Incorporation: A Coming of Age Jan 97

Two-four-six-eight, we are gonna' incorporate! The battle cry of Division 14 in the late seventies? Not really, we were much too sophisticated for that. But such a chant, delivered with a distinctly rebellious air, would have been in keeping with the mood of many Division 14 folks at the time. The gathering drumbeat for incorporation was sparked by dissatisfaction with APA. It was a dissatisfaction tinged, to put it mildly, with anger and frustration. Milt Hakel, a fomenter of incorporation activity, captures the conflicts and mood of the times very nicely in his piece in this issue. I had almost forgotten how much "fun" it was serving on APA Council in those years.

The incorporation of Division 14 and dissatisfaction with APA were tightly linked. It is unlikely that SIOP would exist today had our problems with APA been less severe. However, there were other forces at work, of a more fundamental nature, that also were fueling the drive for incorporation. There were signs in the Division's Executive Committees of the seventies of a growing eagerness to have the Division do more for the membership and the society at large. For example, the APA Convention had become mammoth in size. There was a yearning to have a meeting where I/O psychologists could have more contact. The discontent with the time spent parrying inappropriate initiatives from APA was particularly aggravating because it deflected energy we wanted to devote to advancing science and practice in our field.

Someone, I don't know who, suggested a seemingly innocuous organizational intervention in the Executive Committee in the mid-seventies. At that time, as now, there were three members-at-large on the Executive Committee. It was a great job. [I happened to be one myself, and loved it]. Members- at-large had no formal responsibilities beyond casting votes. The Executive Committee decided it was time to put them to work. In 1975 it formed the Long Range Planning committee, consisting of the three members at-large and the President Elect, who served as chair. LRP exceeded all expectations. It was not bogged down in the demanding work of running this rather active Division and "coordinating" with APA. With this freedom and a broad charter it developed into a hotbed of ideas for new directions for the Division. It also proved to be quite effective in prodding the Executive Committee to adopt new activities and directions. The teaming of the in-coming president, another cushy job, with LRP gave a continuity to ideas and action, a sufficient time span, to enable the Executive Committee to bring major projects that spanned years to completion.

Another important set of players in the developing push for incorporation were the Division's Representatives to APA Council. This was the hardy band of vocal Division 14 reps who engaged in oratorical flurries and intricate parliamentary maneuvers to keep others in APA, particularly the Council, from "helping" us in ways that we didn't appreciate. We were a powerful force in Council for our size. (Division 14 had four seats in a Council that totaled about 100 representatives.) Fortunately, we were not alone; other scientist-practitioner Divisions had similar concerns. Our reps reached out and formed a coalition with these like- minded Divisions. Consistent with the revolutionary fervor of the day, it began meeting under the banner of the January 27 Coalition. The name was later changed to the more descriptive but less flamboyant Scientist-Practitioner Coalition.

One of the main concerns of our Council Reps and LRP was the buzz developing during the mid-seventies for a reorganization of APA. Two concepts attracting attention and controversy were federation and assemblies. These approaches called for the establishment of organizational units broader than divisions. Proposals for 2, 3, 4 or more such groupings of divisions provoked heated discussions, such as the contrasting views of Humphreys (1976) and Siegel (1976) on federation that appeared in the APA Monitor. Among the touted goals of a reorganization was an alignment that would enable Divisions to focus attention on issues germane to them and allow for a redistribution of power. The possibility of greater Divisional control over its own affairs and field was a major carrot. This advantage appeared much more illusive to some than the potential threats embedded in the proposals. A major concern of Division 14 was that none of the proposed groupings appeared to offer a home. The Division appeared to fall between the cracks, with its members scattered across assemblies. The big downside risk was the potential dissolution of Division 14 by default. This threat, as much as anything, prompted discussion of mergers of divisions and the formation of the Scientist-Practitioner Coalition. Perhaps, the thinking went, the Coalition could become an assembly should APA actually restructure itself.

This renewed interest in reorganization led to the establishment of a Commission on Organization of APA, known informally as the "Blue Ribbon" Commission. Ken Clark was a co-chair of the Commission, and I was a member. The first thick set of documents to arrive in the mail included a review of previous attempts to reorganize APA. It was a sobering experience for those expecting the Commission's work to lead to changes in APA. Many groups had examined the organization of APA, beginning in the 1950s. There was a disturbing pattern of inaction following these studies. Significantly, the Blue Ribbon Commission was the Commission on Organization, not re-organization. The Commission was established in 1978. Its major proposal was for the formation of two "sections" within APA, one for health care providers and the other for those identified with teaching and research. Member could join either or both. The proposal never made it past the Board of Directors. The Commission concluded its work in 1981 with a report recommending the ill-fated "Forums Trial" in Council. For many observers, cynical and not so cynical, this trial was a weak intervention for the purpose of showing that APA was open to change.

Other attempts at reorganization followed the demise of the Commission. Little was achieved. These discouraging outcomes resulted in the eventual formation of ASAP, the Assembly for Scientific and Applied Psychology, and, shortly thereafter, the American Psychological Society.

Creating SIOP

It was in this volatile setting that the idea of incorporating Division 14 emerged. Incorporation was first highlighted in the pages of TIP in 1979. The item was authored by an early and persistent spokesperson for incorporation, Milt Hakel. It begins with a disarmingly simple declarative sentence, "Now is the time for Division 14 to become incorporated as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology" (Hakel, 1979, p. 4). Milt described the advantages to be gained and invited member reactions to the proposal. In that same month, he made a similar proposal to the Executive Committee. He concluded it with a suggestion for a "straw poll" to be taken at the business meeting, and, if the results were favorable, the appointment of an ad hoc committee on incorporation.

Once raised, the idea of incorporation wouldn't go away. Nor, was it to be quickly resolved. The Division and its members were working through two transitions. True to the nature of transitions, each was laden with uncertainty, ambiguity and confusion. One transition was legal; the other focused squarely on the identity of the organization and its members. Any psychologist worth a license would know, at least in hindsight, that the identity issues would be the more difficult to resolve. And they were. We industrious psychologists are known for our knack with organizational matters. The legal issues would yield to our dogged pursuit in due time.

The discussion and debate on whether to incorporate spanned two years. It was a rare issue of TIP that did not give the topic substantial space. Although the straw polls strongly favored incorporation, there were a number of members who had difficulty endorsing it. A key reason was the perception that is was a step down a path that led to the eventual exit of I/O psychologists from APA. Division 14 did not have authority if incorporated to dissolve itself or secede from APA, but the Society could (Albright, 1981). One of the eloquent commentaries on the need to remain in APA was provided by Ray Katzell (1981), who reminded us of our identity as psychologists and that " . . . for Division 14 to quit APA (or threaten to quit) for these reasons is not only to declare independence from APA but to separate itself from the mainstream of psychology" (p. 13). Another related and contentious issue was the notion that incorporation would permit the Division to open up its membership, i.e., consider admitting professionals who either would not qualify for APA membership or had no interest in being a member of APA. The discussion of identity issues slowed the move to incorporation, but, as a source for reinvigorating the Division, it yielded one of the most important gains.

The thought of leaving APA was anathema for most of the supporters as well as the opposers of incorporation. The supporters saw incorporation, among other things, as a way to reduce the risk of a de facto loss of a place in APA and as providing a home should APA shatter. The Executive Committee wanted to remain affiliated with APA. The Division's officers worked intensively to modify APA in ways that would make it more compatible for I/O psychology. Vic Vroom, in a TIP presidential message in 1981, commented, "The first myth is that a vote for incorporation is somehow a vote for separation from APA." Later, in the same message, one in which he took a neutral position on the impending vote, Vic put his pen on the core attraction of the incorporation movement. He said, ". . . I am enthusiastic about the potential of incorporation as a means of strengthening identification with the division" (Vroom, 1981, pp. 1-2). As the discussion continued it became clear that the main objective of incorporation was to establish Division 14/SIOP as an organization that could function on its own, for reasons that extended well beyond concerns about a home in APA. The Division, with a better understanding of collectively who we were, wanted to take control of its own assets, programs and activities.

In the Spring of 1981 the LRP announced that the Executive Committee was recommending to the membership that the Division incorporate (LRP, 1981). LRP recounted the intensive process leading up to the announcement: determining the advantages and disadvantages of incorporation, presentations at the Open Forums in both Montreal and Los Angeles, polls of the Executive Committee and the membership, and several revisions of the Bylaws which were distributed for comment to the membership. It was time for the membership to decide -- yea or nay? A mail ballot was conducted, and the membership voted a resounding yea!

Finally, in 1982 the Division began to take the concrete steps necessary to have the Division incorporated. There were many things to be done, three of which stood out: filing of the articles of incorporation, obtaining tax exempt status, and the design of an accounting system appropriate for an incorporated society. People and money would be needed to pull it off. Many members worked on some aspect of incorporation, but those most involved at this stage were the LRP (Irv Goldstein, Jack Bartlett, Frank Schmidt and me), Art MacKinney, and Gini Boehm, the Secretary - Treasurer. The anticipated cost, around $2500, appears insignificant by today's standards, but the total income of the Division was only $35,000 in 1981-82. One of the strong challenges posed by those opposed to incorporation was that it would cost too much and provide little return.

Our first tack was to see if APA would provide the legal support we needed. Central Staff at APA was seemingly unconcerned about our incorporating, except for some possible tax implications. After months of indecision on the part of APA, we opted to go it alone. APA did give us an estimate of the fees -- $4500!

Time was evaporating. Tax status issues were taking too much of our energy. In March the leadership of the task force was clarified. Irv Goldstein, conveniently located in D.C., was named chair. Gini Boehm, Jack Bartlett, Art MacKinney and I rounded out the group. Irv was to take the lead on legal services. Gini had the task of establishing a set of books that would satisfy the accountants. The last crucial step was to get the funding approved by the Executive Committee. At the May meeting they approved an expenditure of $2500. We were on our way.

The group met with Peter Lipresti, an attorney with Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg & Casey in D.C. This firm had particular expertise in the incorporation of professional groups. Irv developed a very good working relationship with Mr. Lipresti. The work went very smoothly, with Irv and Gini carrying the brunt of the effort. I believe we even came in close to budget. Art, Gini and I had the pleasure of being named as the initial directors of the Society. On June 18, 1982 the signed Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Recorder of Deeds in Washington, D.C. SIOP was born!

The Aftermath

Some months later two events assured me that SIOP was indeed a reality. One was the appearance of a mere symbol; the other was a simple administrative transaction. The symbol was the new logo on the first edition of TIP published by SIOP. For me, it signified the beginning of a new period that boded well for I/O psychology. The logo, by the way, came to us from the artists at the University of Maryland. Jack Bartlett stimulated a contest of sorts, and the winning design was created by Susan Jackson and Les Bodian. Ann Howard and her associates at AT&T put it into final form. It looks even better in anniversary gold.

The second event was a letter I received from Past-President MacKinney on Division 14 letterhead transferring all assets of the Division, $56,000, to SIOP. Not a lot of money, but we now had control of our funds.

It took another year or two to put many of the necessary systems and services into place, such as establishing the proper books, IRS recognition of our exempt tax status, collecting our own dues, and hiring our first employee for the SIOP office. A third event still draws warm chuckles when members take to reminiscing, one that helped put these systems into place and make other new activities possible. At the business meeting in 1983, the Executive Committee, with some trepidation, asked the members to approve a large dues increase. Surprisingly, no one raised an objection. Then a hand shot up, and the faces on the podium grew a bit tense. This member stood up, said the proposed dues increase was too small to carry out SIOP's ambitious plans, and made a motion to raise the proposed dues another couple of dollars higher! It was greeted with enthusiasm and passed. Never had I seen such an outcome for a proposed dues increase. Well, that's Division 14, oops, SIOP, for you.

It should be obvious, if you have read this far, that I am hardly an unbiased observer of the incorporation effort. Yet I expect few would disagree with the assessment that SIOP has thrived since incorporation. The astute readers of TIP, of course, will not let me get away with attributing all of the good things that have occurred since 1982 to incorporation. Division 14 was always a robust, successful organization. However, it is worth noting a few of the unusual accomplishments of SIOP, which just might not have happened without incorporation.

I will mention only two. Immediately after incorporation the Scientific Affairs Committee placed top priority on doing something major to foster research and scholarship. It was to be an antidote to the tremendous effort the Division had to give to the many practice issues besieging us. The result was the Frontiers of Industrial and Organizational Psychology series. The second was SIOP's annual conference. This was high on our wish list, but it was a very risky venture. The Executive Committee decided to go ahead when SIOP was still operating on a shoestring. And to think we fretted over our ability to pay for going it alone as an incorporated society. This time we were betting the farm. Kudos to Irv Goldstein and his committee for launching the annual conference so successfully. It is still awesome to sit among that sea of people at the conference luncheon each year.

Finally, it is liberating to be well beyond our concerns about survival. APA never approved the Commission on Organization proposal for a two section model. It happened anyway, except that one section was formed outside of APA. SIOP is affiliated with both, APS and APA, and its members can join either. Not a perfect solution, but one that has let us maintain our identities and prosper.

There is plenty to celebrate this anniversary year. I can't wait to see what SIOP will do next.

References

Albright, L. (1981). Costs of incorporating Division 14. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 18(3), 8-9.

Hakel, M.D. (1979). Proposal to incorporate as the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 16(4), 4-5.

Humphreys, L.G. (July, 1976). Federation--Yes! APA Monitor, 2.

Katzell, R.A. (1981). To leave or not to leave (APA). The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 18(2), 12-13.

Long Range Planning Committee. (1981). Incorporation of Division 14. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 18(3), 10-20.

Siegel, M. (July, 1976). Federation--No! APA Monitor, 2.

Vroom, V.H. (1981). A message from your president. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 18(3), 1-2.