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 11-12, 2015
Hyatt Rosemont
(File updated February 2016)

Present: Alex Alonso, Cristina Banks, Jose Cortina, Lori Foster, Milt Hakel, Deirdre Knapp, Steve Kozlowski, Rodney Lowman, Fred Oswald, Jim Outtz, Deb Rupp, Evan Sinar, Scott Tannenbaum, Mo Wang, and Deborah Wetzel. Dave Nershi, Linda Lentz, and Nadene Venter were also present. Laura Koppes Bryan joined on speaker. (Laura Koppes Bryan attended the September 11 session via conference call.)


President Kozlowski called the meeting to order at 2:07 pm.


Dr. Tannenbaum introduced the financial report. We are solvent. The numbers in our projections are based on the normal budgeting process. We had a net operating income of $189,000 at the end of last year, which is healthy. Dr. Tannenbaum gave a financial reserve surplus analysis. We are below the threshold this year that necessitates taking action with the surplus funds. There are no real surprises. Next month, our investments will reflect a market decline, but this is nothing to be concerned about nor would it require us to change our investment strategy. President Kozlowski asked if we will have a budget surplus in January. Dr. Tannenbaum said it is so early in the year we cannot really project. Mr. Nershi stated that we do have unspent money from last year’s excess financial reserves. Dr. Hakel made a motion to accept the financial report. Dr. Banks seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the financial report.


Dr. Banks asked when the board would be able to review all of the items in the Business Rhythm Project. Mr. Nershi said an update is provided in the briefing book. They will all be accepted with the consent agenda unless there is an item that the board wishes to discuss in detail. Dr. Banks made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Dr. Alonso seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board passed the consent agenda:

  1. Approval of April Meeting Minutes
  2. Report on Interim Board Action – pg. 30
  3. Business Rhythm Updates and Revisions – pgs. 31-33
  4. Annual 401k Resolution for SIOP Inc. attesting to previous year’s contributions
  5. Portfolio Officer Reports (Written reports requested. Items requiring EB action will be considered under Other Matters.)

1)         Conferences and Programs – Evan Sinar
2)         Publications – Deb Rupp
3)         Communications – Alex Alonso
4)         External Affairs – Milt Hakel
5)         Membership Services – Mo Wang
6)         Professional Practice – Cris Banks
7)         Instruction and Education – Laura Koppes Bryan
8)         Research and Science – Fred Oswald


External Relations

Increased Collaboration with SIOPSA. Dr. Nadene Venter, SIOPSA (Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in South Africa) COO, joined the meeting. After thanking the board for having her, she commented on the existing relationship between the two societies and asked whether there was any way to take it to the next level. She described her background, gave a brief overview of South Africa, and a history of the relationship between SIOP and SIOPSA. She explained that the country has a lot of trouble correcting the issues of apartheid and with human rights. Venter noted that the workplace in South African is very diverse. Group differences and cross-cultural psychology is very important for psychologists there. SIOPSA’s ultimate goal is to aid organizations battling the issues of their economy as well as the diversity of the country. SIOPSA has been in existence for a number of years and is quite well-established. They have formulated a new strategy through 2020. They have branches in South Africa, but no organized branches in the rest of the African continent. They would like a more formal footprint into neighboring countries with affiliate relationships with other countries in Africa. They are exploring their role in emerging markets as well. They have about 2,700 members. There was further discussion of SIOPSA demographics as well as the status of I-O in Africa. Most of their members are from South Africa, but they have quite a few international affiliates.

Dr. Venter explained some of the things she is at the meeting to ask for, though they are only ideas and not a final list. She is looking to SIOP for guidance on building this relationship and goals. Venter explained several “buckets,” which include collaborative and comparative research, a shared platform to discuss best practices, international exposure, faculty and student exchanges, networking value, expanding SIOP’s reach into South Africa and emerging markets, joint projects, an international affiliate agreement where members of each society can become affiliates of the other. Dr. Outtz explained that given the effort SIOPSA has put forth, we should at least give them an indication of our initial thoughts and approve the concept of continuing with the memorandum of understanding. He proposed the board indicate acknowledgement and acceptance of the concept and confirm they are willing to work out the details to bring a proposal back to the board in January. Dr. Hakel asked what he foresees actually voting on in January. Dr. Outtz explained that it would be something tangible from each “bucket.” Dr. Cortina said this is entirely consistent with our current position and discussion regarding expanding our influence and relationships abroad. He is very supportive of every effort like this and hopes SIOP will approve resources for it. There was general support amongst the board that this is a worthwhile project to move forward with.

Dr. Kozlowski asked for clarification of SIOP’s strategy for working with the Alliance for Organizational Psychology versus relationships like this one with SIOPSA. Dr. Hakel gave an overview of what the Alliance has been working on. They are recently incorporated and will actually be reaching out to SIOPSA and other organizations soon regarding membership. He said he thinks it is clear that SIOP does not want to become a global organization itself, so reaching out to the Alliance and SIOPSA, as well as other international groups seems like a good idea for increasing our relationships and influence abroad. President Kozlowski suggested Drs. Outtz and Hakel stay involved in this project and potentially loosely create an ad-hoc group to stay on top of this. Both agreed to remain involved and noted that the International Affairs chair would be interested in this. President Kozlowski explained that some of the ideas would be more about giving support and less about actually facilitating them, such as the faculty and student exchanges, which would have to be approved by the universities. So he thinks SIOPSA should work on hammering out SIOP’s actual role in all of these ideas. Dr. Outtz said he and Dr. Hakel could work with the International Affairs Committee and SIOPSA to bring something more tangible to the board in January. Dr. Cortina also noted that someone from the Membership and Professional Practice committees should be involved.

There was further discussion about the value of the relationship. Dr. Banks asked for further discussion about how SIOP can benefit from having international partners. Perhaps alliances globally will help SIOP to survive into the future and have more impact. Dr. Venter explained that SIOPSA’s strength certainly sits in its diversity, emerging market status, and cross-cultural experience. You won’t find that at any other organization. Dr. Venter asked if it was okay to relay this information from the board back to SIOPSA. President Kozlowski said it is safe to say the board would like to see more tangible proposals that are workable.

APA Representative Report. Dr. Knapp presented to the board a draft of a TIP article on the most recent APA meeting(s). Drs. Knapp and Foster will be continuing on as APA Council representatives. Drs. Whetzel and Lowman will be rotating off. Dr. Knapp explained the history of the PENS (Presidential Task Force On Ethics and National Security) group that was mentioned prominently in the recent Hoffman report by APA. She explained that there was a planned way to release the report internally. It was quickly leaked. The report was damning enough and the headlines in the news went well beyond that. This threw APA into a tizzy. There was much discussion of how they should react to this. We are in a place now where APA wants to know how to move forward in a positive way as an organization. There was discussion of how much this investigation cost. It was more than $5 million. The original estimate was up to $1.5 million. APA couldn’t really cut funding once the investigation was underway because they didn’t want to be seen as trying to hide anything. There is also quite a bit of money involved in a number of staff members leaving.

At the Council meeting, there was a motion related to the presence of psychologists in interrogations. Dr. Knapp said the APA board seemed to be trying to dictate where psychologists can work as opposed to their actions, which was quite concerning for SIOP’s representatives. There were quite a few proposed changes. This was a very difficult situation with a lot of press in the room and people with strong feelings. There was no room at all to say anything in any way that could be construed as supporting torture. It is governed by open meetings laws, so anyone can go, but there are usually not any members of the press present. Prior to the PENS report, there were a number of resolutions that were very strongly against torture, but they stopped short of a moratorium on psychologists being present at Guantanamo Bay and similar settings. There was also a motion to establish a blue ribbon panel in terms of ethics and the APA ethics code enforcement. She said all of our representative agree that it is going to be very important for SIOP to pay attention and be involved in these reviews. We are not healthcare providers, so we do not want our hands to be tied in a way that might not be intended but could make our work difficult. Notably, the fact that many of us are not licensed.

Dr. Lowman gave an overview of the history of this situation. He said it is worth reading the 55-page summary of the Hoffman report. On the surface, if you just read the PENS report, it seems to make sense and be a good idea. But the Hoffman report makes clear that what you see in the PENS report is not what you get. Military, CIA, psychologists, etc. were working to align APA’s ethics with what they wanted to do. It was quite a shock to everyone.

Dr. Knapp explained she is troubled that individuals maligned in the report may have no real venue to defend themselves. President Kozlowski said it is not SIOP’s business to debate the report. His view is that we need to be able to monitor the fallout and other policy statements and how they may affect SIOP. Dr. Lowman said a blue ribbon panel is being established and SIOP being involved was already mentioned. Dr. Tannenbaum asked for clarification of what the Blue Ribbon panel would do. Dr. Lowman said they would look at best practice for ethics and make recommendations. Dr. Tannenbaum asked if there may be unintended consequences for SIOP from that panel. He would like to know when the reps come back whether or not there is anything that could affect SIOP and its members. Dr. Lowman said he thinks the view is that these things get closely vetted, so others will have input. Dr. Wetzel explained that the goal is to focus on the behavior and not the setting because a lot of these practices can take place outside a military setting, such as in police and the criminal justice field.

Dr. Outtz noted that to reiterate, we really do not have a dog in this fight. This is APA’s fight, but we have an interest in how it may affect us. Dr. Knapp thinks SIOP should be attuned to the unintended consequences to us. Dr. Hakel explained that SIOP has never had a formal ethics committee and has always piggy backed off of APA’s standards due to the cost and time commitment of such an initiative. Dr. Rupp asked if it would be worth it for SIOP to have an ethics committee or its own code. Dr. Banks asked if there are any settings or instances that SIOP would like to take a look at that could involve ethics, such as suicides in the workplace. Dr. Cortina stated that this is not our screw up, we don’t want to start changing anything that would imply we were involved when we weren’t. He said he likes the suggestion to develop our own ethics report.

President Kozlowski noted that APA has a well-developed ethical code/standards and a committee and process to deal with ethical violations. He is not opposed to a separate SIOP ethics code, but we could just append APA’s. Dr. Tannenbaum explained that as APA comes up with ethics guidelines that do not apply or become a problem for our organization or profession, then I think we should take action and potentially write our own guidelines or amend theirs. President Kozlowski said the focus now should be on monitoring the situation and waiting to see. Dr. Knapp asked the board to read the draft and send them any questions or comments. President Kozlowski thanked the AO for their work on going through the report and responding promptly. Dr. Knapp explained that she was listed in the report and was interviewed, but President Kozlowski explained that her involvement was benign. Dr. Foster stated that in particular students would like to know what SIOP’s response is. Mr. Nershi explained that he thinks one point is that this is not an indictment of APA necessarily but of certain people within APA. There was discussion that the APA ethics code itself was not really tainted and that this can be used as a learning experience.


Change of LGBT Committee from Ad Hoc to Standing Status. Dr. Wang explained that this has actually already been approved by the EB in principle, but there was never an official vote. Now that the bylaws have been changed to allow the status of committees to be a policy matter, the board can vote to make the change. Dr. Hakel moved to change the LGBT committee from ad hoc to a standing committee. Dr. Alonso seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board changed the SIOP LGBT Committee from an ad hoc to a standing committee.

SIOP Foundation Report. Dr. Hakel noted that they will be meeting tomorrow afternoon. They will be discussing adding a new trustee. Lyman Porter passed away in July. He had been one of the founding members and had been with the Foundation for 19 years. The Foundation, too, took a hit on investments. The Foundation has about $3.5 million in investments. We have no worries there. This year the Foundation began the Outtz fund for student research on diversity. Dr. Outtz was recognized for his generous contribution to establish this new fund.


Request to Increase Funding to Alliance for Organizational Psychology. The Alliance is now officially incorporated. They have a budget request. This is a one-time request from the delegates. There may be another request. The request is for an allotment of $16,000, $2 per member of SIOP, to go to the Alliance. The funding would be used for two internationally focused small group meetings as well as graphics and website work. Some discussion was held on the merits of tying the funding to the SIOP membership number and what that number should be. President Kozlowski explained that he is supportive of the Alliance and their goals. In discussion about this with others, the reason this request is coming to SIOP is because EAWOP as an organization do not have a funding mechanism. The concern he has about this is that he is not sure that we get a lot out of holding these workshops. Dr. Outtz said he is supportive, but why does SIOP have to give the lion’s share of funding every year? President Kozlowski said he would like the funding to be more clearly aligned with what SIOP would like and what advances our objectives to try to get I-O more visibility and collaboration. If we are going to go with a workshop, he would like to know what the workshops will be about. Dr. Hakel explained that this is not a formal proposal but rather to give an indication of what that proposal for use of the funding might be. He thinks they would definitely be open to suggestions around the focus.

President Kozlowski said that he knows he started this discussion with looking into how this will benefit SIOP, but sometimes you also just take a risk and let smart people take the lead on a project and do it, and then see afterward what the benefit it. But we also need to be able to talk to the membership about the value that they are getting for this. Dr. Wang compared this to an EAWOP small group meeting. The first was started with seed money and then subsequently were funded with people paying to attend every few years. Dr. Tannenbaum explained that we need to know three things: how does this bring value to SIOP, how do we fund it now, and how do we sustain this as a self-sustaining model. There was discussion that only paying for one year put the fire under the Alliance to wow us after this takes place. President Kozlowski said this is a two-year commitment, with the first year being planning and the second being putting it on. There was discussion that in order to get value for this investment, we need to be specific about what would be considered a good value.

Dr. Cortina said EAWOP is already prepared to fund their share of the meeting. SIOPSA is not part of this Alliance yet. Dr. Wang explained that the aging event only cost EAWOP $1,500, so it was not a huge investment and it was a good topic that had a need. Dr. Cortina said he thinks there is a lot of energy around this topic of how to foster relevant and rigorous research. He thinks it could have a lot of impact. EAWOP hopes that this will happen before next summer because there does appear to be a lot of energy around this issue right now. Dr. Oswald noted the takeaways in the report, to get endorsements form journals, etc. Dr. Rupp said she thinks there could be more of a global outreach built into this.

Dr. Hakel moved that SIOP allocate $16,000 to the Alliance for pursuing the ideas within the report. He will also provide a lot of the feedback to the Alliance officers for moving forward with the project. Dr. Tannenbaum suggested a friendly amendment that this money be taken out of the excess reserve funds. Dr. Hakel accepted the friendly amendment. Dr. Rupp also made a friendly amendment that we are not necessarily holding them to the exact goals contained within the report and that we allow them some autonomy in. Dr. Hakel accepted. The motion states that SIOP will allocate $16,000 out of its excess reserve funds for activities generally articulated within the report but ultimately to be determined by the Alliance. Dr. Alonso seconded. Dr. Tannenbaum asked that they come back to the board with results so they can better articulate the value proposition. Dr. Lowman asked if there are other projects currently on the table to be considered for use of the excess funds. There is $253,000 in the excess funds and about $150,000 is already spoken for, so we have a great deal of money left. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board agreed to allocate $16,000 out of SIOP’s excess reserve funds for activities generally articulated within the report but ultimately to be determined by the Alliance.

Membership (cont.)

Recommendations for Expanding the Communications Portfolio. Dr. Alonso explained that there is no request for funding here. This stems from our past board meeting where we discussed who is responsible for various communications outlets (my.SIOP, website, TIP, etc.) in charge of SIOP communications. Dr. Rupp and I came up with a plan to create an integrated communications strategy. We would like to define who the consumers of all of our communications are, what are the platforms we would like to use to communicate, what would we like to communicate, and the full range of what we want to communicate. With Mr. Nershi’s support, we will create an integrated calendar. We propose building an ad hoc committee for marketing communications and allow the ECC to focus on every platform that we want to communicate on. Let the ECC focus on different types of communications venues and events. There was discussion of the types of events and things that could happen over social media. The second half of the proposal focuses on TIP, making it more of a website where pieces come out at different times. Dr. Rupp said TIP’s current format is based on the idea of it being a printed TIP. There was discussion that we would like to improve readership of TIP. A lot of people cannot get flipbook to work.

Dr. Alonso thinks this speaks to the future of our membership, who are not necessarily interested in print. The last piece of this proposal is in response to the different white papers we have going on. We would like a quarterly cross-committee call for committee to share their work and what they are proposing at the time. Dr. Sinar would also like to find ways to increase the use of our conference content. There was discussion about how some of our content can be put behind a paywall to be member-only. There was general consensus that members do not like the Flipbook format and that TIP does not appear to be serving the purpose it once served. Dr. Rupp stated that they are hoping to get support soon so that they can align it with the search for the new TIP editor. Dr. Alonso said we simply want to know that the board approves of what we are doing. There was agreement that they do. There was discussion of what Dr. Alonso is looking for in terms of TIP editor qualifications. There was agreement that current TIP Editor Morrie Mullins has done a tremendous job with the TIP transition from print. His service has been very much appreciated and he has been a pleasure to work with.


Science and Practice

Professional Practice Book Publisher Update. Dr. Rupp explained that we have severed ties with Wiley on a good note. We looked at several other publishers. We received three bids: Oxford, Rutledge, and Springer. President Kozlowski said the proposals look good. They just came in yesterday, but Dr. Rupp had meetings with all three at the AOM meeting. They will fight over us, so it is a good place to be. We have also done some foreshadowing that the publications portfolio will be changing. They are all seeing our vision.


Update on new AMS Software Project. Mrs. Lentz gave an update on the project. We have given NOAH all of our data and they have been putting together the pages. We just saw this past week what the AMS will look like behind the scenes and what the administrative layout will look like. Dr. Sinar asked for a quick recap. This will involve the member database, conference submissions and reviews, followed by all of the rest of SIOP’s programs and other assets. We’re still at the first stage of the data conversion, so no other SIOP committee members have really had a chance to look at anything. Mr. Nershi explained that all of the conference submissions have been recorded in our current Program Builder and will be placed into NOAH for reviewing. Dr. Sinar explained that we want to carry over the strengths of Program Builder, but we want to be open to other options as well.

Meeting adjourned at 5:10.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

President Kozlowski called the meeting to order at 8:03 am.


Science and Practice (cont.)

Update on Master’s and PhD Guidelines Revisions. Stephanie Payne and Whitney Botsford Morgan joined via phone and gave an overview of the project to update the guidelines. They surveyed I-O program directors on the various competencies within the guidelines. They presented the survey results. All of the competencies except for “consumer behavior” were seen as important for both Master’s and PhD guidelines. People tend to say there should be two separate guidelines, but they are rarely able to articulate what content should be different. It usually relates to depth. tThey propose one set of guidelines that still acknowledges that the training between the two degrees will look different, but overall there will be one document that summarizes the guidelines. They asked the board for feedback and recommendations.

President Kozlowski said he thinks the report makes a good case for one set of guidelines. Were there any differences across the two programs. he enquired? They will go back and look at that data. Dr. Banks asked how this links with the Professional Practice licensing competency project. That group also surveyed both programs and did a contrast with the competencies. They have been in contact with that committee and they are aware of what each other are doing. Dr. Banks explained that the Professional Practice Committee survey is important in regard to licensure for I-O psychologists. We are hoping they will come out with mutually supportive results and can be used collaboratively. Dr. Oswald explained that schools will most likely look to these competencies to create curricula.

Dr. Banks wondered if we are missing a chance to look to the future of the profession and decide what competencies s will be necessary. Dr. Knapp said she thinks these competencies should also be derived from what they are doing in practice, what organizations are looking for. President Kozlowski explained that there will always be business acumen competencies that are not a part of a psychology curriculum. The competencies should focus on the content and be independent of the work setting. Dr. Lowman asked how they would deal with the issue of depth and breadth of the programs if there is only one document. They may try to derive proficiency levels relevant to each degree, though it will probably take a lot more data to reach a consensus. Dr. Tannenbaum asked whether these guidelines are prescriptive. Will they be saying that if a program does not include the competencies then it is not a good program? The intent is not to prescribe these competencies as necessary for licensure. President Kozlowski explained that there are programs that would like a list they can look to in order to develop their programs. Others generally want the guidance but will do their own thing.

Dr. Outtz asked if diversity played into this. Dr. Botsford Morgan explained that there are some interpersonal skills listed. There is room to acknowledge that people are working in more global workforces. Dr. Outtz suggested adding diversity as it affects the performance of an organization to the list of competencies. There was consensus that the single list will be useful. Dr. Sinar explained that we may need to distinguish the competencies of a terminal Master’s degree or a Master’s degree on the way to a PhD. If there is a distinction, then we should acknowledge that, but if there is no distinction then a single list makes sense. Dr. Tannenbaum said he thinks there also should be description that explains that some competencies may be more important in certain work settings. Dr. Hakel asked if there is any issue involving the Master’s degree being the entry level for I-O in Europe versus the PhD being the entry level in the United States. Dr. Hakel said he thinks it would be a useful footnote in the final report.

Dr. Rupp asked if we should be including anything regarding humanitarian and pro-social psychology in the guidelines since SIOP has been pushing in this area. This is something that could be its own content area. Dr. Sinar noted that we have already added this to the conference program areas. They would like to present a document with tracked changes to the board in the next month. It will be one set of guidelines pending inclusion of the feedback from the board.

President Kozlowski said he thinks it is important to describe what differentiates the Master’s from the PhD. There are important differences between terminal Master’s programs and Master’s degrees gained on the way to a PhD. There was discussion of what these guidelines should be called. The term “guidelines” may be problematic because there are specific rules within APA for guidelines. We may have to submit it to APA if they are guidelines so APA can use them as official I-O guidelines. Dr. Banks asked if these guidelines will be directive to I-O programs. President Kozlowski said it depends on how we word it, but they have never been very prescriptive. They are just desirable targets we feel programs should cover. They plan to present the revised guidelines in January. They will present what they have during their conference session and then the board will vote on it at the spring EB meeting.

Governance (cont.)

Membership Impact of Recent Bylaws Changes. Mr. Nershi explained that we changed the bylaws to include the path to membership for Associates as well as get rid of the APA/APS/CPA/EAWOP organizational membership requirement. Professional membership applications are up 52%. Student applications are up 31%. We have had 6 upgrades from Associate to Member. President Kozlowski explained that a lot of the growth in the field seems to be at the Master’s level. Dr. Tannenbaum said he would love to see student to professional member upgrades increase. We probably lose a lot of people in that transition, but with the bylaws changes, the effective amount of extra money they have to pay is pretty trivial. They don’t have to worry about paying for professional membership in another organization. There was discussion of Fellowship. Mrs. Lentz explained that the Fellows criteria say they need to be a member for two years, but it also says you need a PhD. Ron Landis will be looking at this requirement. Dr. Sinar said he would like to know how many people are now discontinuing APA membership. Obviously, this dropped the requirement for first-time members, but it also brought a lot of attention to the fact that they didn’t need it anyway. Mr. Nershi explained that because we didn’t want to do anything that would negatively impact APA. President Kozlowski and Dr. Knapp said we will probably lose some council representation, but we already have more than most divisions (4) who generally have (1). Dr. Knapp explained that membership in other divisions requires maintaining APA membership.

Awards Committee Recommendations. Board went into executive session at 8:58 am to discuss Awards Committee recommendations. Board returned from executive session at10:15. Dr. Cortina motioned to approve the recommendations of the SIOP Awards Committee, except the Early Career Science Award recommendation, pending more input from the committee. Dr. Wetzel seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the recommendations of the SIOP Awards Committee, except the Early Career Science Award recommendation, pending more input from the committee.


Science and Practice (cont.)

National Registry of Employee Health and Wellbeing I-O Consultants. Dr. Banks gave background on this initiative. The EB has already approved the formation of a national registry for various topics. The initial idea started around health and wellbeing. President Kozlowski added that he supported creating an infrastructure that will enable people to self-form interest groups that can then be brought to the EB to take action. Mr. Nershi explained that we already have this functionality in the form of Consultant Locator. We have repurposed that. It is ready to go. We want to be able to identify people who have an interest in a particular area for advocacy or other related work. We want people to be able to load their resume, not just list their interest. The registry will allow them to do this. Then we may also be able to gather people together for mini conferences, etc. (http:www.siop.org/nationalregistry/search). The GREAT Committee is also interested in using this. Dr. Sinar asked if we will be reaching out to individuals that we may be able to pre-identify for these registries. Dr. Banks would like a part of the SIOP website for people to go and discuss and gather others. President Kozlowski said we have established two tiers of members self-organizing. Right now we have the idea that members can come to the EB and ask for this registry to be created. One of the things I would hope is that we are able to allow people to collaborate and interact to track how many people we have in a particular group. Our advocacy efforts right now are top-down driven. People know things at the grass-roots level that we do not necessarily know.

Dr. Sinar said some of this should be coming through my.SIOP. How do we provide mechanisms for our members to communicate? We need to find what they will want to use. Dr. Banks noted that we also should be leveraging Lewis-Burke through this mechanism. President Kozlowski said we need to communicate to people that if they want the leadership to focus on specific issues or areas, they need to go through these specific avenues. There needs to be something that we as a leadership say “this is what we are going to track.” Dr. Banks said there will be a time at the conference for national registry members to meet as a group. Maybe we could have a more coordinated discussion with committees to discuss how we might talk about using the registry for these efforts? We need to communicate the registries, what they are, what their purpose is, etc. We need to take a look at what options we have available to us. Dr. Rupp asked if the word “national” would disenfranchise international members. There was a discussion of the “national.” We can change it. We are creating a pool of experts that can be utilized for multiple purposes. We should be thinking about how to leverage this. President Kozlowski said we need some plan for methods of communication and collaboration that complements the registry. We will know more about this from NOAH within the next few weeks. Mrs. Lentz, Mrs. Stephany Below, and Mr. Nershi will get more information and report back to President Kozlowski.

Conferences and Programs. 2015 Leading Edge Consortium Update. Mr. Nershi is now projecting 185 LEC attendees. He gave an overview of the event, committee, speakers, etc. He encouraged the EB to attend. President Kozlowski asked if we know why the attendance is down this year. Mr. Nershi said he thinks this is a narrower topic than in previous years. Dr. Knapp asked what the extra money from reserves has been used for. Most was used for the keynote speakers. We have done a little more marketing. Dr. Rupp said this topic may also be too successful, in that people have a lot of other outlets for gaining this type of information. Dr. Outtz said that most topics are interrelated with other topics. Most of the topics related to performance management are not covered in this LEC, so maybe tying those in would offer people more bang for their buck. Mr. Nershi said we do not have to be married to this idea of one deep-dive topic. Each year we are starting from scratch to find the audience, marketing, etc.

2016 Leading Edge Consortium Topic and Chair. Dr. Banks explained that she and her group have been charged with selecting a topic and a chair. It’s a struggle to find the right topic that is popular enough and cutting edge but not too overexposed. We want this to be a practitioner conference, so we know this can’t be too academic. We do not know that we will be able to narrow down the topic and get approval by the LEC. Mr. Nershi said the 2016 event will be in Atlanta. We tried to get it into New York and it just wasn’t practical. That is one reason we are increasing the registration fee, so that we can afford a location like New York. Dr. Banks said that after we find the topic area, we will look into who will be chair. Dr. Banks asked the board for their input on topic ideas that would be attractive. Dr. Wang brought up the idea of diversity. Dr. Sinar said it is a broad thematic topic that can cover a lot of different areas. Dr. Tannenbaum said he was thinking of something in the learning space. A lot of other groups do this already (such as ATD), but there are a lot of job titles that have learning in them, so it might cover a lot of people. Dr. Sinar said SIOP also offers a unique perspective. There is a struggle between employees and employers who may want different things out of learning platforms. Mrs. Lentz asked if they will look at the most popular workshop topics.

Dr. Rupp suggested Big Data. Dr. Sinar said that this topic has been the most popular buzzword at the conference in recent years. There was discussion of the Big Data theme. Dr. Oswald suggested the idea of technology. You can think of technology as cross-cutting across our practice. Dr. Outtz brought up the idea that gaming and mobile assessments are big now. Companies want to do mobile assessment. Dr. Tannenbaum explained that the topic of teams was difficult because everyone is interested in it, but no one is invested in it as their job enough to attend the event. The same issue may arise around technology. Whose job is it to actually go to their boss and say they need to attend this? There was discussion that ethical and legal questions around these areas also offer good topics. A lot of practitioners would be concerned about this. President Kozlowski brought up the idea of technology, privacy, and ethics. Mr. Nershi noted that this also plays into practitioner needs for ethics CE credit. Dr. Tannenbaum asked if there is any way to gauge the marketplace for ideas like this for non-members. SHRM’s HR Tech conference is later in October. Mr. Nershi said it is not just that we want leading edge topics. We want to have leading edge topics within the core I-O practices. Dr. Cortina said he thinks it is important to be able to announce the 2016 topic at the LEC.

Anaheim Conference Update. Dr. Sinar gave an overview of the conference preparations. The submission deadline just closed. He passed out several charts related to the submissions content and submitter demographics for the 2016 conference. We don’t want to over-promote the Disney aspect of the location. We will be at Disney World in 2017 as well, so you may see less of that in the marketing this year. President Kozlowski noted that Zack Horn is doing a lot of work with his committee around the theme track. Submissions overall were up from last year. The most submissions we will probably ever have was Hawaii since people had to submit in order to attend. But we are up from Philadelphia. We will probably have around 900 in terms of actual accepted sessions. Posters are the lowest they have ever been this year, though they continue to dominate the submissions. It’s about 65% this year, down from a few-year average of about 72%. This is the first year where panel sessions actually overtook symposia. The other sessions are significantly less represented. We shouldn’t have any issues with room sizes this year. Dr. Sinar gave an overview of how specific topic areas performed in submissions this year. There was further discussion of topic trends. The then examined the global submission trends.

Agreement for CE Cooperation with Local I-O Groups. Mr. Nershi explained that we had a request from a local I-O group to partner with them on an event that will provide CE credit. We have no financial or other obligation. We will not be culpable for the event in any way according to the agreement. We will also not be responsible for registration. We are basically here to be a conduit to provide CE credit through our relationship with APA. They will pay a nominal $200 fee. Dr. Tannenbaum requested that the attorney take a look and ad that they indemnify SIOP. Friendly amendment accepted. We just need EB approval. Dr. Hakel moved to approve the agreement for CE Cooperation with Local I-O groups. Dr. Alonso seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved the agreement for CE Cooperation with Local I-O groups.


Advocacy Update. Dr. Oswald gave an overview of our advocacy activities. Dr. Wang gave an overview of the recent “challenges of workplace aging” briefing on Capitol Hill. The audience included members from the White House Special Committee on Aging. Dr. Cortina said one of the things he is trying to figure out is what the expectations should be for those types of events. When you have 6-8 low-level staffers in the audience, it is difficult to know if it is a success. He has no benchmark, so it is unclear if this is all one can expect. Dr. Outtz said these young staffers are important people since it is difficult to talk to higher-level staffers. Dr. Wang said one thing that is missing is that we cannot clearly identify to Lewis-Burke what we want, materially. Dr. Outtz explained that we have a task force that is looking at where we are on core issues. Dr. Oswald said Lewis-Burke is working with this group to develop advocacy materials. Dr. Oswald explained that another event to discuss is the Coalition for National Science Funding event.

President Kozlowski explained that what is important is that SIOP/I-O be associated with science in the minds of these government officials and stakeholders, because we are not now. Dr. Oswald encouraged the board to read the full descriptions in the briefing book. Dr. Foster said it is important, from her perspective, to develop the topics they want to push as well as a fellowship of some sort to strategically place a SIOP member in a position in government. It raises awareness and opportunities for networking. There was discussion of how SIOP members can strategically maintain positions on Capitol Hill and not hand them over to people from other disciplines. Dr. Wang explained that a lot of this starts with the organization providing funding to place a person there to help with an initiative. The officials have ideas, but they don’t have the funding necessarily. So that is one way to gain influence.

Dr. Oswald said we also need to plan on Seth Kaplan’s successor on the GREAT Committee. President Kozlowski also noted that Lewis-Burke knows more about us now, and is continuing to learn more about us, so they are beginning to bring things to our attention. The challenge is also to maintain the knowledge that we gain. Dr. Oswald asked Dr. Rupp to discuss her recent speaking engagement on Capitol Hill. Lewis-Burke was very helpful in helping her promote I-O and what we are currently working on. They sent fliers for other SIOP Capitol Hill events  as well. Dr. Outtz noted that things will probably pick up as the election season nears. President Kozlowski explained that these events and the other projects such as the registry are important to identify people who are experts in topic areas so we can act quickly when issues arise.


Advocacy Review Committee Report

President Kozlowski explained that we would like an independent group to review our work with Lewis-Burke independent of our relationship with them, but he also wanted them to know the subject matter. He recruited Past President Tammy Allen as well as presidents leading up to Allen, such as Doug Reynolds, Adrienne Colella, and Eduardo Salas. They will develop a process for evaluating the work with Lewis-Burke. They will propose the process and send it to him. We will use the results of that evaluation when writing contracts between SIOP and Lewis-Burke. They will review the outcomes of that process going forward as well. Dr. Knapp noted that the original mission of the External Relations Committee doesn’t appear to work in relation to the work of Lewis-Burke and the GREAT Committee. Can we rekindle that discussion so they know what their activities should be? President Kozlowski said he has been in contact with others to do so.

Proposed Science, Translation, & Application Series

Dr. Rupp and President Kozlowski gave background on the idea. It would be a new SIOP publication that would showcase different sorts of work that would not necessarily fall within our academic or practice-focused outlets. For example, it could mean applying research from other basic types of science (biology, technology, etc.), or it could mean applying our science to practice, creating new types of work that provide very clear and actionable, public focused pieces. It could provide a platform for policy statements and could also provide more focus on our work in international development efforts. It is not translating I-O, per se, but it would be science, and it would be both internal and external. It is science and practice, and could potentially impact outsiders. Such a publication currently does not exist.  There is a lot of interest in getting this other way of thinking about I-O out there and making it broader. Dr. Rupp explained that every piece will include a marketing communications plan, and so it will be much more sophisticated in terms of how it is disseminated. It’s not science and it’s not practice. It is looking more externally. This could be a feeder for other groups to have content to promote.

Dr. Cortina asked what success for this looks like. Dr. Oswald noted a journal produced by FABBS that courted different disciplines for every issue. Dr. Wang suggested looking at the new journal Behavioral Science and Policy. It could be that some of the white paper efforts could find this to be a home so that they will be officially indexed. President Kozlowski said the next big piece is who you pick as editor and what you decide as you first few issues. There was general agreement that Dr. Rupp should go forward with an RFP. This would not cost SIOP much since the publisher takes the risk. Dr. Rupp will get it fleshed out a little more and get feedback. We would like to be able to announce it in April. Dr. Hakel made a motion to proceed with fleshing out the project and obtaining RFPs from publishers. Dr. Alonso seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the Science, Translation, & Application Series proposal, with the expectation that the proposal will be further developed and that SIOP will seek RFPs from publishers.


Governance Reminder: Sunset Reports Due In January (Leading Edge Consortium)
Dr. Sinar will complete his LEC sunset report. That will come to the board in January.


SIOP Humanitarian Award

Mr. Nershi explained that this was submitted by John Scott, and it came from the UN Team. Dr. Foster explained that this came out of a session at SIOP last year. One of the participants in an interactive session asked why we don’t do something like this. This is targeted internally. It is a SIOP member award. President Kozlowski explained that we have had discussions with Lewis-Burke about giving an award at the SIOP conference to a non-member. He does not think this is germane to this particular award, but it is something to think about. Dr. Foster explained that this award is external in the extent that it encourages I-O psychologists to expand their work and the setting in which they work to benefit society.

There was discussion of whether SIOP could get enough nominations for this award since we have trouble finding people for awards. Dr. Rupp said she doesn’t think that will be an issue. There was agreement that the criteria should specify whether or not a winner has to be a SIOP member. It should, but it needs to be written down. Dr. Banks asked to add a friendly amendment to say this award does not have to be annually but is just an award given when warranted. President Kozlowski explained that it would be difficult to advertise an award that is given sporadically. Who would fund this? SIOP. That is why we have a request today. There was discussion of potential winners, of which there were many. Dr. Hakel moved to approve the award as is with the intention that it will be fine-tuned. Dr. Wetzel seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: Board approved SIOP Humanitarian Award proposal with the expectation that award criteria will be fine-tuned at a later date.

President Kozlowski recognized Drs. Lowman and Wetzel for their work in serving as APA reps. They will be replaced by new reps in January.

President Kozlowski adjourned the meeting at 1:34 pm.