Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Winter Executive Board Meeting
Philadelphia Marriott Downtown
January 9-10, 2015
Present: Tammy Allen, Alex Alonso, Cristina Banks, Jose Cortina, Lori Foster Thompson, Milt
Hakel, Eric Heggestad, Deirdre Knapp, Laura Koppes Bryan, Steve Kozlowski, Rodney
Lowman, Kathleen Lundquist Fred Oswald, Jim Outtz, Deborah Rupp, Evan Sinar, Deborah
Whetzel. David Nershi was also present. Scott Tannenbaum arrived Saturday.
Absent: Allen Church, Mo Wang.
CALL TO ORDER AND OPENING COMMENTS
President Cortina called the meeting to order at 3:33 pm. He thanked the board members for
attending. He welcomed Deirdre Knapp, a new member of the board and congratulated Jim
Outtz and Deborah Rupp for their election to president-elect and publications officer,
respectively. He also congratulated the other new officers, Financial Officer/Secretary Scott
Tannenbaum and Membership Services Officer Mo Wang, who were not in attendance.
FINANCIAL REPORT
Dr. Lundquist introduced the financial report. We are a little ahead financially compared with
this time last year. SIOP has $2.6 million in assets, which leaves us more than $300,000 in
excess reserves. Our policy states that when reserves exceed by more than 10% the minimum
goal as of the close of the fiscal year, the Executive Board is to be notified for consideration and
possible approval to release excess funds We have a few proposals that will give us ideas for
what to do with this. We have sufficient cash. We are in good financial shape. If you look at the
financial report, we are $180,000 in a deficit, which is not unusual for this time of year because
we have not yet started to get many registrations for the conference. We are a little worse than
we have been in the past, and that is particularly due to member dues. Because we pushed earlier
last year for dues to be paid, they were paid in the last fiscal year instead of this one.
Sponsorships for the conference are up considerably, $40,000 ahead of last year. Investments
didn’t perform as well. We had higher meeting and travel expenses. All of those things are okay
because they are within the budget expectations. So the deficit will disappear as conference
registrations continue to come in. Dr. Banks asked how this compares to two years ago, since last
year was an anomaly. Dr. Lundquist said we compared the finances to two years ago, and we are
doing slightly worse, but we are spending money and investing in things that we were not paying
for two years ago, such as the work with Lewis-Burke and Associates. We did make some very
optimistic assumptions about what is going to happen with the conference this year. Mr. Nershi
explained that we expect to see a higher number of registrations in Philadelphia. We opened
registration early last year. With Philadelphia, people don’t need as much advance planning. We
are still confident that Philadelphia will have high attendance. We should be looking at
approximately 4,000 attendees. Dr. Hakel noted that two years ago we were concerned that we
1
may have fewer members paying dues due to the dues increase. Dr. Lundquist noted that we
have made more revenue, so we may have less people renewing, but we’re making more money.
Proposals for Spending of Excess Funds. Dr. Lundquist said these funds can be re-invested, if
we choose. We do not have to spend $308,000. We have several proposals for use of these funds.
Dr. Lundquist explained SIOP’s policy for use of excess funds. Dr. Lowman explained that he
thinks it would be helpful in the future if those proposing ideas for use of excess funds have a
good idea of the policy and goals we have for using them. Mr. Nershi said people were asked to
explain how the proposals relate to our policy for using the funds. Funds may be expended to
1) furtherFurther one or more strategic goals of the EB, 2) invest in technology, and/or 3) provide
funding to the SIOP Foundation, Inc., to support the future of I/O psychology.” Dr. Lundquist
stressed that some of the proposals involve one-time investments and others involve ongoing
costs.
Proposal to Fund Travel of President-Elect and Past President to International Conferences.
Several members suggested reporting of any events by the attendees should SIOP provide
funding for the past president and president-elect to attend international conferences. Dr.
Kozlowski noted that since schedules would need to allow for the travel and the conferences do
not occur every year, it would be rare that all three members of the presidential trio would attend
an international conference. Dr. Hakel gave a brief description of some of these events. Dr.
Kozlowski noted that one of his goals when he becomes SIOP president is to strengthen
connections with other organizations, and this is not a terribly large amount of money, so this
seems like a good idea. There was further discussion. President Cortina said he would love to see
this become an ongoing part of the SIOP budget. Dr. Banks said it would make more sense for
these people to be attending different meetings instead of all going to the same one. She
suggested pulling together the benefits of this type of activity. There was discussion of how
much discretion there should be over who attends what. Dr. Outtz said he thinks the greatest
leverage comes from sharing research. SIOP is looked at as a global leader in I-O. President
Cortina noted that there are smaller conferences (as compared to EAWOP) at which SIOP could
have an impact. Dr. Hakel discussed the relationship to the Alliance for Organizational
Psychology and how it can be used to help decide where SIOP’s leaders can have a positive
impact and make international connections. Dr, Knapp noted that there are also domestic
meetings that SIOP could connect at. She would like non-international events to also be
considered by the leadership.
Proposal for Distinguished Awards Funding for the Best and Brightest of I-O Psychology. Dr.
Hakel explained a little bit about the history of the Foundation. This would be a one-time
expense of $115,000. We see this as a way to relieve SIOP of needing to use operating funds
totaling about $12,000 for awards each cycle. This proposal is not to soak up the whole amount.
It is to fund about $4,500 of that per year to support three Distinguished Awards. We have gotten
a good return on investment of our award funds. Dr. Outtz asked what the advantage of it coming
out of the Foundation is as opposed to SIOP. Dr. Hakel explained that because the Foundation
funds are endowed they are sustained based on investment revenue as opposed to member dues.
Dr. Lundquist explained that this would require an up-front investment, but it would relieve us of
paying this amount indefinitely. Dr. Hakel explained that there is a potential tax liability of not
spending the excess funds. Dr. Lowman suggested a slight revision of the proposal title.
2
Proposal to Fund Administrative Office Association Management Software (AMS). Mr. Nershi
explained that most associations use AMS. Right now we have a number of things on different
platforms and we work with a number of partners. We are trying to consolidate that. This would
allow us to consolidate our website CMS, sponsors, conference submissions, online community,
etc. SIOP staff and members would benefit from this and it would bring us in line with best
practices of associations. The cost is a moving target. It could be as much as $100,000. We only
have 7.5 full-time equivalent employees, but we have 8,000 members, so we are not really a
small organization in terms of AMS capability. We would be looking at a set-up fee of possibly
$70,000 and then an ongoing cost of $10,000-$20,000 per year. We have looked at a number of
providers. Right now we are having an issue with getting a platform that can handle our
conference submission software. With our external programmer leaving the business, we need to
find a program that will support our conference submissions. Dr. Banks asked if we would still
need programming done on top of the shell AMS. Mr. Nershi explained that we do not want a lot
of customization. We are looking for a highly configurable program. We are looking for one
AMS that will handle everything, but we might need a separate solution that can take the place of
our conference submission and program software. Mr. Nershi said he is also looking into
whether there is another programmer/consultant who could run the current Program Builder, but
ideally we would find an AMS that consolidates all of this. Dr. HeggestedHeggestad asked if the
vendors that would be replaced with the AMS would offset the ongoing $10,000-$20,000 cost.
Yes, the cost of eShow, DNN, and Moe Yassine (programmer) would go away. Dr. Lundquist
said she thinks it would off-set most but not all. Dr. Hakel said he would regard this as a mission
critical update. Dr. Lowman asked if we currently set aside funding for technology advances and
major expenditures. Mr. Nershi said we have budgeted for some ongoing expenditures, such as
computer upgrades. Dr. Lowman suggested a major technology fund for future use. Dr.
Lundquist explained that we do also always have the reserves to fall back on. Dr. Allen asked
how this ties into the new IT position at the Administrative Office. Mr. Nershi said this person
would help us manage this system and manage our needs in this area. We may not be able to
bring them on board fast enough to help with the implementation, but they would be involved.
Dr. Alonzo asked if we are looking into marketing capability, such as for sending emails, etc.
Yes.
Proposal to Invigorate LEC Attendance and Value by Aggressively Investing in High-Caliber
External Speakers. Dr. Sinar suggested putting a higher degree of investment into an external
speaker(s) for the LEC. He currently does not believe we provide the type of speakers at the LEC
who can bring in audiences inside I-O or outside of I-O. We need a mechanism for drawing
people to this event. This would be a more aggressive approach to promoting the LEC, and it
would not just include a speaker but a branding element to building up the LEC. The goal here is
to increase attendance at the event. We could make an incremental investment this year and then
decide whether or not to continue. Dr. Lowman asked if the assumption is that those speakers we
bring in would be more widely-known and appeal to a wider audience. Dr. Sinar said the
proposal is that this is an opportunity to increase visibility outside of I-O. Dr. Lowman said
paying the money to bring in a so-called “big name” speaker has not been very effective at
bringing in psychologists to these events. It would be worth tracking who these speakers bring
in. Dr. Lundquist asked if this would begin at the 2015 LEC. Dr. Sinar said he anticipated it
3
would not begin until 2016. Dr. Banks noted that HRPS holds their conference at the same time
as the LEC. So we would have trouble promoting to them.
There was discussion of whether or not there is evidence that big name speakers increase
attendance. Dr. Sinar explained that these speakers probably would not be able to command their
fees if they were not a draw. Mr. Nershi said the budget for speakers is very low, about $750.
Dr. Lundquist suggested this being a 2- or 3-year experiment to measure the impact on event
attendance. Dr. Alonzo explained that often the concerts at his SHRM conference motivate more
people to attend compared with big names like Hillary Clinton. So we need to know what
motivates people to attend the LEC. Dr. Banks asked, how do we grow the audience? Do we
need entertainment? Mr. Nershi explained that for the LEC, we might have people who would
drop in for a speaker and that the entertainment options might not be a draw. Dr. Sinar said he
believes there is revenue out there that we are not capturing. We are not on the radar of the
potential attendees. We need to find a distinctive way to rebrand the LEC. This is one proposal
for doing that. Mr. Nershi explained that we are also looking to make a change to the days that it
is held based on survey data. Dr. Banks suggested a friendly amendment to the proposal that
would expand the scope to not just focus on speakers but also anything that will increase the
audience. Dr. Lowman said we should probably also have more money in place for funding
speakers. Dr. Elaine Pulakos, the LEC chair, was supportive of this investment, but we have to
couple it with a broader brand push for the event.
Dr. Allen asked to what extent we want to increase attendance. It is supposed to be a small event
and we have had great attendance the last two years. Dr. Lundquist explained that we could get
more money out of each attendee. They are getting a bargain. Mr. Nershi explained that the large
cities we are holding the LEC in will also require more income from the event to make if
financially viable. I don’t think anyone wants to see this larger than 300 or 350 people. Dr.
Cortina said he thinks even smaller so that we can have break-out sessions. Dr. Outtz noted that
we need a better understanding of our intended audience. Dr. Allen explained that increasing the
fee would help ensure we are getting quality attendees. Mr. Nershi explained that when the LEC
was first launched the thought was to bring together I-O psychologists with business leaders, HR,
etc. Dr. Lundquist said we cannot fix the current underfunding for speakers without some of this
excess reserve money. Dr. Cortina agreed that we can discuss this further, but we need to send
them some money now. Dr. Lundquist said she didn’t think $10,000 was enough money. Dr.
Oswald said he would like to know what the intended uses would be. Dr. Outtz said he would
like to hear from Dr. Pulakos how much funding he would need. Dr. Lundquist said right now
the LEC is not really making its budget. It is a very successful event, but it’s running on a shoestring. We would attract different and possibly more people if we charged more for registration.
Other organizations charge about $1,000.
Proposal of an Honorarium for SIOP Living History Series 2015 Session. Dr. Oswald
explained that these are pretty distinguished people. All of these people are very advanced in
their careers and $300 might be insulting. Dr. Kozlowski said we have already been doing it as a
token. We don’t even have to do this anymore. Give them a plaque or a free room at the
conference hotel.
4
Proposal for SIOP 70th Anniversary Birthday Cake and Time Capsule. Dr. Lundquist noted
that SIOP could pay for this and the previous proposal within SIOP’s current budget.
Dr. Lundquist asked for a motion. Dr. Whetzel moved that SIOP fund out of the reserve fund the
Association Management Software proposal. This is very important to the functioning of the
society. Heggestad seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously
ACTION ITEM: Board approved funding out of the excess SIOP reserve funds for
Association Management Software for the SIOP Administrative Office for an exact amount
to be determined, but potentially for a total of $100,000 one-time cost and up to $20,000 per
year on an ongoing basis, to be offset partly by other cost savings.
There was discussion of when the money for the presidential travel proposal would have to be
spent and at whose discretion. Dr. Lundquist said the expenditure would be overseen by the
current presidential trio who would discuss how they would spend their $10,000. Dr. Oswald
made a motion, pending a plan that is presented by the presidential trio to the EB, to approve
$10,000 to fund travel to international conferences for SIOP’s president-elect and past president.
Dr. Allen proposed a friendly amendment that this be the post-SIOP 2015 conference
presidential trio instead of the current. Amendment accepted. Then this would be further
explored as to whether it would be necessary on an ongoing basis. Dr. Lundquist seconded the
motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved a motion, pending a plan that is presented by the presidential
trio to the EB, to provide $10,000 from SIOP’s excess reserves to fund travel to
international conferences for the SIOP president-elect and past president who will take
office at the 2015 annual conference.
Dr. Lundquist requested that the last two proposals, regarding the honorarium and 70th birthday
celebration, be funded through the regular budget cycle. Mr. Nershi said he will contact Dr.
Cucina and let him know we are fine continuing the current honorarium for the Living History
series and that we will find funding for the cake. Dr. Banks motioned that we appropriate
$10,000 to the LEC committee to use for the speaker fees for the 2015 LEC. President Cortina
asked if we are sure this has to be for speaker fees. Dr. Lundquist suggested that we defer action
until tomorrow when we have more information about what the LEC is in need of in terms of
funding.
Dr. Lundquist noted that she does not want SIOP to spend the full $308,000 of the excess
reserve. We have a lot of ambitious projects coming up and our budget is tight. There was
discussion of how much the Foundation proposal would require if the EB could not approve the
full amount. Dr. Hakel said the Foundation would be happy for a contribution that would cover
one Distinguished Award instead of all three. Even with less funding, the award would still be
endowed. Dr. Banks explained that she would like to see the funds directly spent on member
services. However, Dr. Oswald noted that one of the options for the spending of excess funds
was giving to the Foundation. Dr. Hakel answered that the money would eventually be spent on
the awards. Dr. Lowman suggested funding one third, so that they would fund one award at
about $38,000. Dr. Knapp said she would like to know what other ideas for proposals might be
out there. Dr. Lundquist said we could defer a decision on this. There was further discussion of
5
how much to potentially fund of the Foundation proposal as well as projected costs of the AMS
proposal. The Foundation is not currently paying for any of the SIOP awards. With this proposal
we wanted to transfer 3 of the 8 SIOP awards to be funded by the Foundation. Mr. Nershi
explained that providing funding to the Foundation could be beneficial to SIOP because the
Foundation could then use their own funds to sponsor educational programs for SIOP. Dr. Hakel
said we would probably eventually come back and ask for more money to fund future awards.
Dr. Oswald made a motion for SIOP to fund $35,000 of the requested amount for the Foundation
awards. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion. Dr. Cortina made a friendly amendment to increase the
amount to $40,000. Dr. Oswald accepted the amendment. Dr. Whetzel seconded. Drs. Hakel and
Banks abstained from the vote. Motion passed.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved $40,000 for the SIOP Foundation to be used to create an
endowment that will fund one SIOP Distinguished Award.
Dr. Heggestad motioned to approve the items in the consent agenda. Dr. Alonzo seconded the
motion. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved the consent agenda, including the following actions:
• Report on Interim Board Actions
• Approval of September Meeting Minutes
• 401K Plan Restatement
• Portfolio Officer Reports (Written reports requested. Items requiring EB action
will be considered under Other Matters.)
o Conferences and Programs – Evan Sinar
o Publications – Allan Church
o Communications – Alex Alonso
o External Affairs – Milt Hakel
o Membership Services – Eric Heggestad
o Professional Practice – Cris Banks
o Instruction and Education – Laura Koppes Bryan
o Research and Science – Fred Oswald
STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS UPDATE
SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
Big Data Guidelines. Dr. Oswald explained that there was a Big Date subcommittee to assess
the movement in this area. The committee suggested guidelines for use of Big Data. These are
not like the Guidelines for Personnel Selection, but they can be used for many purposes once
they are out there. We would like to get member opinions on this. There was discussion of the
use of the word “guidelines,” which has a technical meaning incongruent with the purpose of the
project. Various other terms were suggested instead, such as “guidance” and “best practices.” Dr.
Oswald explained that guidelines are not enforceable but they can be brought up in court as
professional standards. The group covered three issues: they describe what Big Data is first and
then split into privacy issues, informed consent, and integrity of data. The document then touches
many major points about how data are collected, typical uses, etc. They refer to APA several
6
times. One area not included that they are working on is the educational component. Given all of
this is happening, some of our grad students need to know more about data and data storing, etc.
They are proposing to send this out for further feedback. The target audience for now is I-O
psychologists. Dr. Knapp suggested adding more information about HIPPA and other regulations
that I-O psychologists may not be as aware of. Dr. Heggestad noted that it is important that we
note this is for I-O psychologists and no other professions. EB doesn’t need to take any action.
President Cortina adjourned the meeting at 5:47 p.m.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
President Cortina called the meeting to order at 8:16 am.
ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH
APA Council Rep Report. Dr. Whetzel explained that Dr. Rodney Lowman has been elected to
the Council Leadership Team as chair. We have also for a long time been discussing reducing
the size of council. No real decisions have been made. The apportionment ballot was sent out and
we have retained our four seats on council. We still have a 170+ member council. We are
looking into having conversations about mega issues, such as healthcare issues. It might not
seem to have anything to do with us, but to the extent that a hospital is an organization and has
employees, we can have a lot to say. Dr. Lowman said they will be making a lot of changes and
delegating a lot of those duties to an expanded Board of Trustees. The election results for the
new leadership team were announced December 27, and we have to plan meetings for February.
There was discussion regarding why APA would like to reduce council: to become more nimble
and make it easier to operate. There was discussion about some of the issues involved in
reducing the size of council. Division 14 and I-O psychology is well-represented.
The board moved into executive session at 8:40 am to discuss the Awards Committee
recommendations. The board resumed regular session at 9:24 am. Dr. Heggestad made a motion
to accept the committee recommendation on the William A. Owens Scholarly Achievement
Award. The motion was seconded by Dr. Lundquist. The motion was passed.
ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the committee recommendation on the William A. Owens
Scholarly Achievement Award.
The board returned to executive session at 9:25 to continue their discussion of the Awards
Committee recommendations. At 9:30 am the board returned to regular session. Dr. Bryan made
a motion, with a second by Dr. Kozlowski, to approve the Awards Committee recommendation
on the Raines Wallace Award pending confirmation and additional information. The motion
passed.
ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the committee recommendation on the Raines Wallace
Award.
7
Dr. Lowman made a motion to approve the committee recommendation on the Distinguished
Professional Contributions Award. The second was made by Dr. Lundquist. The motion passed
ACTION ITEM: Board accepted the committee recommendation on the Distinguished
Professional Contributions Award.
Dr. Bryan made a motion to approve the remainder of the Awards Committee recommendations.
Motion seconded by Dr. Alonzo. The motion was approved.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved the remainder of the Awards Committee
recommendations.
President Cortina made a motion, seconded by Rodney Lowman, for the Awards Committee to
draft a conflict of interest policy as it pertains to awards and bring it back to the Executive Board
for review. Following a second by Dr. Lowman, the motion was approved.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved a motion for the Awards Committee to draft a conflict of
interest policy as it pertains to awards and bring it back to the Executive Board for review.
A brief discussion ensued about the Statement and Guidelines on Professional Behavior within
SIOP and how it might be applied in the awards review process. A comment was made that this
policy should be explicit in the awards guidelines. Dr. Lundquist said she was uncomfortable
with the Awards Committee judging behavior. Dr. Lowman said more information is needed.
Dr. Knapp said she would like to see recommendations that would put more teeth into the
professional behavior policy. Dr. Kozlowski said additional detail is needed for the various steps
outlined in the policy. Dr. Lowman pointed out that APA has an ethics code which has been
adopted by SIOP as our ethics code. However, not all SIOP members are members of APA.
President Cortina said he would follow up with the SPARC Committee on this matter. President
Cortina said he would request that the Awards Committee provide additional detail in its report
to support its recommendations. This will make it easier for the Executive Board to understand
the decision making process.
The board moved into executive session at 10:14 am to discuss the recommendation of the SIOP
Fellowship Committee. At 10:47 the group returned to regular session. Dr. Hakel made a motion
to approve the SIOP Fellow recommendations. This was seconded by Dr. Kozlowski and
approved by the board.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved the recommendations of the SIOP Fellowship
Committee.
FINANCIAL REPORT (continued)
President Cortina summarized the discussion from yesterday. We have not been able to get in
touch with Elaine Pulakos. Dr. Sinar explained that he would like to consider investment in the
LEC that is more than just incremental. Dr. Sinar moved that the board allocate $40,000 to the
LEC to be distributed at the LEC chair’s discretion. It would revert back if not used and be
8
reported back to the EB after the first year. Dr. Hakel seconded the motion. Dr. Banks withdrew
he previous motion. Dr, Knapp noted hesitation with the amount of the motion. Dr. Lundquist
explained that there is potential to realize some payback of this investment, especially if we were
to increase the price. Dr. Kozlowski asked how we measure the success. Dr. Outtz asked, what
would a SIOP member think of us allocating $40,000 to the LEC? Do we have a list of what we
will be getting? Mr. Nershi said he sees this as a strategic move because we cannot continue to
lean on the conference. We are looking at increasing registration costs in Boston this year as an
intermediary increase to precede a registration increase to help cover the high costs in NYC the
following year. Mr. Nershi also noted that this is something we can do to appeal to practitioners
and veteran members who think the conference is too big, impersonal, etc. Dr. Lowman
explained that we will probably make up for a lot of this with increasing the registration fee.
President Cortina noted that another possibility might be that the $40,000 be broken down to be
used over several years. Then we could determine whether or not this has a benefit over the
course of more than one year. It needs to be clear that this is a one-time thing and that funds can
carry over to next year.
ACTION ITEM: Board approved a motion to allocate $40,000 to the LEC to be distributed
at the LEC chair’s discretion. It would revert back if not used and be reported back to the
EB after the first year.
OTHER MATTERS
Presidential Travel Money. President Cortina would like to attend EAWOP in 2015. That will
take place after his term of office. Dr. Hakel suggested paying for as much of the trip ahead of
time as possible so it can be paid in this budget year and then following through the financial
reporting procedure. Dr. Allen explained that she is not sure if expenses for presidential travel
have ever been reimbursed for trips that take place after the presidency. We are setting a
precedent. Dr. Cortina explained that he would be serving as past president of SIOP when he
attends, so he would not be attending the meeting as president. Mr. Nershi explained that we
have used presidential funds to pay for non-presidents to attend events. At EAWOP, they may
not make the distinction between president and past president. Dr. Lundquist said the question is
“should the money come from the $10,000 allocated yesterday or the actual presidential
budget”? President Cortina said he was planning for EAWOP to be one of his trips, so there were
things he didn’t attend because he wanted to be able to attend this event. He did not anticipate
any issues but would like the go-ahead of the board. Dr. Koppes Bryan explained that this is
what he should be doing as our president and past president. Let’s make it happen. Dr. Koppes
Bryan made a motion to pay for the registration and pre-event expenses out of the presidential
budget for this year and then SIOP would pay for the rest of the expenses out of the presidential
trio’s $10,000 when the time comes next year. Motion seconded by Dr. Knapp. There was
further discussion and the motion was withdrawn. Dr. Lundquist suggested President Cortina use
his presidential funds and anything else simply comes out of the aforementioned budget.
STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS (continued)
Licensure of Consulting and I-O Psychologists. President Cortina explained that there is a
taskforce of ASPPB (Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards) that is trying to
9
figure out how to get licensing procedures in place for I-O and consulting psychologists. We
were contacted by Gary Latham about this. Dr. Lowman explained that the intent is that ASPPB
is trying to be responsive to the request from Division 13 reps and possibly others because the
procedures in place in the model licensing act (ASPPB’s not APS’s) make it difficult for
psychologist who are in our profession or consulting to complete the post-doc hours requirement.
It sounds like they are trying to be responsive and accommodate the unique practices of people in
the I-O field. They are trying to come up with a “passport” with the states who sign this so you
can practice in any of those states. There are also many psychologists who deliver professional
services virtually to people in other states or countries. Some states want people who deliver
services virtually to be licensed in their home state as well as their clients’. Dr. Lowman
expressed the desire to have a SIOP representative at these meetings to at least monitor what they
are doing. Dr. Allen explained that there was another meeting report that dealt with accrediting
institutions. It dealt with the licensing of consulting as well as I-O psychologists. There was
further discussion of licensing. Dr. Banks noted that some states are not friendly to licensing I-O
psychologists. This is something that we need to be on top of. Dr. Allen read from the minutes
of a previous ASPPB meeting. She will send to the rest of the Board. This should be handled by
the SIOP Licensing, Certification & Credentialing Committee. No action needed. Dr. Banks will
ask the committee to look into this issue and put together a full briefing about the meetings with
recommendations.
GOVERNANCE
Proposed Bylaws Amendments Update. Mr. Nershi explained that an email has gone out to
voting members and that we have posted an article to the website. We have a discussion board on
my.SIOP. There is one proposal that is getting quite a bit of comments, with one person in
particular against and most of the rest in favor. We will send reminders. It is too late to change
any wording in the amendments, but this is for the information of the Board. He encouraged
them to read the comments.
Sunset Reports. Professional Practice Committee. Dr, Banks discussed the Professional
Practice report. Dr. Koppes Bryan asked if we know how many members access EBSCO. There
was discussion of the SIOP Research Access service. Mr. Nershi explained that it seems to be
growing in popularity and we will very soon be making up the cost. Dr. Banks said that she
believes the committee is useful and should continue. Dr. Allen motioned to approve the
recommendation. Dr. Oswald seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved the sunset report recommendation to continue with the
Professional Practice Committee.
Organizational Frontiers Series. Mr. Nershi explained that Dr. Allan Church (absent)
recommended to continue the committee. Dr. Lowman Moved. Dr. Hakel seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved the sunset report recommendation to keep the Organizational
Frontiers Series Committee.
10
Scientific Affairs Committee. Dr. Oswald explained that the committee has been a hub of a lot of
activity as SIOP has moved into performing more advocacy. He discussed the work of the
GREAT Committee and Lewis-Burke. He suggested adding more language into the
Administrative Manual about advocating for I-O as well as being explicit about representing
practitioners. We could also include more about making connections outside of SIOP. Dr.
Oswald noted that the advocacy series in TIP was very useful. Science Speed Mentoring has
started. Yes, we should continue to have the Scientific Affairs Committee. Dr. Hakel moved to
approve the recommendation. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved the sunset report recommendation to keep the Scientific
Affairs Committee.
The board broke for lunch at noon. Board resumed session at 1:01 pm.
SUNSET REPORTS (continued)
External Relations Committee. Dr. Hakel recommended that the committee continue. It is
fulfilling its charge. Dr. Knapp explained that things have changed a great deal lately. A lot of
committees now have involvement in advocacy efforts, and that was the original purpose of the
External Relations Committee. The GREAT Committee seems over-extended and some of the
things they have talked about doing are charges of the ERC. Can we coordinate ways for the
committees to share work? There may be a lot of work that the ERC can offload from some of
the other groups. Dr. Hakel agreed. Dr. Banks asked where Lewis-Burke falls. It would fall
under the GREAT Committee under Scientific Affairs, but it also cross-cuts the portfolios. Dr.
Banks explained that there was discussion about getting together the committees that work on
external relations and visibility initiatives to discuss these core areas. Dr. Allen explained that
they have tried to do this by setting aside time for the committee chairs to talk. She thinks each
committee chair should get a copy of the briefing book so that they can keep up to date on what
other committees are doing. Joan Brannick helped lead the discussion as facilitator a few
meetings ago when we had committee chair training. Mr. Nershi explained that they just look for
someone who has good board experience and are good at training. Could Dr. Allen do this at the
April meeting? Dr. Allen said she could do this. Dr. Allen said she will debrief with Joan
Brannick about training. Dr. Knapp moved to keep the ERC. Dr. Kozlowski seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEM: Approved the sunset report recommendation to keep the External
Relations Committee.
ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH (continued)
Update on Advocacy Efforts. Dr. Oswald said there is a lot going on and it is described in detail
in the report. White House Committee on Aging involvement is one of them. Lewis-Burke keeps
us very up to date with what they are doing in D.C. They are being very active and proactive, Dr.
KoslowskiKozlowski noted. If there is an issue that you know about, send it to Dr. Oswald to
send to Lewis-Burke. There was further discussion of Lewis-Burke’s efforts for SIOP. Dr.
Lowman commented that he would like to know how many people are attending the Lewis11
Burke events in order to evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts. Mr. Nershi added that we
have had a meeting with Lewis-Burke because our initial agreement with them will end at the
end of 2015. Dr. Banks asked if we were developing relationships with the government relations
people at universities. Dr. Oswald said it is worth exploring.
MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS
Update on Philadelphia Conference. Dr. Sinar noted that the program is together and moving
along well. We will have the celebration of graduation event, similar to what we had in Hawaii.
It will recognize recent and upcoming graduates. We think this event is important in engaging
our student members who will soon be eligible for professional membership. This may
somewhat address the attrition issues we have with students. Dr. Kristen Shockley has put
together a subcommittee to collect experience sampling data from attendees. We want to know
what sessions they are attending, where they are when they are not attending sessions, etc.
Conference registration and hotel rooms have been compared against two years ago since Hawaii
was a special case. So far we are a little slow on hotel and conference registrations. Many things
are down. Not to a concerning degree. We have seen strong sponsorship rates though, so we have
seen positive signs. Mr. Nershi noted that in general the picture is good. We are tracking very
well comparing to Houston.
Workshop Working Group Work. Dr. Sinar explained that the workshops have been losing
attendees. We are gathering data and surveying former attendees as well as non-attendees. We
have looked at, if we trimmed back expenses, which would have the least impact on satisfaction.
The effort is underway. Dr. Kozlowski asked Sinar to discuss the movement out of SIOP’s
Program Builder, which programs the events and sessions at the Annual Conference. You will
have to create an entirely new procedure manual when we move to a new platform. Dr. Sinar
noted that we will not be building it from scratch, however, because we will have a commercial
platform instead of customized. Dr. Kozlowski suggested we plan for training on the new
platform. This may mean trying to shadow the new program with the old Program Builder. They
are concerned and we need to recognize that. Mr. Nershi noted that the AO is working on this
daily. He is hopeful that the new system will be easier to use than Program Builder.
LEC 2015 Update. Mr. Nershi gave an update on the Leading Edge Consortium. The topic for
this year is Building a High-Performance Organization: A Fresh Look at Performance
Management. It will focus on driving a high-performance culture and case studies. This will be
October 2-3 in Boston. We hope the early date will help avoid any conflict with other events at
that time. Elaine Pulakos is chairing. They are currently looking at who will be the Marketing
Chair. They want someone who will aggressively market that event. We will get artwork by
January 15. We will continue to aggressively market this year. The committee is further ahead
than past committees in terms of planning. Looking ahead, we wanted to go to New York City
for several years. We are looking to go there in 2016. We have received a proposal to put on the
LEC in conjunction with CUNY. They will be agreeable to giving us the meeting space virtually
free, but there are a lot of logistical questions, such as lunch. There is a hotel nearby. If this is not
feasible, we will look at going to Chicago. Dr. Rob Silzer has put a lot of work into this. He
proposed himself and Allan Church as co-chairs. This is outside of our normal procedure. He
also proposed the topic, which would be high-potentials. This is not in our normal procedures,
but it might not be bad. Silzer was involved in the first LEC, which was a success. There was
12
further discussion of whether or not the procedure for choosing a chair and topic should be
followed. There was general agreement that we should continue to follow the process. Mr.
Nershi noted that we do need to act quickly if we want to be in NYC because the availability is
fleeting. Dr. Lundquist also noted that Brooklyn is not the place people think of when they
consider going to NYC. There was discussion of whether or not the event would ever be held on
the west coast. Then it could involve Silicon Valley. Dr. Hakel explained that the past two years
we have announced the HRM Impact Award winners at the LEC. Northshore Jewish Health
Systems from two years ago might be appropriate. All of these organizations have created
evidence-based practices and are deserving of some more recognition on the program.
National Registry of I-O Wellbeing Consultants. Dr. Banks distributed a proposal to establish
a national registry within SIOP. A few meetings ago she became aware of the value of putting
together a registry within SIOP of people who have a common interest. This proposal discusses
how to establish this type of registry. Mr. Nershi explained that the new Consultant Locator
program could be adapted fill this need. Mr. Nershi estimated that this would be about $5,000 of
extra programming work. It is an opt-in process and anyone can sign up. If you want to be part of
that group, you have to establish your own credentials within it. We would establish criteria for
how to establish your subject-matter expertise, such as curriculum vitae. This would be visible
externally. We could give Lewis-Burke a list of people who are interested in this topic area, for
example. We can have a number of databases. Mr. Nershi noted that we have something similar
now, Media Resources, which is set up in a similar way. Dr. Kozlowski explained that we have
had discussion of this in the past regarding advocacy and having an easy way to find experts. Dr.
Knapp noted a few reservations: it will be difficult to keep current and ensure that the experts we
desire are actually in it. Interest can fade in things like this. We need to ensure it lives in a
dynamic way. Mr. Nershi explained that this is also similar to Consultant Locator. We have been
able to get a lot of people on this by saying we will promote your services. We can’t force people
to do it. We do use some of the information from members’ SIOP records, so we can rely on
some of that to be complete. Dr. Banks explained that whoever is putting this registry together
will communicate the purpose for it. Many of these similar programs are not vetted at all. Mr.
Nershi explained that we would write a disclaimer. Dr. Outtz explained that he thinks that goes
against the idea of calling the people on the registry an “expert.” Most experts have enough
business and do not need to be on a registry. Dr. Banks explained that she is putting this together
for the external purposes. SIOP members are all experts. Dr. Tannenbaum asked whether this
was an expertise locator or an interest locator. There were friendly amendments to remove the
words “national” and “expert” from the proposed name. Dr. Banks accepted the amendments.
Dr. Kozlowski motioned to approve an expenditure of up to $5,000 to create a registry platform.
Dr. Cortina seconded. Mr. Nershi said this will not be hardbe hard costs, as the work can be
done internally. There was discussion of consolidating the registries with Media Resources,
Consultant Locator, etc. onto one platform. There was discussion of establishing criteria for the
Board to vote on whether to launch a new registry. Dr. Banks asked for approval from the board
to move forward on this. There was general agreement that the board approved of this initiative.
There was a request to gather analytics on Consultant Locator. We will be able to find $5,000
within the Administrative Office budget for this project. Dr. Oswald made a motion that SIOP
fund up to $5,000 to establish international registries starting with the well-being registry. Dr.
Heggestad seconded. Dr. Banks abstained. Motion passed.
13
ACTION ITEM: Board approved the development of online international registries of
SIOP members, beginning with a well-being registry, to be funded from the SIOP
Administrative office budget.
OTHER MATTERS
HRPS White Paper Proposal. Dr. Alonzo explained that HRPS (HR People & Strategy) is
hoping that SIOP can do a similar white paper series with HRPS as the one we have with SHRM.
We were trying to figure out what the overlap might be between SIOP members and HRPS
members. It is less than 10%. We want to make a proposal to HRPS that is broader than this
white paper series. We are having an exploratory conversation with the HRPS director. Is there
any programming they can set aside at their conference for SIOP members or white paper
authors? There is no action for the board at this time. We will bring our findings back to the
board. Dr. Banks explained that Edie Goldberg has wanted to strengthen relations for years
between HRPS and SIOP, but our conferences often overlap.
APA Center for Organizational Excellence. Dr. Banks explained that at the last meeting the
board tasked her to speak with APA and Center for Organizational Excellence leaders to talk
about having a SIOP advisory group with them to infuse I-O into their expertise. They are
excited to do this and want to have a person that speaks for SIOP. They tap I-O people thinking
they are talking to someone that represents SIOP and it turns out not to be. They would like a
long-standing group to advise them on I-O issues. Right now they are frustrated that they do not
have a party to work with. Dr. Banks will accept nominations for who will be on that advisory
group. The conversation will be mutually initiated. President Cortina said he would be
concerned that we would be wasting the time of SIOP members. Dr. Banks said they have a hard
time finding members to talk to. We have an Administrative Office that they can call. We have
council reps, etc. Dr. Lowman asked what a request would entail. Dr. Banks said it might be
something like suggesting speakers for open spots in an upcoming conference. Dr. Lowman
asked if this could be worked on by a current committee. Dr. Banks said she would like them to
have APA experience. Dr. Allen noted that in previous discussions we thought APA reps would
be good connectors. There was discussion of others who might be good at this job. President
Cortina emphasized that we would want “bread and butter” I-O experts with a broad coverage of
expertise in the group. Dr. Allen agreed that we should have a good cross-section of expertise.
President Cortina will appoint an advisory board.
President Cortina noted that Drs. Lundquist, Church and Heggestad will be cycling off the board.
He thanked them for their service. There were final wrap-up discussions. Dr. Alonzo moved to
adjourn. Dr. Oswald seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 2:46 pm.
14