was ready to begin.


President Jose Cortina called the meeting to order at 2:10 CT


Dr. Evan Sinar gave an overview of the upcoming annual conference to be held in Philadelphia.  There were 1,330 submissions received, which is down from last year. This is not entirely a surprise since attendance at the Hawaii conference was contingent upon acceptance of a paper for many. This led to higher a higher submission number even though conference attendance was down in comparison to recent years.

The number of panel discussions for Philadelphia is up while the number of posters is down.  A draft of the post-conference survey from the Hawaii conference has been reviewed by the Conference Committee and will soon be ready to be released.  The alternate session type, something new in 2014, was rated very highly. He said that it is not a bad trend to have a higher number of panel discussion sessions as they lead to more free-flowing discussions. 


Dr. Kathleen Lundquist provided an overview of the financials for the current year through September 10, 2014.  She reported that all indications are that the Philadelphia conference will do well.  This is a major revenue source for SIOP. Income has been positively impacted by conference sponsorship. At this early stage $180,000 in sponsorship has already been reserved versus a budget of $214,000. Expenses that are different from a year ago were reviewed.  Dr. Evan Sinar asked about the meeting travel expenses. Executive Director Dave Nershi responded that this year travel was necessary for site visits to potential conference locations for years 2020 and 2021. We didn’t do any site selection last year. The schedule of payments for some items is also different (e.g. an advance deposit required for the Leading Edge Consortium hotel and movement to a quarterly billing for Lewis-Burke, SIOP’s advocacy firm).

Dr. Lundquist gave a brief mention of the strong reserves position for SIOP and that we have an excess over the minimum required reserves by over 15% which equates to $308,000 to spend.  This will be an agenda item later in the meeting.  The FY13-14 audit is in the final stages and all of the financials are in good shape.  Current assets for SIOP total $2.6 million with liabilities of $100.


ACTION ITEM: Following a motion by Dr. Hakel and a second by Dr. John Scott, the consent agenda was approved. The consent agenda included:

  • Report on Interim Board Action: The Executive Board approved the 2014-2015 fiscal year proposed budget by electronic ballot. The ballot was sent September 3, 2014, and the vote concluded September 9, 2014.
  • Approval of May 18, 2014, Executive Board Meeting Minutes
  • Annual 401k Resolution for SIOP Inc. attesting to previous year’s contributions
  • Portfolio Officer Reports
    • Conferences and Programs – Evan Sinar
    • Publications – Allan Church
    • Communications – Alex Alonzo
    • External Affairs – Milt Hakel
    • Membership Services – Eric Heggestad
    • Professional Practice – Cris Banks
    • Instruction and Education – Laura Koppes Bryan
    • Research and Science – Fred Oswald


Dr. Cristina Banks provided background on the APA Center for Organizational Excellence. It began with work by Dr. David Ballard to develop the Psychologically Healthy Workplace award.  Due to the success of the program, APA expanded it by creating the Center for Organizational Excellence (COE) to which Dr. Ballard was named as Director.  

There are concerns about COE. While SIOP has the expertise within the I-O domain it hasn’t been involved in the development of this program. When asked why SIOP isn’t a major partner, the response was not entirely satisfactory.  Dr. Banks said COE did acknowledge that they are weak in the area of research. 

Dr. L. Michael Honaker, APA Deputy CEO, was asked what research or expertise SIOP can provide to assist in their efforts.  Dr. Banks stated that if there were a consistent group of people to be a resource for COE, it would be a good way to establish the foundation for a working relationship.  The SIOP Executive Board did authorize formation of advisory board which includes Robert Bloom and Doug Reynolds and is chaired by Dr. Banks.  She asked if there were other recommendations for the advisory board.

Dr. Banks queried as to how the advisory board should interact with Dr. Ballard and others at COE.  She said she needs consensus from board on how to formalize the relationship.

President Cortina asked how those involved with the COE would respond to SIOP’s input.  Dr. Banks said success depends on how the conversation moves forward.  If SIOP sanctioned the advisory board members to go forward with a certain charge, she believes COE would welcome our interaction. 

Dr. Rodney Lowman added that Dr. John Scott and the other APA Council Reps have met with Dr. Honaker.  Perhaps that relationship and those developed with Division 13 may make COE more receptive. President Cortina expressed a concern that Dr. Ballard and COE will abandon their health focus and move to bread and butter I-O psychology matters with input from non I-O people.  He was further concerned that if SIOP were peripherally involved APA would be able to say that COE is getting research based input.  If the advisory board doesn’t have power to implement it might not be worth our time.  

It was suggested that the advisory board may be able to hold COE accountable if the Executive Board selects high profile I-O members to serve. There is a question about whether the benefits of participation will outweigh the costs. 

Dr. Scott suggested one APA Council Rep sit on the board with COE.  Another suggestion was that Dr.  Janet Barnes Farrell from External Relations committee might sit on board too.  Dr. Hakel said using an APA Council Rep makes sense and fits.  Dr. Lowman suggested a call for nominations to see who is interested and willing to commit the time.  A call may also uncover others who want to be involved but were previously not selected to participate.  Dr. Banks said she didn’t want to make the process cumbersome with a call for nominations so she thought it makes sense to issue invites from the Executive Board. 

President Cortina said he would prefer to use an ad hoc structure and select advisory members from the Washington DC area, like Rich Klimoski, who may be interested and will be able to quickly act if we will get good traction from APA.  Dr. Banks asked Dr. Tammy Allen if she would like to participate.  Dr. Allen said she would not.

ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Banks was asked to come back to the Executive Board with a slate of possible members for the advisory board.  The matter will be discussed in mid-October by email.  Per Dr. Hakel, the advisory board should be selected before APA’s February meeting.  Dr. Banks was asked to solicit input from Dr. Ballard and Dr. Honaker on the SIOP/COE relationship and include an operating plan on how group will function with the list of members.   Dr. Allen suggested, former APA Council Reps, excluding Dr. Scott whose term will soon expire, be invited to serve on the advisory board.  In particular, Dr. Debra Major has strong research background and was part of CODAPAR and familiar with APA. 


Dr. Hakel announced that the newest entrant to the incubator fund is the James L. Outtz Grant for Student Research on Diversity.  The incubator fund was designed to give the donor(s) up to 5 years to reach the minimum gift amount for a named fund.  Dr. Hakel reviewed how the fund was the result of Dr. Mikki Hebl’s discussions with Dr. James Outtz, to have a research grant that focuses on diversity and provides financial support for students.  They worked with Mrs. Linda Lentz and Dr. Hakel to develop the agreement and the details of criteria and guidelines that will be part of call for applications for the grant. 

Foundation bylaws require new funds of the SIOP Foundation be presented to the Executive Board to get their input and support for the initiatives.   Dr. Lowman asked if the $50,000 will be spent like a term gift.  Dr. Hakel explained that this will be an endowed fund with only earnings being used for the grants. If earnings are less than the anticipated grant level of $3,000, which may occur in the early years, the Foundation Board may have to supplement with money from the Advancement Fund. 

Dr. Lowman then asked if there is an expectation from the donor of SIOP contributing to fund. Dr. Hakel said the donor does not expect the SIOP or the SIOP Foundation to make a monetary donation but that once the fund is operational, board members can make a personal donation if they would like to do so.  Dr. Cortina questioned if it’s even possible for SIOP Inc. to make donation to the SIOP Foundation. Dr. Hakel explained that the Executive Board can approve gifts to Foundation. 

Dr. Banks asked if this initiative would include LGBT and suggested that a definition of diversity might be included in the call for applications.  Mrs. Lentz referenced the fund description included in the briefing book which has a broad concept of diversity which states that preference will be given to projects with research focused on historically-underrepresented and under-researched groups in the United States.  Mrs. Lentz said that the SIOP Foundation does have an LGBT Research Grant that is awarded each year.

ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Hakel made a motion requesting Executive Board support for adding this new fund to the SIOP Foundation portfolio. Dr. Scott seconded.  Motion carries. 


President Cortina reported that several years ago Dr. Fritz Drasgow agreed to chair the committee to update the Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures.   This was initiated in response to an APA rule which states that division standards get sunset after a certain length of time.  Because APA was updating their standards, they agreed to let SIOP delay its revision project while APA did their work.  The AERA/APA/NCME Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests is now published and the Principles can now be revised. We have two years to complete the project.  Dr. Drasgow has since been appointed Dean at his university and can no longer serve as chair but will be happy to be a member of the committee. Dr. Paul Sackett and Dr. Nancy Tippins have agreed to co-chair the committee with eight to 10 members which will have an academic/practitioner mix. 

Mr. Nershi indicated that there isn’t anything that requires a board vote since the deadline is sometime in 2016.  The question was asked will there be budgetary implications.  Mr. Nershi said we printed the previous version but gave free downloads online. We can probably go fully digital this time.  Dr. Hakel said that President Cortina picked a good team to lead this project. 


The negotiations are complete and Cambridge University Press has been contracted as the new publisher for the journal.  The Publications Board is now working on a transition process.  Cambridge is familiar with the process and it should be smooth.  Dr. Hakel asked about the book series discussion with book publishers for the Frontiers and Professional Practice.  Dr. Allan Church will meet with the editors and Mr. Nershi after the Executive Board meeting tomorrow to discuss the Wiley’s concerns.  Wiley is no longer willing to publish our titles if we can’t guarantee 1,000 copies sold over a 2-year period.  Dr. Scott mentioned that for years Wiley indicated they were willing to publish for the sake of science but now they are saying need sales.  It was suggested that Cambridge may be able to handle our book series too.  Dr. Lowman asked if Wiley is requesting that SIOP subsidize the books.   Mr. Nershi isn’t sure; he has been forwarded one email from Dr. Tippins which indicated that they won’t publish without a guarantee of the future success of the book title.  It was also mentioned that the Frontier series has similar concern with a different publisher. 


President Cortina announced the meeting was now in executive session to consider recommendations of the Awards Committee.

Following discussion of the recommendations, the Executive Board returned to regular session.

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Hakel made a motion to approve awards as recommended by the Awards Committee. Dr. Scott seconded. Motion passed.    

Discussion ensued on the topic of awards. There are a handful of awards that are open through September 30, 2014, due to a lack of nominations.  Dr. Lundquist asked if there is a problem with the awards process. What is the cause of lack of nominations?  What can the Executive Board do to help?  Dr. Eric Heggestad said people just don’t think to do it and the process is tedious.  Dr. Lundquist asked if the low number of nominations is resulting in the awards going to wrong people.  Dr. Hakel and Mrs. Lentz don’t feel that this is the case.  We have quality candidates irrespective of the quantity of nominations.  If the Executive Board has time to personally invite nominations that might be helpful.  President Cortina suggested that the Executive Board not be brought in to the picture two weeks from the deadline.  President Cortina will work with Dr. Kristl Davison to set new plans in motion for the 2016 awards call. 

Dr. Hakel suggested that we establish a norm that our members should do nominations.  Dr. Steve Kozlowski said he’s been asked many times to write recommendation letters but doesn’t typically initiate the nomination.  SIOP members may be reluctant to nominate themselves and ask for support from their colleagues.   Dr. Lundquist would like see steps taken to have a larger pool of candidates from which to choose.  Can the Executive Board develop a strategic plan to improve the process?  How can we get it to function more efficiently?  Dr. Hakel expressed concern that a large pool can also cause problems because good people may get overlooked and will drop out of process in subsequent years.  President Cortina said he can think of many good candidates who deserve to be nominated each year and agreed that he doesn’t see a problem with small pool of candidates.


Dr. Banks sent a document from Dr. Mark Poteet via email with the details on this request.  Before the discussion, Dr. Banks thanked  Dr. Poteet, Professional Practice Committee Chair, for the great work he is doing.  Dr. Banks reminded the board that SIOP has a memorandum of understanding with SHRM to post SIOP white papers on their web site and distribute the papers to their members.   Dr. Alex Alonso, Director at SHRM, verified that this process is happening. 

As of July 2013, HR People & Strategy (HRPS) became an affiliate of SHRM and serves the Senior HR segment which has approximately 1,100 members.   Dr. Alonso said they want to provide senior HR leaders with more content about human capital strategy. Dr. Banks asked whether the Executive Board is interested in SIOP producing white papers for HRPS.  HRPS would like SIOP to generate at least one, if not more, white paper per quarter.  The papers will provide exclusive content as a member only benefit.  The papers would be accessible on their website but would be different than the ones we currently supply to SHRM.  Their needs revolve around very HR-oriented and business related topics.   They would like to provide senior level HR members with research that will aid human capital and HR business decision.  This would differ from articles in the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP).  HRPS would like more of a case study approach. The HRPS papers are not the typical SIOP white paper topics.  SIOP would need to identify a different type of author. 

Dr. Poteet consulted with Ms. Lisa Connell, Executive Director of HRPS and Ms. Mary Barnes, Managing Editor of People & Strategy Journal, about the proposal and ways to educate their members and to meet the broader needs of HR members.  The goal is to get science to those at a high level. 

One risk is that the topics aren’t directly related to SIOP areas of expertise.  In addition, the authors will need to be drawn from a smaller subset of SIOP membership and will have to focus on impact so the style will be different.  Another concern is that the proposal would restrict access to HRPS members so SIOP members won’t benefit.  The HRPS audience is only about 2,000.  

Some questions to be explored include:  What is the justification for doing this? What is the ROI? Do we want to create white papers that are unique to the partner only?  Will a precedent be set so that other organizations will request the same type of format? 

Dr. Banks requested that the Executive Board provide comments on the upside and downside of pursuing this proposal.  How can we provide better return to the authors?  Dr. Cortina asked if the content and case format would be different for the SHRM papers versus the HRPS papers.  Dr. Banks said that the content will be focused on business-oriented topics with business outcomes that provide proof of value.  Dr. Alonso gave an example that explains the distinction between the different white papers: SHRM may want a paper that highlights 10 tips on how to conduct an effective employee survey.  For HRPS, they would want a paper that addresses the return of having an employee engagement program. 

Mr. Nershi said that white papers are a growing area for SIOP.  We have committees that focus on producing papers for our own distribution.  In order for an existing SIOP white paper to be used on the SHRM site, the authors have to rewrite the paper to meet SHRM’s needs.  This proposal would require yet another rewrite with a focus for HRPS’ audience.

President Cortina said that SIOP has many initiatives to get the word out about I-O. This proposal looks like the mechanism to facilitate this goal, but the question of authors is unanswered.  Dr. Scott asked if Dr. Banks has identified potential authors.  Dr. Banks suggested that organizational development consultants from top companies who are used to justifying HR content may be a good possibility. But again, she asked, what do the authors get for their contributions.   It was mentioned that SIOP member Edie Goldberg is chair of the HRPS Executive Committee. 

A comment was made that this would provide good visibility although it is outside of mainstream I-O.  Dr. Banks suggested a broad call for authors and negotiate with HRPS to provide authors with gratis registration to an HRPS conference. She said that is a value of $1,000 to $1,500.  Mr. Nershi mentioned that HRPS has been target audience for LEC so this partnership may be beneficial for both parties.  Dr. Hakel asked what HRPS means by exclusive access.  Dr. Banks said their members can download the paper from a member’s only access webpage.  There was speculation that authors may not be interested in writing the papers without compensation. 

A suggestion was raised about whether the papers can be exclusive for a three to six month timeframe then released to the public.  Dr. Allen asked whether Dr. Banks has reason to believe HRPS would agree to gratis conference registrations.  Do we know if other SIOP members have gone to HRPS?  Could these people serve as an author pool?  President Cortina doesn’t believe an open call would be effective and thinks the requests to be an author would need a personal request.  Dr. Banks thinks that complimentary HRPS conference attendance and a spot on the program would be a driver for possible authors.

Many questions arose including who would be responsible for the quality check of the paper content.   Dr. Hakel mentioned that HRM Impact Award winners might serve as case studies for white paper topics.  By the end of October, there will be seven winners from which to choose a topic.  Dr. Hakel asked Dr. Alonso if he can do a cross check of HRPS members to SIOP members. 

Dr. Allen asked if this proposal would be in competition with the special practice issue of our IOP journal or synergistic.  The consensus was that this would be synergistic and work as a complement. The question was raised if HRPS will allow the white papers to go to open access?  Dr. Banks said no, they like to keep things closed.  Dr. Lowman asked how authors would get feedback from both groups and was told it would be similar to way things work with SHRM.  President Cortina reiterated that this is an audience SIOP would like to work with but the committee needs to further define the process. Dr. Banks recommended that SIOP move forward with this white paper initiative.

ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Banks will see if she can find interest among multiple authors for the white paper initiative.   She will ask HRPS to see what inducements they can offer to the authors. 


Dr. Eric Heggestad gave an overview of the proposal he and Dr. Satoris Culberson developed to create a pathway to full membership for Associate members. An Associate differs from a Member solely based on the educational levels of their degree, he said. This disqualifies Associates from voting on issues related to the Society, holding office, being elected Fellow, and serving as chair of committee. 

Dr. Heggestad would like an addition to Bylaws Article 2 that would give Associates the opportunity to become full Members of the Society.  The proposal has three options for the criteria by which the Associates can apply for Member status.  These recommendations were not developed by survey or consulting experts. They are based on the opinions of Dr. Heggestad and Dr. Culbertson using as rationale the length of time in the field as it equals the educational level of the PhD.   

Dr. Heggestad discussed the breadth of impact such a change could have. At the end of FY2013, there were 3,195 full members and 713 Associates.   If 50% of the Associates met the criteria for Member status, 357 Associates could apply under the changed requirements. SIOP has said that it wants to be inclusive but we exclude people who are doing I-O work, he said.  There may be a perception that SIOP doesn’t value their contributions to the field. 

Data in the proposal regarding retention rates for Masters degreed members were reviewed by Dr. Heggestad. One alarming statistic is the high number of Masters consortium attendees who are no longer members of SIOP.  The current membership criteria keep a large number of talented people from participating in leadership roles within our society, he said.   The floor was opened for board discussion. 

Dr. Scott commented that the proposal was well thought out and that Dr. Heggestad and Dr. Culberson make a good case for changing things.  Another comment was that this would be a positive step in that we add members and remove this barrier that causes concerns from current Associates. 

Dr. Cortina asked if Option 3 (for which one criterion is being a first author or presenter in two of the last five SIOP conferences) is selected does Mr. Trent Burner feel that this is something that he would support. (Mr. Burner is an Associate who was interviewed during the development of the proposal.) Per Dr. Heggestad, Mr. Burner indicated that having the requirement of being on the program would be a big hurdle that can’t be reached by many.  Dr. Hakel said that many PhD candidates can’t pass the two of five years criterion. 

Dr. Lowman asked if any current Associates were surveyed about the options offered.  No, they did ask Dr. Tracy Kantrowitz, Chair of Professional Practice committee, about a survey but they didn’t want to highlight this restriction to the Associates in case some aren’t fully aware of it.   Since Members will have to vote on the issue to change the bylaws, it may be helpful to get some buy-in now.  Dr. Hakel doesn’t recall why we put this restriction in at that time the organization was incorporated.  It may be a carryover from clinical psychologists and how they fit in with MA’s professional practice. Dr. Hakel is open to this change and mentioned that EAWOP issues certificates based on Masters level.   

The group then discussed how to select the proper eligibility requirement option. Someone asked whether this had implications with online Masters programs.  President Cortina mentioned that since the board needs to review the origin of an applicant’s PhD degree they might want to utilize the same language for the Masters degree.   

Mr. Nershi reminded the board that the Associates that meet the criteria to become full Members won’t automatically become Members. Dr. Oswald said he would play devil’s advocate.  Under the umbrella of inclusiveness, he asked, should business degrees be included?  Dr. Kozlowski thinks SIOP should accept MBAs, labor relations, and other degrees as this opens the door to inclusiveness. Dr. Heggestad reminded the board that the membership committee assesses their involvement in I-O field.  President Cortina is convinced that this is the right thing to do but if Option 3  would alienate Associates then he would like Option 2 ( which doesn’t include the conference presentation requirement) or perhaps the board can  create Option 2.5 which states the Associate must be on program but not necessarily as first author. 

Dr. Hakel said that since our rejection rate is high then what about only requiring evidence that they submitted a conference proposal.  Dr. Lundquist asked if LEC involvement could be included.

Dr. Allen thanked Dr. Heggestad for the great job and mentioned that the report is laid out very nicely.  This issue may have implications in terms of conference programming. Will it be necessary to focus more to members at the Associate level?  For example, would we develop conference sessions or other services for Members with a Masters degree?  Dr. Heggestad believes they should be treated as any other full member and they don’t need special consideration.  In fact, it might be harmful to identify them as different. 

Dr. Laura Bryan mentioned that she has been training Masters grads for a long time and many work in legitimate positions and are very tied in to issues with the field.  Dr. Bryan doesn’t favor Option 3 because many Masters I-O professionals are practitioners.  They may have employer privacy constraints that won’t allow them to be part of the program.  Dr. Alonso also doesn’t favor Option 3 as it could be outside of the Associates control as to whether they can participate due to employer budget issues.  Another option that might work would be to make attendance at conference a requirement.  President Cortina isn’t fond of letters of nomination (as an eligibility requirement) because anyone can get a letter, it’s more important that the Associate has SIOP involvement. President Cortina agrees that attendance at LEC or conference is of value. 

Dr. Sinar said that since practitioners have different roles and/or terminology that may make it difficult to prove relevant experience in our field, nomination letters may provide valuable information about meeting requirements. Dr. Heggestad asked  how many years should be required before an Associate could be considered eligible.  Option 2 has five years.  Dr. Kozlowski suggested five years post degree and three years attendance at SIOP events over the five years. The main point of membership should be to network and not something to put on a resume. Dr. Kozlowski further stated that the bylaws shouldn’t hold the details; rather the action should be for the Executive Board to declare the standard in a policy to allow for changing as needed over time. The bylaws should only state that Associates have a pathway to Member status, he said.

ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Heggestad made a motion that the bylaws be changed in a manner consistent with the submitted proposal to provide a pathway to Member status for Associate members with Masters degrees.  The Executive Board will set the policy outside of the bylaws which may include five years of membership, letters of nominations, and a specified number of attendances at SIOP events or meetings.  This was seconded by Dr. Hakel.  Motion passed. 

The first session of the Executive Board meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. CT

The second session of the Executive Board meeting convened at 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 27.


Mr. Nershi gave an overview of the event.  The topic is succession management and will be held at the Loews Chicago O’Hare.  At this time there are 185 registered attendees with the registration pace ahead of prior years.  Mr. Nershi is projecting around 229 attendees.  The room block has been met.   Dr. Elaine Pulakos is serving as the chair and we expect to have a very successful meeting. Dr. Banks gave kudos to Dr. Pulakos and her team. 

The 2015 LEC will be held at the Renaissance Boston Waterfront hotel.  Dr. Pulakos will chair again and the topic may be performance management and behavior change. Dr. Banks is reviewing the topic would like some input from the board.  Dr. Pulakos feels that organizations are moving from traditional reviews and they want to consider doing something with behaviors they want to see.  The research community has been slow to respond.  Mr. Nershi asked if Dr. Banks was going to go through a topic selection committee.  Dr. Banks responded that she will be organizing a selection committee that includes Dr. Poteet, Dr. Tippins, Dr. Erica Desrosiers, Dr. Mark Rose, Dr. Steve Stark, and Mr. Nershi.

Dr. Church thinks that PMP is a hot topic and that many organizations are moving back to other processes. Dr. Banks agrees that some organizations are moving from this process but there is still a need for some traditional process because they need to know how they make merit increases. It’s a good topic but don’t make it all new, it was suggested to have a debate on current versus new.  Dr. Sinar mentioned that during the HRPS discussion there was a suggestion for a possible LEC white paper.  The audience may be distinct from our standard members.  Mr. Nershi mentioned that the meeting dates for 2015 LEC will be October 2-3, which is earlier in the month than typical. In addition, Dr. Sinar will manage a study to benchmark costs of registration.  If we want to host the LEC at a NYC location, the current registration level of $575 won’t support the costs, Mr. Nershi said. Someone asked about West Coast location.  The LEC needs to stay in East and Midwest locations to be convenient for our members, many of whom are concentrated in those areas.  The West Coast locations aren’t convenient travel-wise for a 1 ½ day meeting. Question asked if LEC attendees are surveyed for potential topics. Mr. Nershi said he believes that is the case.

ACTION ITEM:  If the Executive Board has ideas for LEC topics, please send to Dr. Banks, before October 14.    


Dr. Sinar provided an update on the 2015 annual conference, which will be held in Philadelphia. Things look good and the sponsorships are up.  Overall, the general outlook is positive for Philadelphia. 

Dr. Sinar then gave an overview of the proposal for a new event at the conference. The hooding ceremony in Honolulu, which was held to recognize those receiving advanced degrees but unable to attend their university ceremony, was successful and very well organized thanks in part to Mr. Nershi.  This led to the idea of an ongoing event to recognize new graduates and improve retention by emphasizing when and how people can be involved in SIOP.  This event may also help students establish a network with others who are in their same class.   Dr. Kozlowski asked what follow up was intended with event attendees.  How can we be sure that we continue to involve these graduates in SIOP?  Dr. Oswald asked what we should track. Renewal of membership should be tracked and an invitation for them to upgrade to professional Member status should be part of the process.  It was suggested that a personal approach with follow up from the event registration list is the way to go. The group agreed it is a good opportunity to encourage them to transition to our I-O field as full Member.  This end goal should be part of the celebration of graduation event.  

ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Sinar will work with Dr. Kozlowski to make sure the overall approach will satisfy the items in this discussion, including embedding the upgrading of membership.  It was suggested that a commencement address be part of the event as well.

ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Sinar made a motion for the EB to approve funding and execution of graduation events starting with 2015 annual conference with a $3,250 cost.  Dr. Scott seconded.  Motion carried unanimously.


President Cortina wanted to get some feedback from the board on his presidential mission. He explained that the overarching goal is to overhaul the way I-O psychologists do research.  He wants to present how things are currently done with a comparison to best practices in the field.  He believes there is a gap.  Research shows there are clear ways of doing things and a wrong way, he said.  Research methods on testing, degrees of freedom, and meta-analysis have the same result: the approaches we use aren’t best practices.  Of concern is that authors understand how to get through review process.  They understand what works to get the paper through and then they pursue that strategy.  We need to look beyond the topic to see if the paper has merit.  For example, read the front section then compare it to the hypothesis.  Dr. Cortina is concerned with the questions we ask for research. 

A review of old journals shows that through the 1970s, I-O was a problem driven field.   Those in the field dealt with actual problems of organizations.  Now I-O professionals are talking to each other with regard to questions asked.  We choose topics that are flattering to our research models.  Incentives to do research may have a negative effect on the quality of the results.  President Cortina is speaking with others to get consensus that there is a problem and identify what we can do to remedy it.  Dr. Kozlowski asked whether the problem is research being done the wrong way or is it that researchers are focused on the goal of publish or perish.  President Cortina believes that authors will follow review rules set for best practices.  Dr. Kozlowski reiterated that some will skirt rules to get done what they need to do and this would be hard to control.  Dr. Oswald feels that there are two very different sides to the matter; those without values versus those who are well-intentioned but follow what SPSS outlines.  Dr. Robert Vandenberg is going to chair an ad hoc committee that will seek ways to offer guidance on this issue, said President Cortina.  This includes identifying ways to correctly count degrees of freedom.  Other issues include data transparency and replication.

There was then a discussion of ongoing concerns with various aspects of research versus what publishers want to see.  Dr. Bryan mentioned that a committee is revising doctoral guidelines as well so perhaps this is an opportunity to address this within individual programs.   Dr. Scott wanted to know if journal editors need to be brought into the process.  President Cortina mentioned that he has been working with them.  It would be good to educate young researchers with the best way to do their research and support the best way to get things done.  There is a big difference between doctoral and business schools programs. 

Dr. Heggestad thinks a preview process that includes submitting the intro will be a good first step and will help with hypothesis support.  There is a need for a system that consistently replicates findings.  APS is already doing a pre-registration review process.  If 85% get rejected during the process, who would continue to do so much work.   Dr. Church stated that if you want practitioners to participate in the research, this will kill it. A comment was made that I-O looks much better than other fields in terms of research replication.

Dr. Hakel mentioned that during the conversation on HRPS white papers the comment was made that we need to be sure to support what organizations are really doing. What are the real problems that organizations face and what are they willing to talk about? Dr. Whetzel feels that the relationship with HRPS may be a good channel from which to find topics that I-O can work on or address.  President Cortina discovered that in the 1940s, practitioners made up 50% of JAP authors.  One noted difference was that there wasn’t an intro section during that time so it may be time to move pendulum back to middle.

Dr. Church said a direct approach to “here’s the problem” and “here’s what we did” was going to be the foundation of the proposed SIOP practice-oriented journal. Dr. Pulakos has agreed to use this format using the upcoming LEC for content.   Dr. Oswald said there are two approaches to addressing the issue, either from advocacy or working with multiple disciplines.  As an example, he mentioned Dr. Kozlowski’s work with NASA.  In replicated research people are coming up with computer programs to manage data and come up with research support. Maybe Dr. Bryan can bring some codification into the doctoral guidelines.  Another idea was to create a reviewer boot camp as a pre-conference workshop or session at the annual conference in which they can get a certificate.   Reviewers won’t know about some of the concerns if they aren’t instructed as to the right way to look at the papers.   President Cortina is seeking input from the board on how to address this important issue and what specific actions to take. Dr. Whetzel mentioned that there is a lot of push about publication bias.  Dr. Banks said she wonders how President Cortina’s efforts can match up to the needs of practitioners. Practitioners need to use the science and when they look at JAP they don’t see how it relates to them. What is message for how this can meet their needs, she asked?  President Cortina agrees that he should build this into the message. Dr. Oswald feels there is a need to build in things that practitioners can use because they need meaningful metrics. 


Mr. Nershi gave an overview of the current membership application process which states that if an applicant’s degree is not in I-O then additional materials need to be provided for the Membership Committee to review.  At the May 2014 meeting a motion was approved to make this change but it turns out that this is more complicated than we thought.   The intention was to make the membership application process easier for those with degrees such as Organizational Psychology by not requiring additional support material. A concern was raised that by making this change to aid those earning degrees from well-established programs associated with I-O it would have unintended consequences of allowing applicants that truly need vetting to bypass the requirement to submit supplemental materials.

Mr. Nershi has since discovered that the degree type is not a bylaws requirement. It is a committee procedure in the Administrative Manual.  With the potential change to the bylaws requiring prerequisite membership in APA, APS, EAWOP or the Canadian Psychological Association, this may be a good time to review the overall membership applications process. The Membership Committee should be involved in reviewing all aspects of the process.  In addition, we may need to bring the Education & Training Committee into the process. They can weigh in on which degrees and/or programs should not be required to provide supplemental information. Now isn’t the time to make the degree change approved at the May meeting because of the proposed bylaws amendments which will be voted on by Members, Mr. Nershi said.   


Dr. Banks gave an overview of the second phase of the Career Study of People with Advanced Degrees in I-O Psychology. The second phase includes a wider range of practitioners and a more in-depth review of critical experiences.  Included in this is collection of data on work activities of sole practitioners, who have unique needs in developing their practices. This will provide information to fill a gap in findings from the first phase of the study. The study will provide helpful information for SIOP members in planning career development as well as providing undergraduate students with critical career-related information.

Dr. Allen asked who will supervise the graduate students.  Since the first study missed this component, Dr. Allen wanted to make sure that they have guidance.  Per Dr. Banks, a task force will be supervising students and the University of Akron may be the managing partner.  Dr. Lowman asked if there were any budget considerations and was told that this was within the approved budget.  Mrs. Lentz asked if there may be unbudgeted costs associated with conference calls that were outlined in the second bullet from the bottom of page 47.  Dr. Allen pointed out that there is a project incidentals cost line that includes conference calls.

Dr. Kozlowski questioned why we are utilizing a paid conference call provider when some services are available for free.  Mrs. Lentz explained that the Mentoring Group has many international participants and the group did not find Skype effective.  The results have been analyzed for Phase 1 but not compiled into a report.  Dr. Lowman asked for clarification of whether Phase 1 is within this study since it is outlined within the costs on page 48.  Mrs. Lentz said that there are funds within the budget as a carryover from last year to pay for the first part as soon as an invoice is received.

ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Banks moved that board approve Professional Practice proposal to move forward with Career Study of People with Advanced Degrees in I-O Psychology: Phase 2 as outlined in the EB packet.  Dr. Scott seconded.  The motion carried. 


Dr. Lundquist gave an overview of the financial reserves policy which states that when the reserves exceed 80% of one year’s operating budget by more than 10% this situation should be brought to the attention of the board.  The board may consider proposals to use the excess reserves defined in sub-funds for special projects, technology and equipment, and other uses (such as funding to the SIOP Foundation in support of the future of I-O).  Any excess reserves not spent should be allocated equally among the three sub-funds. 

Dr. Lundquist would like to create a process for gathering and reviewing the initiatives. We need to review the proposals at the January meeting.  As an example, Mr. Nershi mentioned one idea from the Administrative Office is the purchase of association management software.  This would allow for the consolidation of our programs into one platform to improve operating efficiency. Dr. Sinar asked what the guidelines are.  What does board want to include or exclude? Dr. Lundquist said that because this new territory for the board it may be overwhelming. She suggested that the board consider this excess for strategic future needs which may include capital type expenditures. Mr. Nershi referenced the four SIOP strategic goals listed on pg. 7 – 10 of the briefing book and suggested that proposals should tie in with a strategic goal. Dr. Lundquist requested that proposals be sent to her by December 1 so she has time to compile a report for the January meeting.   Dr. Hakel pointed out while the reserves statement references dividing excess reserves equally among the three sub-funds the financial principles states the funds can be used and/or between the three categories. Dr. Banks asked if we can talk about whether we can or should allocate all of the funds to be spent.  Dr. Banks is worried about the long-term market corrections to our operating reserves.  Dr. Lundquist concurs that we should look at the full picture and bring it to table in January for further discussion. 

ACTION ITEM:  Send the briefing book supplement to the members who weren’t in Chicago.


Dr. Banks gave an overview of the need to identify SIOP members who have an interest in employee well-being and health. The benefit of a registry is that it would provide support to APA’s COE, the general public, organizations, governments, and others.  This would help improve the visibility of I-O on social issues. Dr. Banks is proposing multiple registries that would be helpful in various areas for communities of interest. Dr. Banks mentioned this to Mr. Nershi who feels that we can use platform of Consultant Locator Service (CLS).  Mr. Nershi said that a member’s my.siop profile is what will be used in search results for CLS.  With some work, the my.siop profile could be adjusted to allow someone to participate in the registry and add relevant information. A search engine interface could be prepared to provide the “front end” of the registry program.

The CLS program is currently being tested by the Electronic Communications and Visibility committees.  This service will be a benefit of membership not a fee-based program.  Dr. Kozlowski asked if this would be a self-identified consultant with work areas. Yes, consultants will “opt in” to the service and identify their areas of consulting work.

Dr. Banks was asked if she envisions a screening process for the registry where people are vetted.  Yes, Dr. Banks would like to see that particular information is collected, including uploading a CV, and providing specific interests and work experience so that outside parties can see if there is a fit with their needs.  Dr. Kozlowski said this relates to how they want to build an advocacy database that is searchable to find out who is seeking grants and funding.  The data has internal and external components. 

Mr. Nershi said we can use drop down menus to provide search results from the database.  Dr. Oswald wondered if there are other subsets of groups with like interests.  Dr. Scott said the UN needs rapid response teams to find those who can provide support for certain initiatives.  Dr. Banks said it is important to find sub-groups of people within SIOP who can be a valuable resource for many initiatives in the works within SIOP. A number of specific questions were asked including whether lists can be provided to outside groups and whether the information can be exported into other files. Mr. Nershi replied that the information would be made available to non-members. Our programmer can develop a wide range of features, but the work takes time and must be fit in with other priorities, he said. 

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Banks would like to see a national registry of employee health and wellbeing I-O consultants that will support internal and external needs.  Dr. Banks will work with Mr. Nershi to develop a formal proposal to be sent out to the board via email or at the January meeting.


Dr. Oswald gave an overview of this event which was held for the first time in Honolulu.  All indications are that is was very successful and helped to improve advocacy for our science by increasing the number of I-O psychologist who may apply for funding.  Survey results were compiled by Dr. Jessica Wildman and Dr. Mark Poteet.  There were two themes of note: the willingness of those in attendance to interact and participate and the short time frame being a hindrance.  The quality and experience of mentors was mentioned by several of the participants.

The ratings were lowest for networking which is probably a function of the short time per topic to interact.  This program could serve as a compliment to the graduation ceremony.  Dr. Kozlowski noted that the international audience comment about needing mentors may speak to our need to keep this in mind for other areas. We are typically North American-based and that may be our specific area of expertise.  Dr. Lori Foster Thompson suggested that we acknowledge this upfront so that international participants understand that our focus is on US initiatives.  Dr. Sinar wondered what the group might want to do differently next year based on survey.  The survey results reflected that the event was well received and useful.  They plan to build on this initiative and move things forward.  Dr. Wildman will bring in a chair-in-training so that knowledge of the event is transferred.  The board expressed support for this initiative.


Dr. Banks gave an overview of the mentoring event for the practitioners.   The evaluation results show that both mentors and protégés were very satisfied and found the topics useful. Time to network was also an issue at this event. Of note, this was the first time students were invited to be part of program due to low response from others in Honolulu.  While some mentors thought it was good to have the student perspective others mentioned that they needed to cover remedial issues and the students participated less in the discussion.  The event should be more inclusive and perhaps if the parties had an opportunity to be in touch with each other ahead of time, that would help.  Dr. Banks is in favor of continuing to support this effort.   Mr. Nershi mentioned that we do have another mentoring program that is more in-depth.  President Cortina affirmed that this is a worthwhile endeavor.


Dr. Oswald explained that this is a large endeavor in which SIOP has invested heavily in terms of money, time, and effort. The partnership with Lewis Burke was designed to enhance our effectiveness and influence across all of our interests and activities. 

Early in September, SIOP advocacy leaders had a meeting in Washington, DC with Lewis-Burke to discuss goals and strategy.  This “alignment team” includes President Cortina, Past President Allen, President-Elect Kozlowski, Research and Science Officer Oswald, Government Relations Advocacy Team (GREAT) Chair Seth Kaplan and Executive Director Nershi. It was a very successful meeting and others who were in attendance concurred.  During the review, the team discussed metrics and future goals. One important conversation centered on developing SIOP’s advocacy infrastructure so that we can properly take advantage of advocacy opportunities.

A representative of Lewis-Burke will attend LEC to get better understanding of SIOP and meet with attendees who might help with advocacy efforts. Lewis-Burke would like to see the team have in-person meetings twice a year. 

Dr. Oswald thinks the discussion of a member-centric database may be a good start to move efforts forward. Lewis-Burke submits monthly activity reports, but we don’t always get the full scope of their activities from this.  Lewis-Burke identified the various agencies that committee team members went to while in DC.  One team went to the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), a nonprofit that is not attached to government.  This was first time we met with an organization that understood what we do and had heard of I-O.  They do training of staffers and that they could use SIOP as a resource for evidence-based content.  President Cortina has followed up with CMF and they are asking the right questions to help with their initiatives.  Dr. Kozlowski said it was good meeting they were able to find places that we intersect. 

A comment was made that we need to develop infrastructure and guidelines for advocacy efforts.   Dr. Oswald thinks there may be a need to develop an overarching plan.  If we develop an expert database that will help select candidates to respond to “emergency” calls for help from policy makers. 

Dr. Kaplan, as chair of GREAT, has a lot on his plate.  Overall, the GREAT Committee is woefully understaffed and needs more resources. Other committees can offer support, like Scientific Affairs. In addition to the database, we need a flexible organizational structure to help find those who can offer support. We are looking at opportunities and strengths to help build the right model that will meet the needs of the goals. 

One challenge is that the network of players is constantly changing, i.e. Congressional staffers change frequently but Lewis-Burke holds expertise in how we should interact and with whom. Dr. Hakel wanted to know if/how Lewis-Burke works with agency staffers? The turnover with these agencies is different than Capitol Hill.  Dr. Allen responded that we are working with agencies and mentioned NSF as an example.  In addition, there is ongoing environmental scanning to find other organizations that we can partner with.  The main goal is to focus on how we make use of it and find the path to push advocacy opportunities with the help of the right parties within SIOP.  How can we help members self-organize into groups/communities to support the interactions within the process?  SIOP Members outside of the Executive Board aren’t as in tune with how to get involved. 

Dr. Allen suggested building advocacy focused pages on web site.  Dr. Foster Thompson is getting ready to transition to full-time position at the White House for the next one to two years.  This has broad range implications for interacting with members of Capitol Hill.  She will be working with the Social and Behavioral Science team that cuts across wide range of agencies. It was suggested that Dr. Foster Thompson work with Dr. Oswald as her main SIOP contact to keep the board informed of issues. Dr. Kozlowski is looking for guidance from Dr. Foster Thompson as to how SIOP can be part of the process and get a better understanding of insider language. Dr. Hakel suggested that we need to make sure that this type of knowledge is disseminated outside of the Research and Science portfolio. Others agreed that building internal communities is still a weakness of SIOP.  Dr. Oswald can try to utilize my.siop to post information about advocacy.  It might help to highlight short-term goals that will build a long-term focus.   In summary, it was an excellent meeting and highlighted the success of the relationship with Lewis-Burke.  Members of the committee were very impressed with their progress. 


President Cortina said this initiative was the result of discussions at the May Executive Board meeting about doing some cleanup of the bylaws and removing the prerequisite organizational requirement for SIOP membership.  In the briefing book, Mr. Nershi provided a markup of the bylaws which shows proposed changes to put forth to the Members for a vote.  Dr. Kozlowski asked why standing committees are listed within the bylaws. Mr. Nershi explained that it’s a typical process and is a way of identifying and differentiating from ad hoc committees. Dr. Kozlowski questioned why we need to take the committee structure to the vote of the membership. (The proposed changes included a revision of the committee list to reflect current committee operations.) Others on the board said we need to consider the ramifications of making such a change. Dr. Heggestad mentioned that someone once asked why SIOP didn’t have a committee which would have focused on a very narrow interest area.  Dr. Heggestad said that he was able to point to the list within bylaws with a response that it’s difficult to change committees. Dr. Heggestad did concede that the Executive Board does effectively establish standing committees outside of the bylaws. Mr. Nershi is concerned that we may muddy the waters of the vote on membership requirements if we include the removal of the standing committees. Dr. Heggestad asked if there is a process for this to be presented to the Members. Would we do the changes together or have separate votes?

Mr. Nershi said that we will certainly have a separate vote for the removal of the prerequisite membership requirement. The timing of the bylaws change votes may be December.  This needs to fit in with the other nomination process and then the APA council rep nominations in January.  Per the bylaws, we must give Members a 30-day comment period.  President Cortina is concerned about combining issues in proposed bylaws amendments because it may become emotionally or psychologically different.  Dr. Kozlowski suggested we have three votes: prerequisite organization removal, associate pathway to Member, and the clean-up of bylaws which should include removing standing committees. Dr. Kozlowski thinks the committee list will also be out of date with the current review process initiated as a result of the SPARC committee recommendations. Mr. Nershi suggested that when we enact the SPARC committee recommendations, then it may be the right time to address the committee listing within the bylaws.

Dr. Hakel favors the change but is concerned that when the minutes are reviewed members will think of this as a power grab.  An example was suggested to illustrate that the process isn’t current followed was the External Relations committee has been ad hoc for seven or eight years.  (Note:  after the meeting, Mrs. Lentz verified that the external relations committee was established at the January 2010 meeting.)  

Referring to Article II Section 1 of the current bylaws, Dr. Lowman asked why we want to specifically say membership in APA is not required but we don’t say that about APS or the others. Why do we need it to be in there all?  Can it be a footnote?  The bylaws should be what they need to do to be a member not what you don’t have to do. Maybe we create language that relates to Division 14 of APA. 

Dr. Lowman provided a number of edits/suggestions to Article II of the bylaws, including:

  • Should Sections 2a and 2b be combined as both should be considered minimum standards?
  • Add the word “also” in Section 2b or remove the minimum from Section 2a.
  • Section 5c is redundant with Article 8 concerning non-payment of dues.
  • For Section 5d, add “consideration” to the section about Fellow status. 

Dr. Bryan wondered why we have the International Affiliates membership category, was it put into place so they didn’t have to join APA, APS, etc.? If we strike this, Dr. Foster Thompson thinks it would be important for SIOP to have a mechanism in place for tracking international members.

Another suggested change concerns Section 7b, which mentions recommending Fellows for the prerequisite organizations.  We currently do not make any recommendations for CPA or EAWOP.  Can we strike these from list? 

Section 9 outlines the process to remove a member for conduct. Dr. Lowman inquired as to whether the language addresses our ethical standards and process correctly. If SIOP becomes a standalone organization then we should address the implications of fully disclosing our process. 

Dr. Lowman noted that there is a place in the bylaws that doesn’t include “email” as an option and it needs to be added to avoid a mailing only requirement. He made a final observation stating that in Article 8 there is duplicate language about non-payment of dues that should be cleaned up. In wrapping up this discussion, President Cortina noted that there are a couple of different issues that needs to be addressed before this can to the Members for a vote.  We need to review the May meeting approval for changing degree titles before further action is taken on that matter.  

ACTION ITEM:  Mr. Nershi will develop the bylaws revision documents which will include the cleanup comments mentioned today, the “pathway” for Associates to become full Members, removal of the prerequisite membership requirement, and standing committees.  Per Dr. Kozlowski, we need to define a standing committee and include it in the bylaws when the committees are stripped out.  Mr. Nershi wants the EAC to carefully review the criteria and bylaws revisions before they go to the membership.

ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Hakel moved that there be 3 separate bylaws change votes presented to the Members, including one sweeper provision as it relates to bylaws only.  This was seconded by Dr. Scott. The motion passed.


Mr. Nershi provided an update on the implementation of the Support, Planning and Research Committee (SPARC) recommendation on SIOP’s business rhythm. This involves establishing a regular review cycle for bylaws, policies, procedures, and position statements.  There are 72 policies and procedures that need to be addressed.  Mr. Nershi has started to input these processes into a software program that places each item into a calendar to identify when the process needs to be reviewed, if there is approval required, etc.  This will be in place within the next month.  Regular review cycles will be established with items to be reviewed for accuracy, currency, and utility.  Mr. Nershi will work with the appropriate committees and officers. 

President Cortina placed the committee in executive session to discuss AO personnel needs. 

Upon return to the regular session, the Executive Board expressed support of the Administrative office moving forward with their personnel proposals.


Dr. Sinar gave an overview of Dr. Julie Olson Buchanan’s site selection report. The committee evaluated cities for the 2020 and 2021 annual conference.  The West Coast is the geographic location for 2020 and the cities considered were Austin, San Francisco, and San Diego.  The committee recommends the J.W. Marriott in Austin as the 2020 conference location. This will be a new city for the conference and the location should be a popular draw. 

The geographic location for 2021 is in the Eastern part of the country.  The cities considered were New York City, New Orleans, and Atlanta.  The committee recommends New Orleans and the Hilton Riverside as the host for 2021. They feel that it is worth going back again because in 2009, when the conference was last held there, the economy was in recession and is most likely why many members didn’t attend.  The Hilton Riverside property is good choice because it can hold all of our sessions and it’s near the river and casino. 

ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Sinar moved that EB approve these 2 locations. The motion was seconded by Dr. Oswald.  Motion carries.


Some of the columnists in TIP have term limits on authors and others have none.   President Cortina would like to get the board’s reaction to establishing a rule that all columns within TIP should have term limits. 

He noted that the committee chairs and the TIP Editor have three-year term limits. Dr. Bryan served as TIP editor and it’s her impression that the editor has sole discretion to change column contributors during their terms. The policy is that columnists serve at discretion of editor.  It was noted that a change to term limits similar to committee members could cause a problem if all columnists were to turn over at the same time. It would be a hardship on the editor. 

Another suggestion was to create clear guidelines which state that a columnist can be removed or renewed at the pleasure of the editor. Another comment against the limit is that the board shouldn’t put restrictions on the editor as they may have a different idea of how they want columns to be reflected.   Dr. Allen likes the idea and thinks it would be good to have more turnover with the columnists to bring new perspectives to TIP.  Dr. Kozlowski also favors the option to add new people, as needed, and take off others. He doesn’t agree with term limits and believes the editor would find it unappealing. 

Another board member requested that the Executive Board consider a proposal submitted to bring back the option to offer print issues of TIP.  Dr. Banks would be in favor of more flexibility for the editor to pick and choose who they want to be column authors.  With digital TIP, the constraints of pages no longer an issue and perhaps there is a need to establish an editorial policy about size of articles. We should use the website as the primary spot for archiving certain topics.  TIP should be fun and not bogged down with research details.  President Cortina will go back to Dr. Morrie Mullins with the board’s reaction to a request for term limits.  If there is a problem with a columnist, the editor should understand that they have the ability to address it. 


The Continuing Education committee has uncovered an issue of SIOP members who don’t utilize SIOP for their CE credits. Dr. Bryan is unsure how to proceed to get a survey organized to determine the extent of this matter. The Institutional Research committee manages surveys that are sent to members and they should coordinate this effort.  Another suggestion offered was that we consider partnering with local I-O groups to offer speakers and thus provide CE opportunities. Dr. Hakel suggested the committee work with Bill Farmer, chair of local I-O groups. 

ACTION ITEM:  Dr. Bryan will send email to Mr. Nershi with the details.

The business of the Society being concluded, the meeting was adjourned. The next Executive Board meeting will be held January 9-10, 2015, at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown.