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 9-10, 2016
Hyatt Rosemont, Chicago

Present: Alex Alonso, Janet Barnes-Farrell, Georgia Chao, Lori Foster, Milt Hakel, Mikki Hebl, Deirdre Knapp, Steve Kozlowski, Gary Latham, Mort McPhail, Fred Oswald, Deb Rupp, Rob Silzer, Evan Sinar, Scott Tannenbaum, Mo Wang. Staff members present were Dave Nershi, Linda Lentz, and Tracy Vanneman


President S. Morton McPhail called the meeting to order at 2:00pm.


Dr. Tannenbaum confirmed that SIOP is solvent and financially strong. He highlighted data from the end of the most recent fiscal year, which concluded with an operating surplus of $179,658. Last year’s revenues for membership dues, conference registration, and JobNet subscriptions were all very strong.

Dr. Tannenbaum reminded the Executive Board of their phone conference in August to approve the FY 16-17 budget. He mentioned that the budget implications for half day workshops for the 2017 conference have been worked out. He also indicated that there are funds in the SIOP excess reserve account from previous surpluses and supports the use of these funds as requested for the new servers for the Administrative Office.

Dr. Tannenbaum reported that the overall income YTD is acceptable and YTD expenses are up slightly. The higher expenses are related to the timing of payments and therefore do not require additional attention. SIOP is within the bounds of our investment portfolio policy and so no additional shifts are required. He confirmed that the recent audit was completely clean with no material issues, which he indicated is a positive reflection of Administrative Office efforts. He also confirmed that the additional contribution to the SIOP staff 401K plans that is commonly given this time of the year is ready to go.

Mr. Nershi introduced the proposal to purchase a new server for the Administrative Office. He indicated that the office maintains an upgrade schedule for hardware, and at this time, the web and network servers are in need of replacement. There is money available in the excess reserve fund and so $18,230 has been requested for this technology upgrade. President McPhail pointed out that one of the specific uses of excess funds in the board’s Financial Reserves Statement is for technology improvements and equipment. Mr. Nershi confirmed that there will be little to no additional funding needed for installation and setup of the new server. The current request includes outside support in addition to our in-house IT staff for this project.

ACTION: Dr. Hakel moved to accept the proposal to use excess funds for the purchase of a new server. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.

ACTION: Dr. Alonso moved to accept the Financial Report. Dr. Chao seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


President McPhail announced the consent agenda and reminded the board that this would be voted on as one item unless any board member wished to pull an item for separate consideration.

Dr. Knapp, in reading the item concerning the Business Rhythm updates, inquired about how standing and ad-hoc committees are established and monitored. Mr. Nershi indicated that during a bylaws vote in spring 2015 the membership elected to remove the list and details of committees from the bylaws and move that into policy. By vote of the Executive Board now the Society can establish and eliminate committees. Dr. Kozlowski confirmed that this action made SIOP more flexible and responsive rather than requiring a bylaws vote to decide on committee matters.

President McPhail viewed the list of ad-hoc committees and indicated that they generally would all be considered necessary and could become standing committees. Dr. Hakel suggested removing the standing versus ad-hoc distinction. President McPhail indicated that initiatives may need a group of people to work on identifying committees that need not become standing committees could be termed task forces. Mr. Nershi recommended approval of consent agenda and requested that if there is a desire to adjust committee distinctions that this be brought as a new proposal to the January 2017 Executive Board meeting.

Additional points of clarification about the consent agenda included Dr. Oswald asking Dr. Alonso about Dr. Tara Behrend’s requested action item in the TIP report about a print version option, to which Dr. Alonso replied that he had discussed this with Dr. Behrend and that they would be revisiting the issue. It is not up for discussion at the current meeting. Dr. Barnes-Farrell pointed out that the Visibility Committee had indicated an action item about a budget request but that with the August meeting to approve the budget then this was no longer relevant. President McPhail and others confirmed that efforts can be taken in the future to inform committee chairs of the outcome of the August budget meeting so that such budget-related items are not indicated as action items in committee reports for future fall Executive Board meetings.

ACTION: President McPhail stated that the Consent Agenda is by nature already presented as a motion and therefore no new motion or second is needed. The motion was unanimously approved.



Dr. Hakel informed the board that APA is holding its first ever summit regarding high school psychology education in July 2017 and is seeking event sponsors. He acknowledged that we have made small and not enough progress in getting I-O psychology into high school text books but that by being present at the meeting and by getting the SIOP name on the list of sponsors, even at the $1,000 level, would help to establish our presence at the event.

President McPhail confirmed support of this sponsorship. He stated that when we look out over the future of I-O psychology this type of action is a small investment in the very long term but is important to help introduce the field to high school level students. Dr. Silzer confirmed the importance of someone representing SIOP on the ground at the meeting. Dr. Tannenbaum added that the person on the ground can give feedback about the meeting to close the loop and ensure that it was a good sponsorship investment for SIOP. Dr. Oswald said that during his upcoming term as president his theme will have an emphasis on education, and so for the purposes of continuity this would be something he recommends.

Dr. Hakel requested allocation of $1,000 for event sponsorship and $400 for registration fees for an Education & Training Committee member to attend the event. Dr. Kozlowski asked if a larger sponsorship investment would yield additional exposure, along the lines of the National Science Foundation presentations we have done with a poster or something more substantial. Dr. Hakel agreed to ask Dr. Joe Allen, Education & Training Chair, to get in touch with the APA organizers for information about additional opportunities. Dr. Wang requested that attention be paid to the timeline so as not to miss out on the early registration and opportunities for the event. Dr. Hakel stated that anything urgent can be voted on by the emergency action committee.

At 2:25pm the meeting went into executive session. Dr. Bill Macey attended to update the board on the Executive Director search process. The meeting came out of executive session at 2:49pm.


Dr. Hakel described the International Senior Lawyers Project (ISLP) as a model for a potential similar SIOP initiative, and he indicated that the SIOP Foundation would also be discussing the idea at their board meeting. The ISLP coordinates retired lawyers who are willing to do pro-bono work with organizations that require legal expertise but lack financial means to pay for services. If SIOP has an interest in pursuing such a model for I-O work, SIOP could request information from Anthony Essaye, co-founder of ISLP and friend of Dr. Allen Kraut. SIOP could inquire about joint projects with the lawyers. Dr. Latham stated that this idea is gaining traction at Academy of Management. Dr. Sinar asked how this would be distinct from other existing structures like Consultant Locator and SIOP Registries. Dr. Hakel replied that users of Consultant Locator are expecting to find a consultant that they understand will need compensation rather than expecting or seeking pro-bono work.

Should SIOP choose to pursue the project, Dr. Hakel wondered whether it should have a SIOP brand or become a freestanding entity. Dr. Kozlowski confirmed interest in the idea but asked how SIOP would relate with the project; should there be a spot on the SIOP web site, who can be a provider of services through it, would there be a quality filter, who would be liable, etc.? President McPhail confirmed that it sounded like a good idea but expressed concern about the extent to which having a group of senior level people willing to do pro-bono work would be viewed by active practitioners as competition. Dr. Silzer warned that it could be negatively perceived by independent consultants in the SIOP membership if the project is SIOP-branded. Dr. Hakel said that this would be international in scope so perhaps that may reduce the perceived competitiveness rather than if the recipients of the pro-bono work were U.S. based only.

Dr. Rupp provided the SIOP United Nations Committee as an example of one source of pro-bono work that originates in SIOP. Dr. Knapp reminded the board of the post-Katrina pro-bono work completed jointly by Divisions 13 and 14. She asked what the population of “can’t afford services” group might look like for what the industrial-organizational psychology field offers, suggesting that it may be more difficult to define than for those seeking legal services via ISLP. Dr. Tannenbaum offered that perhaps an indicator could be added to Consultant Locator to denote who may be willing to work pro-bono. Dr. Kozlowski said that if this is to be organized within SIOP then there will need to be a formal mechanism to ensure that recipients of the pro-bono work are worthy. Dr. Rupp posed the idea of a collaborative environment with senior retirees working together with graduate students to provide the needed services.

Mr. Nershi recommended that SIOP be minimally involved in pro-bono projects due to liability and psychology licensure issues. Dr. Tannenbaum asked if the ISLP funds travel reimbursement for its participants, in which case that would be more involved than simply a mechanism to connect providers with recipients. Mrs. Lentz informed the board that the ISLP budget is $9 million. Dr. Silzer indicated that there is an existing retired business executive group that already competes with active I-O practitioners for executive coaching jobs. President McPhail asked Dr. Hakel to follow up with Dr. Kraut about the expressed concerns and do additional fact finding, with a formal presentation to follow if warranted.


Dr. Hakel referred the group to the printed report outlining the current activities of AOP. He confirmed that Prof. Franco Fraccaroli, Prof. Rosalind Searle, and Dr. Donald Truxillo have made excellent progress with the Alliance, particularly with the Small Group Meetings Committee and publication of the statement on conducting ethical, rigorous, and relevant research developed during the February meeting in Zurich.


Dr. Knapp reported on the most recent APA Council of Representatives meeting held in August 2016 in Denver. Dr. Latham was unable to attend but Dr. Stephen Stark, APA Council Representative-Elect, joined the meeting. One proposal addressed by the Council was a resolution discouraging the use of Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores as hard criteria so as to attempt to increase the ethnic diversity of those admitted to psychology graduate programs. There were a number of issues raised about this item and the proposal was referred back to its originating committee. Dr. Stark agreed to work with the originators so as to develop the proposal into something that the council can pass. Dr. Oswald indicated that SIOP had previously provided comments but that the proposers had not demonstrated interest, and therefore he was unsure if our original comments had been folded in. Dr. Knapp indicated that these comments, along with all others, were forwarded to Council. She summarized that most comments from divisions were supportive of the end goal of increasing diversity in graduate psychology programs but not supportive of the strategy or accuracy of the proposal.

Dr. Knapp continued with a reminder that many of the Council action items and conversations are still in response to the 2015 Independent Review (aka “Hoffman Report”) and that this will continue for some years to come. Dr. Knapp stated that one resolution on which the Council spent significant time was entitled “Resolution in Favor of Providing Support and Assistance to Military and National Security Psychologists Striving to Abide by the APA Ethics Code and APA Policy.” A similar resolution was proposed in August 2015 that was simply a show of support for military psychologists, but this updated resolution modified the language to permit psychologists to provide counseling to detainees. This restriction was an aspect of another resolution passed in August 2015 that many on Council felt needed to be rescinded. The new resolution was tabled, causing frustration amongst SIOP and many other representatives because there had been insufficient pre-work among the most affected parties to develop language that would be acceptable to the majority of Council members.

Dr. Knapp reminded the board that the resolution passed in August 2015 also required APA to consider revisions to Standard 3.04 of the APA Ethics Code. Since that time the APA Ethics Committee has offered for public comment two versions of a revision, one that simply stated “Psychologists do not participate in, facilitate, assist, or otherwise engage in torture.” whereas the other version was much lengthier and included more elaborate restrictions on what psychologists can and cannot do. SIOP reviewed the revisions and suggested that neither statement was necessary given the language already in the ethics code, but that if a revision was required, the simplest version would be acceptable. The revision presented to the Council used the language of the simple version but appended to that a definition of torture. There was concern that this definition of torture could be over interpreted, but ultimately, the new language was adopted by the Council.

Dr. Silzer asked if is there an emerging consensus in APA as to how the effects of the Hoffman Report will be settled in the coming year. Dr. Chao replied that conversations by the Council regarding the Hoffman Report are held in Executive Session and are so confidential that even our representatives are not permitted to talk with each other about them. President McPhail and Dr. Oswald confirmed that the discussions amongst APA and division members that occur on the list serve on the topic can be contentious and are continuing without a clear end in sight.

President McPhail reiterated that the APA Ethics Code has been changed (the full language of the addition to Standard 3.04 can be found in the APA Council of Representatives Report). Dr.
Knapp said that the last time there was ethics code revision there were no I-O psychologists involved. Dr. Knapp was an observer for SIOP at the revision, where one cannot speak unless spoken to, but SIOP was fortunate that the chairperson did take Division 13 and 14 language and influence into consideration to write the portions related to applied psychology. Dr. Knapp stated that we cannot afford to be at the mercy of the chair this time around; we must be at the table. There is a plan to identify task force members by end of 2016. Dr. Knapp chairs the General Applied Psychology/Psychologists (GAPP) Caucus that focuses on psychology as it is practiced by those who are not mental health providers and includes Division 13 (primary contacts include Stuart Cooper and Randy White). President McPhail asked how we get at that table, to which Dr. Knapp replied that staff at the APA Ethics Office had made an offer to help but then the face to face meeting did not come to fruition. Dr. Knapp reiterated that diversity is so important on APA Committees and psychology discipline should be one of those elements of diversity.

President McPhail confirmed that we must have representation on the APA task force. SIOP will also need to convene our own task force so as to respond cogently, quickly, and thoroughly to what comes out of APA task force. Dr. Knapp indicated that the call for nominees will begin within a few months and, once open, SIOP will likely have 30 days to supply our nominees. A question was raised if a focus should be on individuals who are members of both Division 13 and 14.

Dr. Kozlowski brought up a September 2015 Executive Board meeting discussion regarding how SIOP relies on the APA for our ethical code and for dispute resolution. He suggested that, given that SIOP has changed our membership requirements, should APA move in a different direction that does not meet SIOP needs, perhaps we should adopt our own code (which would read similar to the original APA code). President McPhail requested that our representatives take the lead on getting representation on that APA task force. President McPhail will prepare a proposal for the January meeting to establish a SIOP task force charged with responding to APA activity.

Finally, Dr. Chao announced that the voting for APA President-Elect will open September 15 and close October 31. SIOP has two members, Dr. Kurt Geisinger and Dr. Rodney Lowman, amongst the five candidates. Dr. Chao prepared an FAQ about how to vote within the Hare system and how votes for second place, third place, etc. can affect election outcomes. Dr. Kozlowski suggested emailing SIOP members in APA encouraging them to vote. President McPhail replied positively, stating that he will prepare the language and coordinate with Mr. Nershi to have the message distributed. Dr. Rupp offered that SIOP input is of particular importance during this time of change and transition for APA.


President McPhail expressed desire for SIOP to be intentional and consistent in preparing white papers. He worked with Dr. Oswald and Dr. Kozlowski to prepare a proposal that would develop an editorial board for white papers, while maintaining the fact that white papers emanate from various SIOP committees and initiatives. Per the proposal, a white paper would be defined as a 10-12 page document written at a non-technical level but with full citations so as to provide the scientific base. The authors would also prepare a 3-5 page summary version of the white paper that may not be fully cited but would trace back to original white paper. Finally, there would also be a single page version for use by Lewis-Burke in advocacy initiatives or similar needs. President McPhail stated that that white papers put SIOP’s face out to the world. As such, we need to be careful that we have assurance of control over white paper production so that they are consistent and can be reviewed periodically so as to ensure that the science has not changed.

Dr. Tannenbaum asked how SIOP finds authors for white papers to which President McPhail replied that we have more people than ever before indicating an interest in writing them. Dr. Alonso added that it depends on the audience and topic; for some series we have difficulty generating new white papers whereas for others (for example, the SIOP-SHRM series) we have about 16 people a year willing to author new papers. Dr. Silzer disagreed and suggested the quantity is closer to one per quarter, with the requests being too narrow and short-term. Dr. Silzer expressed concern regarding the promotional nature of the white paper on the topic of coaching due to the author’s dual role as SIOP member and International Coach Federation (ICF) employee. Dr. Silzer supports the establishment of a white paper editorial board for this purpose.

Dr. Rupp reminded the group that last year the board supported a joint strategic initiative between the publications and communications portfolios and indicated her concern about the complexity and volume of work that the white paper proposal implied. She stated that recruitment of authors can be difficult and so is worried about the labor pool of potential editorial board members, reviewers, and authors. Recall that it took years of committee work simply to launch the new Practice Forum in the upcoming IOP. Dr. Kozlowski emphasized a need to strike the proper balance between standardizing our publications versus responding quickly to expressed needs. He offered that perhaps we could take existing content (for example, a well-written handbook chapter) and turn it into the 10, 4, and 1 pager non-technical documents.

Mr. Nershi pointed out that what sparked this proposal is the growing number of white papers and our loose guidelines, resulting in variable quality between documents. Dr. Rupp stated that if we are to work so hard on the quality of a white paper then perhaps the content is more appropriately used for a SIOP-published piece in a book series that would generate revenue. This would slow down the generation of white papers but sets up a review infrastructure. Dr. Oswald commented on a desire to continue having white papers but that perhaps using existing chapters would make for more efficient production, although Dr. Sinar indicated concern about the practicality of taking a chapter and extracting a non-technical version to create a white paper. Dr. Silzer said the reverse could be done, where white papers would feed into book chapters, and he asked if the group could agree that we need a SIOP-wide coordination in content management, editorial effort, and relationship management in each committee for production of white papers.

President McPhail stated that historically white papers emanate from committees and so the proposed new editorial board would be the place that committees would take their white paper concepts for initial approval. He does not want to undermine innovation coming out of committees but rather give them a home for gaining approval for publication. President McPhail did not have concern about finding authors because they are already coming forward, nor did he worry about filling the editorial board, which may be a good opportunity for early career members. Dr. Alonso said the editorial board could simply to do a quality review of white papers before adoption. Dr. Knapp wondered if we might make use of our existing boards.

Dr. Tannenbaum asked where white papers fit strategically within the SIOP intellectual property portfolio. He is interested in piloting some controls but is everything that is not a chapter going to be called a white paper? Dr. Rupp inquired about access and use statistics of existing SIOP white papers, to which Mr. Nershi replied that he receives permission requests from universities looking to include these documents in their collection of student resources. Dr. Alonso added that 6 of the top 10 downloads from the SHRM Research site were SIOP/SHRM series white papers. There have been approximately 6,000 – 10,000 downloads to date.

Dr. Wang echoed concern regarding the amount of work that could result from this proposal and asked if instead we should simplify by giving white paper originators some guidance and then ask the Communications Officer to provide quality control before publication. Mr. Nershi added that the existing guidelines could use a tune up, particularly regarding selection of authors and the variability on depth of the white papers. Dr. Wang asked how and why SIOP is producing so many papers; the Executive Board did not ask for them, so from where are they coming? Dr. Kozlowski replied that some committees may be working on white papers when perhaps the Executive Board could help to direct their efforts to other areas of need.

Dr. Silzer stated that the white papers are not literature summaries; what strategic benefit is there to the public and to us to spend time on white paper production? President McPhail and Dr. Alonso jointly confirmed that the main benefit is visibility for SIOP and the I-O field. Dr. Rupp offered that SIOP as a publisher does not have the amount of marketing and communications resources as publishers like Cambridge and Oxford. Perhaps turning white papers into publications with our publishers would give us access to the publisher’s marketing benefits and white papers could become revenue streams. Both publishers are always asking Dr. Rupp about innovative, not-in-a-volume opportunities. In short, President McPhail wants work that is widely circulated (downloads, congressional staffers, etc.) to present a consistent, reliable face for SIOP.

ACTION: President McPhail moved to accept the proposal. Dr. Latham seconded. However, after the discussion recorded above ensued, no vote was taken. President McPhail will revise the proposal for future consideration by the board.

At 4:06pm, the board took a break. The meeting returned to order at 4:16pm, at which time President McPhail shared acknowledgment of Dr. Mikki Hebl given that this was her first Executive Board meeting. Dr. Hebl expressed appreciation for the opportunity to serve.


Dr. Wang shared the request from the LGBT Committee to collaborate with the Conference Chair and Administrative Office to do something at the 2017 SIOP Annual Conference to demonstrate support of and honor the Orlando shooting victims. Dr. Sinar indicated that there is a Community of Interest prepared on the topic of I-O response to mass shootings. Dr. Oswald asked if there is any resource requested for this proposal to which Dr. Wang replied that it would be between the LGBT and Conference Committees. Mr. Nershi said that the LGBT Committee prepared a TIP article on the topic with a listing of related local organizations accepting donations. President McPhail stated that it would be remiss of us to not acknowledge and express our concerns for the community and recognize the pain caused by the event. At this time, there is no additional information on the form the support will take, but President McPhail plans to make mention of it during the Opening Plenary. The Executive Board is favorable to this initiative.


Dr. Wang announced a joint request from the LGBT and CEMA Committees to support the 2017 National Multicultural Conference and Summit. The committees desired $250 for a Supporting Sponsor event sponsorship and $400 for the registration fee of a local representative to attend (Dr. Larry Martinez of Portland, OR.) President McPhail added that the board was considering this request now due to the timing of it, having surfaced after committees had submitted budget requests. Dr. Hebl and Dr. Rupp agreed that Dr. Martinez is a great representative of SIOP.

ACTION: Dr. Wang moved to accept the $650 funding request for sponsorship of and attendance at the 2017 National Multicultural Conference and Summit. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


Dr. Hakel briefly shared with the board that the SIOP Foundation currently holds $3.5 million in assets and is in good financial health. A SIOP Foundation Board meeting was set to immediately follow the SIOP Executive Board meeting. There were no action items for the group.


Dr. Rupp introduced a proposal to approve a Corporate Social Responsibility Registry. She reminded the group that SIOP‘s first federal funding from the National Science Foundation supported a CSR event in Anaheim preceding the 2016 SIOP Annual Conference. One initiative that came out of that event was to create a registry in the likeness of the Health, Safety, and Well-Being (HSWB) Registry. Dr. Rupp indicated that the CSR Registry seeks great similarity to the HSWB Registry to put minimal effort on the Administrative Office to create and maintain.

ACTION: Dr. Rupp moved to accept the proposal to create a SIOP Corporate Social Responsibility Registry. Dr. Foster seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


Dr. Silzer introduced a proposal to establish a dedicated email (perhaps quarterly, although the timing is open for discussion) that would aggregate current SIOP programs and opportunities to provide a single source of information for practitioners. He would like to construct the message as an opt-out so that all members will have the chance to receive it before choosing not to. Dr. Wang asked if the information could instead be distributed through TIP or Newsbriefs? Dr. Silzer expressed concern about TIP readership and stated that prior attempts to publish practitioner issues in Newsbriefs have been rejected. Dr. Barnes-Farrell suggested using TIP to regularly publish such information rather than creating a separate entity. Mr. Nershi said this is an opportunity to recognize an important segment within the SIOP membership and to deliver directly to them the information they seek rather than diffusing it in TIP.

President McPhail asked Dr. Silzer from where this publication would receive content, to which Dr. Silzer said the Professional Practice Committee. He added that there is no cost to produce and no advertising within the publication. Dr. Sinar suggested that such a publication would purposefully draw readership away from TIP, which could negatively affect advertising revenue. Mr. Nershi stated that TIP advertising is less than $15,000 in annual revenue, so the value of TIP is more of a communications vehicle. Dr. Wang asked Dr. Silzer to clarify his concerns with Newsbriefs, to which Dr. Silzer said that a research article was recently published in Newsbriefs but two practice-related items that he had submitted were rejected. Dr. Silzer stated that for the past eight years there has been low practitioner satisfaction amongst the SIOP membership. This dedicated email newsletter is an attempt to better meet practitioner needs by preparing for them a list of links that connect them to content of interest. Dr. Tannenbaum agreed that this is a low cost solution. Dr. Kozlowski added that it would be good to track readership once launched.

Dr. Alonso suggested that to be most effective this communication may need to be more frequent than quarterly. Dr. Rupp asked what role the Electronic Communications Committee would play in this and reminded the board that ECC has a huge social media initiative that they are pursuing and so this would need to tie into their strategy. Dr. Hebl asked if TIP articles or other low-hanging fruits to supplement this e-newsletter would make the population happy. Dr. Rupp added that the IOP Practitioner Forum is a creative open space for practitioner content.

ACTION: Dr. Silzer moved to accept the proposal to create a Practice Update publication. Dr. Latham seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


Dr. Hebl reported that a complete draft of the revised Principles is to be delivered to the board within a matter of weeks. President McPhail asked what the prior formal commenting process entailed for the last revision, but no board members could speak to that. He asked Dr. Hebl to have the task force prepare for the commenting process along with delivering the revised Principles document. Mr. Nershi offered that for the recent update of the Guidelines for Education and Training we accepted online comments through the SIOP web site and held a session at the Annual Conference. President McPhail expressed concern that the volume of comments will be higher than with the E&T publication. Mr. Nershi said that Dr. Nancy Tippins was involved in the previous revision of the Principles and also the APA testing standards so she has experience in overseeing the commenting process. Dr. Barnes-Farrell asked if APA will put our revisions out for comment too or if they adopt it as policy given that SIOP is the subject matter expert on this, to which Mr. Nershi replied that he believes APA adopts as-is. (The discussion ended at this point but was revisited Saturday. Please see pages 14 and 21 for additional discussion.)


Dr. Sinar reported that the partnership and registration revenues for this year’s Leading Edge Consortium have exceeded prior years with six weeks yet to go before the event. The current registration count is 228. The registration record is 229 for the 2006 event on the topic of talent management in Charlotte, so we will easily exceed this. Partnership opportunities sold out almost immediately. Dr. Sinar said that the topic of talent analytics was picked for maximum appeal. Dr. Kozlowski reminded the board of how a few years ago the leadership considered if we should invest more in the LEC; we decided to do so and it has paid off. Mr. Nershi confirmed that the primary consideration for Leading Edge Consortium planning should be the topic, but a location with good “lift” (easy air connections) and finalizing speakers and sub-topic areas early also have impact on registration success. Dr. Silzer confirmed the importance of speaker credibility.

Mr. Nershi recognized Mrs. Lentz for her idea to track big data session attendees in Anaheim and create a quality list of prospects to whom we have marketed the LEC. Dr. Rupp asked if the maximum number of partnerships should be reconsidered because of how quickly they sold out. Mr. Nershi and Mrs. Vanneman confirmed that exclusivity should be preserved and that the price for partnerships were raised over 2015. We are attentive to this annually. Dr. Tannenbaum said that the changing topic makes a difference; sponsors may not return if the topic does not align with their focus.


Dr. Silzer said that the task force of Dr. Nancy Tippins, Dr. Doug Reynolds, Dr. Emily Solberg, Dr. Will Shepherd, Jeff McHenry, Mr. Nershi, and he met and identified the following potential topics: executive coaching, high potentials, individual assessment, leadership teams, and organizational transformation and development. The task force is exploring innovative ways to elaborate on the LEC to generate additional revenue, including a pre or post consortium workshop, such as a 3-hour executive briefing. Dr. Silzer will run the topics by the presidential trio so as to select the 2017 topic (October 13-14, 2017 in Minneapolis, MN) prior to the 2016 event (October 21-22, 2016 in Atlanta-Buckhead, GA).


Dr. Sinar reported that there were 1,424 submitted sessions for SIOP 2017. The quantity of Alternative Session Type submissions are up by 24% this year, with the IGNITE format being the most frequent, but the Program Committee encourages other novel formats as well. The content areas of inclusion and diversity, job attitudes, and engagement were up whereas occupational health psychology and work/family were down. All other submission formats and content areas are steady. The Program Committee is working to make the conference content more socially shareable and received more than 500 responses for the social media statements to be used in promotion.

Dr. Sinar said that the Conference Committee is addressing concerns about Orlando coming out of the Anaheim post conference survey, with branding efforts focused around space exploration and not Disney. However, the number of submissions is generally linked to attendance so this is a good mark of strong projected registration for SIOP 2017. Dr. Sinar recognized the change management efforts of Program Chair Dr. Zack Horn and the Administrative Office in rolling out the new NOAH software system for the conference submission process.

Mr. Nershi informed the board that they will have the opportunity to preview the conference hotel, the Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort, during the January 6-7, 2017 Executive Board meeting. Dr. Silzer indicated that Division 13 held a mid-winter conference at the property and reviews were decidedly mixed, with low customer service reported. Drs. Wang and Hebl mentioned other related groups that have had successful meetings at the property, and President McPhail added that the Disney transportation system will be of value to our attendees.

Dr. Tannenbaum asked Dr. Sinar for an update on the amount of 50 minute versus 80 minute sessions submitted (with a desire to increase the quantity of 50 minute sessions) but Dr. Horn is still working to pull out those data. Mr. Nershi indicated that a change to the program will be that Friday and Saturday coffee breaks will be held at 9:30am and 2:30pm rather than 10:00am and 3:00pm, respectively, so as to improve scheduling. Dr. Sinar asked the board to encourage those in their networks to help recruit additional program reviewers. Dr. Rupp asked if there is a keynote speaker yet, to which Dr. Sinar replied that the speaker, an astronaut, had been identified but that NASA has timing limitations regarding when you can submit to make the request. Dr. Kozlowski confirmed that the particular person would be an excellent addition to our program.


Mr. Nershi and Mrs. Lentz arrived in Chicago a day early to visit options for overflow hotels with Ms. Patty Kealy of Conference Direct. Mrs. Lentz indicated that the Sheraton Grand Chicago, our 2018 headquarters hotel, is an excellent property but that we will not have enough guest rooms. Potential overflow hotels include a Loews across the street from the Sheraton, a Hyatt Regency approximately 1.5 blocks away, and the nearby Intercontinental (at which Mr. Nershi sabered a champagne bottle with a kitchen knife, much to the delight of onlookers!).  Dr. Rupp added that the Association for Psychological Science held their 2016 meeting at the Sheraton, and it was a great property. Mrs. Lentz indicated that the room size for some of the meeting space may be too small, so they also visited the Gleacher Center of the University of Chicago as potential additional meeting space (for example, Friday Seminars). Dr. Rupp offered that the medical campus for Northwestern University is nearby and may offer additional space.


Mr. Nershi reviewed the upcoming locations for the SIOP Annual Conference (2017 Orlando, FL, 2018 Chicago, IL, 2019 National Harbor, MD, 2020 Austin, TX, 2021 New Orleans, LA). Dr. Sinar said that 2022 will be time for a west coast location. We have a good concentration of I-Os there. The adjacent convention center model will work for us per the results of the Anaheim post conference survey. Seattle has long been on the list of potential locations, and with a convention center model now on the table, it can be considered. Mr. Nershi said the venue is fantastic and located right downtown. The Washington State Convention Center is a great facility with the opportunity for growth and is situated just a few feet away from the Sheraton, which would be the headquarters hotel. Mr. Nershi outlined a concern regarding the potential for another group to rent the exhibit hall but for a few thousand dollars we can rent it instead and use it ourselves or leave it vacant to ensure our privacy. Mrs. Lentz confirmed that the meeting room sizes are good, and the surrounding area features much to see and do, which attendees will enjoy.

President McPhail expressed concern about flights to Seattle, with which Dr. Silzer agreed. Mr. Nershi said that this is an outstanding destination that people will want to visit, with a short hop to Vancouver for a potential trip add-on. Dr. Chao asked about the Denver option, as American Psychological Association held their convention at the Hyatt with the convention center across the street. Mr. Nershi said that Denver is not ruled out for the future but the recommendation for 2022 is Seattle. Dr. Tannenbaum asked about how many and which cities are now open to us if the adjacent convention center model is on the table. Dr. Sinar suggested that Boston may now be a possibility. Mr. Nershi supported the move to the convention center model due to the growth of our meeting, as convention centers offer better meeting room size than when we have to use every meeting room a hotel has even if they are small or L-shaped or otherwise not ideal. He indicated that a room rebate from the hotel will be used to pay for the convention center space. 

ACTION: Dr. Sinar moved to approve Seattle as the 2022 SIOP Annual Conference location. Dr. Latham seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.

Mrs. Vanneman invited the board to dinner at Gene & Georgetti at 7:15pm. Mr. Nershi indicated that breakfast would be served at 7:30am. The meeting adjourned for the day at 5:21pm.


President McPhail called the meeting to order at 8:01am. He informed the group that the Awards Chair would report in a timed agenda item at 8:30am and that lunch would be at 11:30am.


Dr. Hebl informed the board that a meeting with Lewis-Burke was held in August and that Lewis-Burke continues to do a good job promoting SIOP and I-O psychology in Washington. She stated that we are moving into a position to change our goal of working with Lewis-Burke from simply increasing visibility to establishing credibility. Lewis-Burke does well in facilitating congressional support with briefings, National Science Foundation presentations, and the like. The Policing Initiative, spearheaded by the late Dr. Jim Outtz, is now being led by Dr. Amy Grubb of the FBI; other new members of the Working Group include Dr. Enrica Ruggs of UNC Charlotte and Dr. Cal Hoffman of the LA County Sheriff’s Department. President McPhail added that Dr. Ann Marie Ryan met with the deputy director of the COPS initiative of the Department of Justice in order to introduce I-O psychology work. Dr. Leaetta Hough worked on the original development of community policing strategy, and so we are working to reacquaint ourselves with people doing this work.

Dr. Hebl stated that the relationship with Lewis-Burke is multifaceted; not only do they advocate for I-O psychology in Washington, but they also build awareness within SIOP regarding how members can be advocates for the I-O field. Dr. Hebl is working with Ms. Laura Uttley and Mr. Bill Ruch on five more congressional briefings in 2016 on STEM, human machine, etc. There is also an effort to work with Lewis-Burke on developing the concept of a SIOP-developed metric as an economic indicator. President McPhail, Dr. Kozlowski, and Dr. Oswald have worked on the development of a task force to review this matter. Lewis-Burke is convinced that we can do this and that there are other countries in the world that already take workplace issues into account in their economic indicators.

President McPhail reported that Lewis-Burke is working on presidential transition documents for SIOP to share with whomever is elected. The Hilary Clinton campaign has staff designated to focus on science and HR issues, and they have indicated openness to working with us during the campaign. Lewis-Burke is having trouble identifying similar staff within the Donald Trump campaign with the ability to deal with these issues. Lewis-Burke has informed us that now is not a great time to work with congress because they are all home campaigning for reelection, but we are positioning ourselves to get in the door quickly with the new term. Dr. Hebl stated that Dr. Jill Bradley-Geist, Chair of the Government Relations Advocacy Team (GREAT) ad-hoc committee, has a goal to initiate a SIOP member advocacy database, to which Mr. Nershi replied that the registry is in the testing phase.

Dr. Knapp stated that a goal of our advocacy work should be to get an I-O psychologist on the National Academies. Dr. Oswald said that there is benefit to him being on the Board of Human Systems Integration (BOHSI). There is a lot of internal change at BOHSI, but we are working to stay present and make inroads within that group, including a presentation at a meeting hosted by the Forensic Science National Institutes of Standards and Technology. Dr. Kozlowski said that the board above BOHSI would also be a good place to be represented (Dr. Dan Ilgen was or is still on it). Dr. Tannenbaum observed that we have moved mindsets from “what can Lewis-Burke do for us?” to more tangible strategy. Dr. Kozlowski confirmed that we have learned how to better use Lewis-Burke’s services to meet our needs. We now have an emerging strategy on advocacy. President McPhail agreed, stating that Lewis-Burke comes to us frequently with ideas. Although we may not want to pursue them all, we appreciate how well they keep us in the loop.

Dr. Hakel suggested that we may want to rethink how quickly our senior leadership transitions. Dr. Kozlowski says that what we are trying to accomplish now as a society requires continuity, and it is difficult for a president to do so within one year. We could be more thoughtful in using the transition process to help move members along into leadership roles. Dr. Knapp agreed, indicating that when the External Relations Committee was formed as an early advocacy mechanism the Chair term was established for beyond 3 years because of this issue. President McPhail offered that we can begin to address this by being more intentional in broadening the base of our committee memberships. We have the tendency to call the same people over and over to be chairs and committee members rather than inviting others to join in the governance process. President McPhail suggested using our knowledge of selection to choose SIOP leaders.


President McPhail indicated numerous attempts to connect with Dr. Howard Weiss, but he has not received a reply regarding SPARC Committee activity, and so there is no update.


President McPhail reported that Dr. Hebl reached out to the Principles task force and that Dr. Tippins has replied, indicating that the preferred commenting process for them would be to receive one consolidated list of corrections. She also suggested that two sets of revisions may make sense – one from the academic community, one from the practice community. Another possibility would be for a joint group of members from the Professional Practice and Scientific Affairs Committees to work together on one set of revisions to which they can agree. We could also give the task force all comments for them to sort through.

Dr. Knapp does not support two groups of commentaries because then members must “choose a side” and so would prefer entities work together to provide comment, to which Dr. Kozlowski expressed support. President McPhail asked if we should task the two committees with preparing a set of comments, indicating that it would be how APA would conduct the commenting process (in addition to sending it out to the membership for general review.) Dr. Latham supported that idea. Dr. Hakel wondered if committees would need to respond to every item line by line or if there would be core issues to which they can reply. Mr. Nershi stated that the member portion of the commenting process would be conducted online through the SIOP web site. (The discussion was interrupted at this point so as to complete the timed agenda item of the Awards Committee Recommendations. Please see page 21 for additional discussion.)

At 8:29am the meeting went into executive session to discuss the Awards Committee Recommendations. The board emerged from executive session at 9:42am.

ACTION ITEM: Dr. Barnes-Farrell moved to accept the recommendations of the Awards Committee, with the addition that the sub-committee for the S. Rains Wallace Dissertation Award consider whether up to two honorable mentions should be awarded. Dr. Latham seconded. The motion was approved, with all abstentions and disclosures having been noted during executive session discussions of each award.

Dr. Kozlowski recognized Dr. Joann Sorra and Dr. Lillian Eby for their excellent work managing the Awards Committee. Mr. Nershi added his appreciation for the efforts of Mrs. Lentz as well.

At 9:44am, the board took a break. The meeting returned to order at 10:00am.

President McPhail followed up on the awards decisions by asking Dr. Wang to work with the Awards Chair and Committee to review the existing guidelines and parameters of awards in order to gain clarification regarding awarding honorable mentions or naming two awardees. Dr. Silzer advocated opening the awards nomination period much earlier than our current model, preferably at the Annual Conference, which would be a good opportunity for members to network and start discussing awards. Dr. Wang expressed sensitivity to the efforts needed in the Administrative Office to open the awards system, with concern that doing so may be difficult during the busy lead up to the conference. Mr. Nershi reminded the board that the nomination period was abbreviated this year due to building from scratch the awards submission and review portal, and that in future years it should be easier to open the awards portal. President McPhail suggested that the Awards Chair could announce the opening of the next year’s award submission period at the conclusion of the awards portion of the Opening Plenary session at the Annual Conference. Dr. Tannenbaum agreed that a longer submission period is desirable so long as the deadline remains the same and the length of the review period is preserved. President McPhail indicated that the size of some of the awards sub-committees may need to be increased to lessen the load on the committee members tasked with reviewing lengthy awards submissions.


Mr. Nershi informed the board that the language for two bylaws amendments has been drafted and, with support of the Board, would then be put to a vote of the membership. The first proposed amendment describes the addition of formal recognition in SIOP historical records for an individual elected SIOP President who then becomes unable, due to death or illness, to serve in the role. This amendment originated with the passing of President-Elect, Dr. Jim Outtz.

The second proposed amendment is revised language removing International Affiliate as a membership category for all areas of the bylaws in which it is mentioned. Mr. Nershi stated that after the bylaws change in 2015 removing the prerequisite membership requirement in APA, APS, CPA, or EAWOP the International Affiliate membership type become unnecessary. Mrs. Vanneman added that at this point the distinction between Associate and International Affiliate membership applicants is their country of residence. This is a data field that SIOP collects from all applicants and so there will be no loss of integrity of membership information. She stated that her only concern is the handling of existing International Affiliates, but that the Membership Portfolio Officer, Membership Chair, and Administrative Office would work jointly to resolve this if the bylaws change is adopted. The most likely course of action, as Mr. Nershi stated, would be to transition existing International Affiliates into the Associate category, with those desiring and eligible for Member being afforded an opportunity to apply for an upgrade and undergo review. Dr. Silzer asked if there was any reason not to consider dropping International Affiliate as a category and no thoughts were offered by the board, only a confirmation from Mr. Nershi that this is mostly a cleanup item given how the bylaws now read as a result of last year’s amendment.

ACTION: Dr. Alonso moved to approve the language of the bylaws amendments to be put to the membership for a vote. Dr. Chao seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


Dr. Hakel reported that he previously served as Secretary General of the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP) and found it to be a large volume of work. IAAP was founded in 1920 and, as the organization approaches its centennial, it is looking to establish an operation center somewhat modeled after the SIOP Administrative Office. IAAP has recognized the need to reduce the workload on the IAAP officers and keep better track of its membership. Dr. Hakel outlined the IAAP membership situation, which is that there are approximately 750 members but, every four years when the organization holds a congress, the membership expands drastically. The next IAAP congress will be in Montreal in 2018, at which point the membership is estimated to inflate to 4,000-5,000 due to the significant member registration discount.

IAAP is seeking an entity to take on any or all of the tasks listed in the RFP. SIOP currently maintains an MOU with IAAP to serve as its internet web application service provider. Dr. Hakel stated that if there is excess capacity in the SIOP Administrative Office currently or if the board has an interest in adding to the AO staff then there would be a revenue source to sustain the additional employee(s). Dr. Hakel assured the board that IAAP has a substitutional cash reserve of $1.2 million and so is strong financially. The question he brought to the board was if the AO should become involved in IAAP beyond the scope of the current MOU for internet services. Dr. Hakel estimated the current amount of staff time that has been used servicing the MOU as under 20 hours total. He has been doing the updates and maintenance on a volunteer basis to support the MOU but would like to shed that role within the next two years. Dr. Hakel estimated that one additional IT staff would be needed in the SIOP AO to handle this.
President McPhail shared that Dr. Kozlowski, Dr. Oswald, and Mr. Nershi have discussed this opportunity and confirm that there is no excess capacity within the Administrative Office at this time. The office would need to grow both in number of employees and in physical office space to accommodate such an expansion into serving an additional association. Mr. Nershi confirmed that SIOP is involved internationally and is happy to continue the internet MOU with IAAP but that further involvement as outlined in the RFP is not a good fit. The SIOP staff is all currently fully engaged in SIOP work. President McPhail indicated that the current Executive Director search makes this an inopportune time to consider such expansion, and Dr. Rupp echoed this concern, noting also the continued staff efforts on implementation of the new NOAH software system.

President McPhail said that this may not be a good fit strategically, either, as the function of the SIOP Administrative Office is to serve the Society’s needs. SIOP is not in need of this as an additional revenue stream at this time, and we have much going on with our own efforts to grow membership and our conference and expand our science, practice, and visibility that he recommends against filing a proposal in response to this RFP. President McPhail suspects that whichever organization is ultimately awarded this contract will likely want to take over internet hosting, and SIOP will be pleased to work with that organization on the transition.

Dr. Kozlowski added that beyond the question of strategic fit there was also discussion around potential conflicts of interest. If the SIOP Administrative Office remains tasked only with serving SIOP, then such conflicts can be avoided. Dr. Silzer asked about the percentage of IAAP membership that aligns with I-O to which Dr. Hakel responded it is approximately half of the membership. Dr. Silzer cautioned that such an opportunity could serve as a distraction to SIOP, expanding us into a broader range of psychology than we intend. Dr. Hakel clarified that IAAP is not interested in identifying management for its activities so much as it is seeking operational and tactical support, in the way that SIOP operates between the leadership and staff. With the general agreement of the board, President McPhail acknowledged that SIOP appreciates our relationship with IAAP and wants to retain that goodwill, but that we must reluctantly pass on the opportunity to submit a response to the RFP. Dr. Hakel confirmed that he received this news on behalf of IAAP and is content with the SIOP Executive Board’s decision.


Mr. Nershi proposed to the board the adoption of a digital board portal to manage meeting notices, dinner RSVP, voting mechanisms, and Briefing Book and other document distribution. Dr. Sinar asked if this is separate from my.SIOP or anything else that SIOP already has, and Dr. Rupp asked if this could be built within NOAH. She asked if the purpose of association management software was to reduce the number of software systems that SIOP uses. Mr. Nershi replied that deploying state-of-the-art software built for the specific purpose of managing board activity makes more sense than pursing a custom solution. Dr. Sinar asked if we would need to expand the technology skill sets within the Administrative Office to deal with a new system, and Mr. Nershi replied that the new system would be easy to use by the staff and board. Dr. Hakel asked, and Mr. Nershi confirmed that it was intended for the board only, not committee activity.

The board asked Mrs. Lentz about the investment needed for a board portal, to which she replied that the fees are in the range of $4,000-$6,000 annually. Mr. Nershi said that a print version of the briefing book would still be printable by a board member if the individual so desired. Dr. Tannenbaum said that in a perfect world this functionality would exist within NOAH but that it is not worth paying JL Systems to do something they do not currently offer, and so a Board portal software seems like a good solution. Mr. Nershi agreed that sometimes it just makes sense to buy the best available software out there and use it for the specific purpose for which it was intended.

Dr. Sinar expressed surprise that NOAH does not meet this need and wondered how many additional software platforms we may seek going forward. Mr. Nershi said that a one size fits all solution doesn’t always deliver the best performance in every area. Dr. Alonso stated that at SHRM they use a combination of Personify and Netsuite for AMS, but they do not invest in any of the board management solutions offered by those companies, instead using Diligent Boards (a $35,000 solution). Dr. Knapp liked that the board portals have security features, and Dr. Kozlowski liked the archival aspect of it, yet cautioned about what could happen to data and documents if we move to another solution in the future. Dr. Tannenbaum said that we can make a one-year investment, and if it does not meet our needs then we simply do not renew the contract.

Dr. Hakel asked how a new board portal will differ from the former my.SIOP capability, to which Mr. Nershi replied that board members will be able to annotate documents, communicate with each other, assign tasks, schedule on calendars, and more. Dr. Knapp asked if you can access the materials offline, such as while on the plane, and Mr. Nershi replied positively. Dr. Hakel requested a visual demonstration, and Dr. Rupp asked if we could use a free trial to administer materials for the January meeting. Mr. Nershi said that a free trial is unlikely but that there are demos available.

Dr. Kozlowski asked if we can also consider something different than the Polycom equipment. He uses GoToMeeting to share documents and screens with up to 25 participants for $350 per year. Dr. Hakel added that the Executive Director search committee has liked using Zoom to record video and audio. President McPhail summarized that there is consensus on the desire to enhance technology, to which Dr. Tannenbaum confirmed that the excess reserves are a good use for such purposes. Dr. Sinar asked for quantification of the cost of preparation (paper, shipping, labor) of the existing Briefing Book. Mr. Nershi said that he would deliver a proposal in October.


President McPhail alerted Drs. Alonso, Barnes-Farrell, and Sinar of their sunset reports.


President McPhail asked about the action item requested in the APS Committee report. Dr. Sinar said that he had read that item but declined to ask for time on the board agenda to discuss it, as it seemed like a straightforward request without need for input. There is no board objection to sending the email to the SIOP membership that the APS Committee has requested.


Dr. Hakel announced a proposal from Dr. Cristina Banks for a mini-conference for I-O Leaders in the SIOP Health, Safety, and Well-Being (HSWB) Registry. He stated that the funding piece would come from the SIOP Foundation but the HSWB Registry carries the SIOP brand and so this request has an impact on SIOP, Inc. The SIOP Foundation budget is fully allocated through 2017 and so approval of this proposal would require external funding and the use of the pass-through funding model if the SIOP Foundation Trustees want to move forward in this direction. Dr. Banks wants the mini-conference to be an opportunity for strategic planning about how a registry or other self-organizing group in SIOP would go about doing its business to prepare for representation at a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) meeting.

Dr. Silzer indicated that he has shared his concerns already with Dr. Hakel, Dr. Sheldon Zedeck, and other SIOP leaders. He stated that Dr. Banks is currently trying to launch an institute at the University of California on this topic and so he is concerned that SIOP should not be funding university-based institutes. Dr. Silzer is also wary of setting a precedent of funding a special interest group within SIOP, and concluded with the a statement about the lack of interest in the topic of health, safety, and well-being amongst the current Professional Practice Committee.

Dr. Barnes-Farrell stated that there is a group of SIOP members interested in this field but acknowledge that there is confusion about if we are in competition with other groups on this. There is an increased effort in hiring I-O psychologists to fill positions that deal with the topic of health, safety, and well-being. Would an event like this keep SIOP in the game of thinking about health and well-being issues or is this too much of a niche conference? Dr. Barnes-Farrell and Dr. Wang have been involved in occupational health and safety associations and there is already a Work, Stress, and Health conference co-sponsored by APA and NIOSH. Dr. Wang confirmed that he is also confused about how the proposal would fit into existing activities in this space. Dr. Banks previously brought this idea to Dr. Wang in his National Science Foundation role, and he could not fund it as proposed. He wonders how this proposal differs. Dr. Kozlowski said that this is an emerging area for psychology and also a current area of interest for APA President Susan McDaniel. Dr. Kozlowski indicated support of the idea but concern about the detail.

Dr. Silzer said that the Jeanneret Symposium is a model for a special interest event but that in that case the funding came directly from Dr. Richard Jeanneret. Dr. Tannenbaum clarified that the event would be funded by the SIOP Foundation, not SIOP, Inc. President McPhail said that the intent of Dr. Banks was to present the purpose and agenda and to solicit feedback. Dr. Rupp expanded on Dr. Kozlowski’s prior statement that I-O in health care is an emerging topic and health, safety, and well-being is a pillar of our field. We are in a new paradigm, and this is a central area for our field, but she agreed with logistical and technical concerns about the event as proposed. Dr. Wang said that APA has always organized a practice portfolio area around this topic but because of the transition that it is experiencing there may be a vacuum which SIOP could fill. President McPhail suggested, and Drs. Rupp and Wang confirmed, that this topic is sufficient to be developed into a future Leading Edge Consortium. Dr. Rupp said that instead of asking the SIOP Foundation for funding perhaps SIOP could partner as a co-PI or subcontractor on external funding proposals in the model of the Corporate Social Responsibility Summit. Dr. Wang informed the board that European Union law requires all firms to do stress audits, so there may be pull for European practitioners. Dr. Hakel will convey board concerns to the Foundation Board at their upcoming meeting.


Dr. Hebl introduced a proposal from Dr. Steven Rogelberg for SIOP to assemble a blue ribbon task force to explore the feasibility of creating an online open-access journal dedicated to replication type studies. Dr. Hebl said that you need only look at his work to know how effective Dr. Rogelberg is. Dr. Brian Nosek published a 2015 article in Open Science Collaboration that 36% of published findings were replicated. This is an opportunity for SIOP to respond. The Laura and John Arnold Foundation gave $250,000 to APS to choose an article and produce a call, with results going into Current Directions in Psychological Science. Dr. Hebl requested the blessing of the board to move forward with the creation of a task force as an agent of the board and funding for the task force’s work. Individuals with an interest to serve include Dr. Rogelberg, Dr. Tammy Allen, Dr. Ron Landis, Dr. Donald Truxillo, and Dr. John Scott.

Dr. Oswald said that he had talked with Dr. Rogelberg at the inception of this proposal and confirms this is about doing good science. It has his support in spirit and finances. Dr. Tannenbaum said that the specific funding request should be identified. Dr. Kozlowski confirmed that this is an important issue, and he supports the idea of it, but has concerns regarding the right way to go about it and that as-proposed it is extremely narrow. He said that there are other journals doing this work already, so is this worth SIOP funding? Dr. Rupp said that she had also talked with Dr. Rogelberg about this. The request is for an open-access journal, which does not mean simple or without financial commitment. She said that if President McPhail staffs a task force it needs to be balanced and look deeply into the nuts and bolts of developing a journal.

Dr. Silzer indicated support for Dr. Rogelberg but thinks the proposal is too narrow. He has conversed with Dr. Wally Borman, who believes the problem with replication is overstated. Dr. Sizler said that if we are to consider developing a new journal then he would like to put the idea for a practice journal back on table. Dr. Kozlowski said that if we are considering a new journal then this could be part of something wider. Dr. Rupp suggested the task force consider other creative ways to promote the improvement of quality of science which may extend beyond the creation of a new journal.

Mr. Nershi pointed out that we should first determine if this is a good idea before having a task force look into the details of creating an open-access journal on this topic. Dr. Wang suggested that we use our existing IOP to explore replication. Dr. Kozlowski agreed, stating that part of the idea for the Practice Forum in IOP is if we build it, will they come? We could use the outcome as a model for exploration of replication. Dr. Oswald wondered if Dr. Rogelberg is committed to the idea even if it does not take the form of a journal. Dr. Wang supported the use of our existing journal platform so that we do not compete with ourselves.

President McPhail suggested that the board support naming a task force and charging the group not with creation of a new journal but with accomplishing the same purpose using alternative means (a forum, wiki, session at SIOP conference, etc.) Dr. Silzer desired a stronger case for the mission of reproducibility, to which Dr. Wang recommended review of the references listed in the proposal. Dr. Rupp supports Dr. Allen’s involvement on this and thinks that there is a role for SIOP to play in this discourse, particularly because it was Dr. Jose Cortina’s presidential theme. President McPhail questioned if the Scientific Affairs Committee might be tasked with this. He will draft a charge for the task force and circulate it to the board for feedback, as well as discuss with Dr. Rogelberg. Dr. Kozlowski requested the task force be charged to review the broad range of issues around credibility of science. Dr. Oswald indicated a desire to provide input.


President McPhail opened the floor for continued discussion regarding the collection and preparation of comments on the Principles revision. He suggested that the Professional Practice and Scientific Affairs Committees each review the draft and prepare their official comments for submission to the task force. We must also put the draft out to the SIOP membership and accumulate comments online. We do not know how voluminous the feedback may be but President McPhail estimated that it will be moderate to significant. Dr. Sinar suggested segmenting the draft to help tie comments specifically to portions of the document. This will identify what is drawing the most attention, along with general comments on the document as a whole. Dr. Knapp said that we could ask APA about their recent similar drafts out to comment. President McPhail said the he could talk with Dr. Dick Jeanneret about the last Principles revision to see how many comments were received. Mr. Nershi said that line numbers could be included to facilitate commenting. President McPhail said that using committees for input will give more eyes on this; we have two bodies that are a part of our governing structure with a vested interest in this particular document, and he wants to give them an opportunity, as a group, to submit formal feedback.

President McPhail asked what we expect the task force to do with comments? Are they only to review and take them under advisement as they see fit or should the task force be charged with responding to the commenting groups or individuals? Dr. Tannenbaum supported the task force reviewing comments and presenting a final draft to the Executive Board. President McPhail said that he would like a session at the Orlando conference about this. The deadline for completing the revisions is December 2017. Dr. Kozlowski suggested that such a session be more of a presentation of the final publication rather than sharing of a draft. Dr. Sinar reminded the group that the charter document approved by the board for establishing the composition of the conference program dictated how the Executive Board block is developed, so an independent vote would be necessary to add a session to the conference program. President McPhail stated that this would be a 50-minute session with Dr. Tippins and Dr. Paul Sackett.

ACTION: Dr. Sinar moved to add a conference session to the invited conference program block for the purposes of presenting the published revision to the Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures to the SIOP membership. Dr. Alonso seconded. The motion was unanimously approved.


Dr. Chao recognized Dr. Foster, as this was her last SIOP Executive Board meeting in her role as APA Council Representative, which was met with agreement by the board and appreciation expressed by President McPhail. Dr. Foster confirmed that it was her pleasure to have served.

Dr. Alonso moved to adjourn. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. The meeting adjourned at 11:37am.