Journal articles on the topic 'Quinn and Boden Company'

AbstractThe present paper analyzes, through a case study, the organizational culture of a typical Romanian company from the textile industry. The company resulted from the privatization process, being a successful example in its field. The initial, socialist enterprise from which the analyzed company was created, had a long history prior to 1989; thus, although the newly created company has about 20 years of evolution, actually, the mother-company from which it was privatized has more than a decade of tradition.In order to collect data, we used two methods: direct, non-participative observation, together with a sociological survey based on a semi-structured interviewing technique. The interviews were conducted with the top managers - the strategic management and the managers from the human resources department, sales and purchasing departments. The observation and the interviews were undertaken during the period 2011-2012. For the analysis of the collected data, we used a systemization method and a theme-based organization of answers (specific to content analysis).The identification and analysis criteria for the typologies of the organizational culture were those used by Sonnenfeld (1988) and Quinn (1991). A protocol was established for all stages, including exploration, description of the situation, data analysis, typological classification of the organizational culture and interpretation. We conclude that the analyzed company has a mixed personality and hesitates between rigorous control and permanent adaptation, between the real and ideal image, between independent action and the need to wait for directions and reassuring control, a rather general characteristic of the Romanian culture.Although the managers seem to be in favor of a permanent and free adaptation to the threatening environment, control is always used as a precautionary measure. Moreover, the strategy of the company seems to privilege the maintaining of its structure and procedures and not the adaptation to the environment. The company is placed in different categories, for both models, at stated level comparing to the actual one, oscillating between Club and Baseball (for the Sonnenfeld typology) and between Hierarchical and Innovative (for the Quinn typology of organizational culture).

This study investigated the Norwegian translation of the Organizational Climate Measure developed by Patterson and colleagues. The Organizational Climate Measure is a global measure of organizational climate based on Quinn and Rohrbaugh's competing values model. The survey was administered to a Norwegian branch of an international service sector company ( N = 555). The results revealed satisfactory internal reliability and interrater agreement for the 17 scales, and confirmatory factor analysis supported the original factor structure. The findings gave preliminary support for the Organizational Climate Measure as a reliable measure with a stable factor structure, and indicated that it is potentially useful in the Norwegian context.

Purpose Literature highlights the impact of culture on managerial processes in general and the performance measurement system (PMS) in particular. However, understanding how organizational culture (OC) influences the PMS remains a challenge, especially in SMEs as in these companies the studies are very limited. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how OC influences PMSs in manufacturing SMEs. Design/methodology/approach To achieve the above purpose, a case study approach has been adopted. Four manufacturing SMEs with heterogeneous OC were investigated by means of companies’ documents reviews, participant observations and semi-structured interviews. A conceptual framework based on the competing value framework proposed by Cameron and Quinn (1999) and the PMS typology proposed by Garengo (2009) has been used to investigate the impact of OC on PMS. Findings According to the results, OC has a huge impact on PMS in manufacturing SMEs. The dimensions of “internal/external focus” influence strategy formalization, monitoring of the external environment and performance review. The “flexibility/control” dimensions influence the adoption of the balanced (or unbalanced) set of performance measures a company uses. Originality/value This paper contributes to clarifying how OC influences PMSs in manufacturing SMEs. Moreover, the study of interplay between flexibility/control dimensions and internal/external dimensions supports the identification of three theoretical propositions and four PMS types related to the four different OCs identified by Cameron and Quinn (1999).

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument well-known as OCAI commonly uses to describe the type of culture in a company. Using values framework as and instrument, this research attempt to find out what type of culture base on four culture type of Cameron and Quinn: Clan Hierarchy, Adhocracy and Market. Asking `89 of hotel staff respondent and applying on the framework, hotel staff exhibited Hierarchy culture as dominant in current situation and they preferred Clan culture for the future. This discrepancies between the current and preferred culture indicates that a change in culture, especially to clan culture. Result of culture perspectives between levels of hierarchy indicates staff and managers preferred to have clan culture. Culture profile on Six Key Dimensions of Culture (SKDC). Result showed that the overall scores and ranking were almost congruent in the current culture of all aspects. The preferred culture were reasonably congruent, Having clan culture dominating all aspects.

Plaster of Paris is a general term for gypsum plasters and gypsum cements. Plaster, which has been in widespread use for producing casts of fossils since the Nineteenth Century (e.g., Green, 1832; Ward, 1866), is easily used for making rigid, long-lasting, and inexpensive casts of study specimens, and for making field casts from natural molds. Good general descriptions of the use of plaster are given in Clarke (1938) and Rich (1947), as well as in many recent books on sculpture (e.g., Miller, 1971; Chaney and Skee, 1973; Andrews, 1983), and in various brochures distributed by manufacturers (e.g., United States Gypsum Company, 1987a, 1987b). Using plaster for casting paleontological specimens was previously discussed in works by Quinn (1940), Keyes (1959), Heintz (1963), Rigby and Clark (1965), Rixon (1976), and Chase (1979).

This research is to know the influence of organizational culture on employee performance division of account executive PT Agrodana Futures. PT Agrodana Futures is a futures trading company specializing in foreign exchange trading of Asian stock indices. The influencing variables are the organizational culture with dimensions that refer to Cameron and Quinn (2006) ie clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy. While the variables that are influenced is the performance of employees with dimensions that refer to the Dharma (2003) namely the quality of work, the quantity of work, and timeliness. The method of this research is descriptive quantitative by using nonprobability sampling technique that is saturated sampling. The results showed that organizational culture has a mean value of 4.444 and employee performance with a mean value of 4.3670 which means both are in the very good category. Meanwhile, the organizational culture of account executive division at PT Agrodana Futures gives 26.3% influence on employee performance.

In 2006, the Dublin-based theatre company Pan Pan went to China to produce a Mandarin version of J.M. Synge’s canonical Irish play The Playboy of the Western World. Director Gavin Quinn chose to set the adaptation in a hairdresser/ massage parlour/brothel, on the outskirts of Beijing. He originally wanted the protagonist to hail from Xin-Jiang, China’s troubled Sinomuslim province. In interview, he said he was advised against this for fear of Chinese state censorship. However, the Chinese translators, Yue Sun and Zhaohui Wang, suggest that the decision not to represent a Muslim protagonist had to do with ethnic sensitivities. In order to analyse this conflict, this article draws on translation sociology after Bourdieu, clarifying the functioning of the habitus, and formulating a global field of cultural production. It argues that analysis of intercultural processes focused on cultural capital can provide materially engaged insights into the power relations informing given intercultural situations.

Total quality management is an approach geared towards the organization’s efforts to continuously improve its ability to provide its customers with high quality products and services. In order for the organization to be able to ensure efficient use of resources, increase productivity and maintain excellent quality, it is necessary to develop quality culture. The aim of the research is to study and analyse the quality culture factors that might influence the continuous improvement and development of the organization’s activities. The research is based on the study of quality culture factors using literature review, qualitative content analysis and the “Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument” developed by Cameron and Quinn. On the basis of the results of a qualitative content analysis, the frequency of the categories of quality culture parameters in the literature was determined; with the help of the method of logical analysis and comparative analysis, the factors of quality culture corresponding to the parameters – dominant features, organizational leadership, employee management, organization glue, strategic goals and success criteria – were identified. An organizational culture based on quality culture principles is a significant factor for utilization of organizational competencies, creating an effective management and resource-oriented approach that is implemented focusing on the organization’s long-term interests and goals. By adopting a total quality management philosophy in the organization’s operations, the company can become more competitive, creating a working environment in which every employee can contribute, as well as facilitating cooperation between team members.

Culture and blockage is one of the important elements in company life, because it can make a significant contribution to the success or failure of an organization. The model used to assess the organizational culture is the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) by Cameron & Quinn. This model has four cultural types (clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy) and of the four cultural has 6 dimensions (dominant characteristic, organizational leadership, management of employee, organizational glue, strategic emphases, and criteria for success. Organizational blockage style is using Unblocking Organizational Questionnaire (UOQ) by Francis & Woodcock. This model has 14 blockages in organization (unclear aims, unclear values, inappropriate management philosophy, lack of management development, confused organizational structure, inadequate control, inadequate recruitment and selection, unfair rewards, poor training, lack of personal development, inadequate communication, poor teamwork, low motivation, and low creativity). In collecting the data, the sample used is 28 people by distributing questionnaires. The results of this study it was found that Bank “X” adopted adhocracy cultural. However, for the next five years they are expected to have a combination of different cultures namely market and clan culture. Market cultural dimensions will be the main focus in the next five years to improve target achievement. This cultural profile picture can be use as input for corporate to policy making to create organizational culture that compatible with the corporate’s vision dan mission. And for the result of blockage organization in the utilization of Human Resources in Bank "X" are poor trainning, unfair rewards and low creativity.

Abstract The economic environment in Romania faces a series of turbulences generated by the political and social environment, and an avalanche of changes and fluctuations can destabilize the activity of an organization. As a consequence, organizations need to be as flexible as possible, able to adapt and integrate any kind of change. In this regard, a manager must study the type of organizational culture found at the company level and the way it can influence the results of the organization. A detailed investigation method belongs to researchers Kim Cameron and Robert E. Quinn who have proposed a model of culture analysis that involves identifying the type of dominant culture and recognizing behaviours which are specific to organizational dimensions such as: organizational leadership, employee management, strategic direction, or criteria of success. The present paper aims to analyze the type of objectives managers set for their employees (namely the strategic emphases dimension) and how they measure results (the criteria of success dimension) at the level of a private company in Romania. Thus, following the application of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument proposed by the two authors, we identified the type of culture that characterizes the two dimensions, the connection established between them, the possible inconsistencies between the present and the desired situation as perceived by the employees, as well as the type of correlation between the economic and financial indicators and the cultural profile that identifies the success. Such an analysis is very useful as it identifies a series of inconsistencies between the way the goals are set by the managers and the way to measure success, the two dimensions being in a tight interdependence. Thus, a discrepancy between the two dimensions can lead to conflicts at the organizational level, with the manager having a tendency to set a series of objectives (e.g. individual objectives), in fact pursuing other results (such as team results). In this respect, the aim of this paper is to identify a correlation between the objectives targeted by the manager, the way he measures success and the satisfaction of the employees with the current situation.

AbstractObjective: This study is based on the analysis of three fundamental aspects of company and managerial life: the culture of organizations, the style of leadership and financial performance. Its focus was to question the connection between these and to devise a strategy that could be applied in Portugal, during 2017 and 2019, in industrial sector companies.Methodology: To do so, it was decided to start methodological analysis of the behaviour of managers and organizations operating in this environment, considering several classifications: multinational companies operating in Portugal and Portuguese companies with a strategy for and in the process of internationalization. On this basis the study problem was set at the level of managerial behaviour, bearing in mind that this varies depending on the type of organization in which managers’ work. The problem involves scientific, methodological, and cultural aspects that have already been demonstrated by several authors, whose considerations have been incorporated. The study was conducted in 16 companies operating in Portugal.Findings: The characteristics of leadership in the multinationals tend towards greater balance between the four roles of each of the corresponding quadrants, while in the national companies it tends to be more internally focused.Value Added: This difference could be related to what R. Quinn calls the Normal State of Leadership, which is focused on the comfort zone that the internal processes seem to generate; the multinational companies are more focused on external aspects and future development – Fundamental State of Leadership – centred on strategic dedication to clients and flexibility.Recommendations: Dedication to clients and flexibility, that we intend to link with Internal Marketing strategy drivers, considering the investigation ideas for this paper, as the demonstration if some different Leadership Styles influence the Financial Performance of the Companies or not.

Research background. Sponsorship and sports marketing have been in existence for years and now have been greatly expanded and developed. Organizers of major events can hardly expect to receive some funds without expecting to give something back in return. Historically, sponsorship originated as an inexpensive addition to the marketing mix and was perceived as a philanthropic endeavour. In other words, corporations classified sponsorship as a donation and it was not considered a ‘marketing expense’, but nowadays it has changed significantly (Abiodun, 2011; Seguin et al., 2005). The attitude changed with regard to sponsorship when corporations began searching for a return on investment from donations made to various organisations (Meenaghan, 1991; Ramanantsoa, Thiery-Balé, 1989; Wilkinson, 1993). This came after a substantial increase in resources allocated to sponsorship, meaning that sponsorship became increasingly recognised as a valid promotional tool, a business expense that needed justification in the form of Return On Investment (Seguin et al., 2005). In addition, we have to keep track of constantly changing information. Nowadays, sponsors are increasingly more strategic in their approach to seeking value from sponsorship opportunities. Therefore, it is meaningful to understand that sponsorship is beneficial for both sides. Sponsorship proposals, for sport organizations, can help to achieve investment opportunities for business enterprises. For sponsors themselves, sponsorship can achieve even the most important company goals, such as access to a new marketplace, increased sales, (which directly will bring the capability of an organization to grow), increased popularity, strengthened image. Nowadays, sponsors are increasingly more strategic in their approach of seeking value from sponsorship opportunities. Furthermore, it is very important to understand how sponsors decisions will affect all of the organization in a strategic prospect. This could take us to a better comprehension of the key areas to be considered in the development of sponsorship proposals. Many of sports sponsorship proposals are counterproductive, because not taking into account the existing relationship between sponsorship and companies strategies. Results and findings. Organization situation is the firm’s goals, capabilities and resources. In organizations one of the most important strategic goals is to increase popularity, strengthen the image, achievement on the new market segment resources (Mitchel et al., 2013; Lane, 2009). The company can be sponsoring sport events which can bring new markets to it, positioning against competitors and other objectives. Product – market situation is the product category comparison new to the marketplace, growing, maturing or declining (Lane, 2009). Sponsoring can help achieve new marketplace, increase in sales which directly will bring capability of the organization to grow. A company involved in sports sponsorships can send instant messages to millions of potential buyers, generate community goodwill part, but most importantly it can increase market share and profit (Bocse et al., 2012). Competitive situation is how many competitors there are. What are their characteristics and marketing methods (Lane, 2009)? In essence, sport sponsorship has become a powerful marketing strategy used by firms to communicate with vast external and internal audiences to differentiate themselves from competitors (Cornwell, 2008), with the ultimate goal to orienting consumer’s preferences toward sponsors’ products (Barros, Silvestre, 2006) (Biscaia et al., 2013). Companies that are able to successfully tap into a consumer’s psychological connectedness with a sports team and can become more meaningful to that consumer (Henseler et al., 2011), what makes benefits and extension for brands and relationship. Environmental situation is what industry-wide and company–specific environmental opportunities and threats are most important (Mitchel et al., 2011; Lane, 2009). Quinn defines strategic decisions as “those decisions that determine the overall direction of an enterprise and its ultimate viability in light of the unpredictable and the unknowable changes that may occur in its most important surrounding environments.” (Shank, 2009, p. 342). It is a two-way street for both the sports entity and the sponsoring organization whereby the latter, tends to associate itself or its brands with the positive images obtained by the unique personality of the sporting event (Abiodun, 2011). The advantage of image building, promoted in a long term strategy, lies in the impact it has on an audience – target accurately determined because of the fittest event (Bocse et al., 2012). In our research we define the scope of effect of sport sponsorship on sponsors and reveal the sports sponsorship opportunities and links in sponsors’ strategic planning. The research method is content analyses and systemizing based upon theoretical framework. Keywords: sponsorship, sport sponsorship proposal, strategy.

Alex Abou-Chebl, MD Michael Abraham, MD Joseph E. Acker, III, EMT-P, MPH Robert Adams, MD, MS, FAHA Eric Adelman, MD Opeolu Adeoye, MD DeAnna L. Adkins, PhD Maria Aguilar, MD Absar Ahmed, MD Naveed Akhtar, MD Rufus Akinyemi, MBBS, MSc, MWACP, FMCP(Nig) Karen C. Albright, DO, MPH Felipe Albuquerque, MD Andrei V. Alexandrov, MD Abdulnasser Alhajeri, MD Latisha Ali, MD Nabil J. Alkayed, MD, PhD, FAHA Amer Alshekhlee, MD, MSc Irfan Altafullah, MD Arun Paul Amar, MD Pierre Amarenco, MD, FAHA, FAAN Sepideh Amin-Hanjani, MD, FAANS, FACS, FAHA Catherine Amlie-Lefond, MD Aaron M. Anderson, MD David C. Anderson, MD, FAHA Sameer A. Ansari, MD, PhD Ken Arai, PhD Agnieszka Ardelt, MD, PhD Juan Arenillas, MD PhD William Armstead, PhD, FAHA Jennifer L. Armstrong-Wells, MD, MPH Negar Asdaghi, MD, MSc, FRCPC Nancy D. Ashley, APRN,BC, CEN,CCRN,CNRN Stephen Ashwal, MD Andrew Asimos, MD Rand Askalan, MD, PhD Kjell Asplund, MD Richard P. Atkinson, MD, FAHA Issam A. Awad, MD, MSc, FACS, MA (hon) Hakan Ay, MD, FAHA Michael Ayad, MD, PhD Cenk Ayata, MD Aamir Badruddin, MD Hee Joon Bae, MD, PhD Mark Bain, MD Tamilyn Bakas, PhD, RN, FAHA, FAAN Frank Barone, BA, DPhil Andrew Barreto, MD William G. Barsan, MD, FACEP, FAHA Nicolas G. Bazan, MD, PhD Kyra Becker, MD, FAHA Ludmila Belayev, MD Rodney Bell, MD Andrei B. Belousov, PhD Susan L. Benedict, MD Larry Benowitz, PhD Rohit Bhatia, MBBS, MD, DM, DNB Pratik Bhattacharya, MD MPh James A. Bibb, PhD Jose Biller, MD, FACP, FAAN, FAHA Randie Black Schaffer, MD, MA Kristine Blackham, MD Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH Cesar Borlongan, MA, PhD Susana M. Bowling, MD Monique M. B. Breteler, MD, PhD Jonathan Brisman, MD Allan L. Brook, MD, FSIR Robert D. Brown, MD, MPH Devin L. Brown, MD, MS Ketan R. Bulsara, MD James Burke, MD Cheryl Bushnell, MD, MHSc, FAHA Ken Butcher, MD, PhD, FRCPC Livia Candelise, MD S Thomas Carmichael, MD, PhD Bob S. Carter, MD, PhD Angel Chamorro, MD, PhD Pak H. Chan, PhD, FAHA Seemant Chaturvedi, MD, FAHA, FAAN Peng Roc Chen, MD Jun Chen, MD Eric Cheng, MD, MS Huimahn Alex Choi, MD Sherry Chou, MD, MMSc Michael Chow, MD, FRCS(C), MPH Marilyn Cipolla, PhD, MS, FAHA Kevin Cockroft, MD, MSc, FACS Domingos Coiteiro, MD Alexander Coon, MD Robert Cooney, MD Shelagh B. Coutts, BSc, MB.ChB., MD, FRCPC, FRCP(Glasg.) Elizabeth Crago, RN, MSN Steven C. Cramer, MD Carolyn Cronin, MD, PhD Dewitte T. Cross, MD Salvador Cruz-Flores, MD, FAHA Brett L. Cucchiara, MD, FAHA Guilherme Dabus, MD M Ziad Darkhabani, MD Stephen M. Davis, MD, FRCP, Edin FRACP, FAHA Deidre De Silva, MBBS, MRCP Amir R. Dehdashti, MD Gregory J. del Zoppo, MD, MS, FAHA Bart M. Demaerschalk, MD, MSc, FRCPC Andrew M. Demchuk, MD Andrew J. DeNardo, MD Laurent Derex, MD, PhD Gabrielle deVeber, MD Helen Dewey, MB, BS, PhD, FRACP, FAFRM(RACP) Mandip Dhamoon, MD, MPH Orlando Diaz, MD Martin Dichgans, MD Rick M. Dijkhuizen, PhD Michael Diringer, MD Jodi Dodds, MD Eamon Dolan, MD, MRCPI Amish Doshi, MD Dariush Dowlatshahi, MD, PhD, FRCPC Alexander Dressel, MD Carole Dufouil, MD Dylan Edwards, PhD Mitchell Elkind, MD, MS, FAAN Matthias Endres, MD Joey English, MD, PhD Conrado J. Estol, MD, PhD Mustapha Ezzeddine, MD, FAHA Susan C. Fagan, PharmD, FAHA Pierre B. Fayad, MD, FAHA Wende Fedder, RN, MBA, FAHA Valery Feigin, MD, PhD Johanna Fifi, MD Jessica Filosa, PhD David Fiorella, MD, PhD Urs Fischer, MD, MSc Matthew L. Flaherty, MD Christian Foerch, MD Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, FAHA Andria Ford, MD Christine Fox, MD, MAS Isabel Fragata, MD Justin Fraser, MD Don Frei, MD Gary H. Friday, MD, MPH, FAAN, FAHA Neil Friedman, MBChB Michael Froehler, MD, PhD Chirag D. Gandhi, MD Hannah Gardener, ScD Madeline Geraghty, MD Daniel P. Gibson, MD Glen Gillen, EdD, OTR James Kyle Goddard, III, MD Daniel A. Godoy, MD, FCCM Joshua Goldstein, MD, PhD, FAHA Nicole R. Gonzales, MD Hector Gonzalez, PhD Marlis Gonzalez-Fernandez, MD, PhD Philip B. Gorelick, MD, MPH, FAHA Matthew Gounis, PhD Prasanthi Govindarajan, MD Manu Goyal, MD, MSc Glenn D. Graham, MD, PhD Armin J. Grau, MD, PhD Joel Greenberg, PhD, FAHA Steven M. Greenberg, MD, PhD, FAHA David M. Greer, MD, MA, FCCM James C. Grotta, MD, FAHA Jaime Grutzendler, MD Rishi Gupta, MD Andrew Gyorke, MD Mary N. Haan, MPH, DrPH Roman Haberl, MD Maree Hackett, PhD Elliot Clark Haley, MD, FAHA Hen Hallevi, MD Edith Hamel, PhD Graeme J. Hankey, MBBS, MD, FRCP, FRCP, FRACP Amer Haque, MD Richard L. Harvey, MD Don Heck, MD Cathy M. Helgason, MD Thomas Hemmen, MD, PhD Dirk M. Hermann, MD Marta Hernandez, MD Paco Herson, PhD Michael D. Hill, MD, MSc, FRCPC Nancy K. Hills, PhD, MBA Robin C. Hilsabeck, PhD, ABPP-CN Judith A. Hinchey, MD, MS, FAHA Robert G. Holloway, MD, MPH William Holloway, MD Sherril K. Hopper, RN Jonathan Hosey, MD, FAAN George Howard, DPH, FAHA Virginia J. Howard, PhD, FAHA David Huang, MD, PhD Daniel Huddle, DO Richard L. Hughes, MD, FAHA, FAAN Lynn Hundley, RN, MSN, ARNP, CCRN, CNRN, CCNS Patricia D. Hurn, PhD, FAHA Muhammad Shazam Hussain, MD, FRCPC Costantino Iadecola, MD Rebecca N. Ichord, MD M. Arfan Ikram, MD Kachi Illoh, MD Pascal Jabbour, MD Bharathi D. Jagadeesan, MD Vivek Jain, MD Dara G. Jamieson, MD, FAHA Brian T. Jankowitz, MD Edward C. Jauch, MD, MS, FAHA, FACEP David Jeck, MD Sayona John, MD Karen C. Johnston, MD, FAHA S Claiborne Johnston, MD, FAHA Jukka Jolkkonen, PhD Stephen C. Jones, PhD, SM, BSc Theresa Jones, PhD Anne Joutel, MD, PhD Tudor G. Jovin, MD Mouhammed R. Kabbani, MD Yasha Kadkhodayan, MD Mary A. Kalafut, MD, FAHA Amit Kansara, MD Moira Kapral, MD, MS Navaz P. Karanjia, MD Wendy Kartje, MD, PhD Carlos S. Kase, MD, FAHA Scott E. Kasner, MD, MS, FAHA Markku Kaste, MD, PhD, FESO, FAHA Prasad Katakam, MD, PhD Zvonimir S. Katusic, MD Irene Katzan, MD, MS, FAHA James E. Kelly, MD Michael Kelly, MD, PhD, FRCSC Peter J. Kelly, MD, MS, FRCPI, ABPN (Dip) Margaret Kelly-Hayes, EdD, RN, FAAN David M. Kent, MD Thomas A. Kent, MD Walter Kernan, MD Salomeh Keyhani, MD, MPH Alexander Khalessi, MD, MS Nadia Khan, MD, FRCPC, MSc Naim Naji Khoury, MD, MS Chelsea Kidwell, MD, FAHA Anthony Kim, MD Howard S. Kirshner, MD, FAHA Adam Kirton, MD, MSc, FRCPC Brett M. Kissela, MD Takanari Kitazono, MD, PhD Steven Kittner, MD, MPH Jeffrey Kleim, PhD Dawn Kleindorfer, MD, FAHA N. Jennifer Klinedinst, PhD, MPH, MSN, RN William Knight, MD Adam Kobayashi, MD, PhD Sebastian Koch, MD Raymond C. Koehler, PhD, FAHA Ines P. Koerner, MD, PhD Martin Köhrmann, MD Anneli Kolk, PhD, MD John B. Kostis, MD Tobias Kurth, MD, ScD Peter Kvamme, MD Eduardo Labat, MD, DABR Daniel T. Lackland, BA, DPH, FAHA Kamakshi Lakshminarayan, MD, PhD Joseph C. LaManna, PhD Catherine E. Lang, PT, PhD Maarten G. Lansberg, MD, PhD, MS Giuseppe Lanzino, MD Paul A. Lapchak, PhD, FAHA Sean Lavine, MD Ronald M. Lazar, PhD Marc Lazzaro, MD Jin-Moo Lee, MD, PhD Meng Lee, MD Ting-Yim Lee, PhD Erica Leifheit-Limson, PhD Enrique Leira, MD, FAHA Deborah Levine, MD, MPh Joshua M. Levine, MD Steven R. Levine, MD Christopher Lewandowski, MD Daniel J. Licht, MD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH David S. Liebeskind, MD, FAHA Shao-Pow Lin, MD, PhD Weili Lin, PhD Ute Lindauer, PhD Italo Linfante, MD Lynda Lisabeth, PhD, FAHA Alice Liskay, RN, BSN, MPA, CCRC Warren Lo, MD W. T. Longstreth, MD, MPH, FAHA George A. Lopez, MD, PhD David Loy, MD, PhD Andreas R. Luft, MD Helmi Lutsep, MD, FAHA William Mack, MD Mark MacKay, MBBS, FRACP Jennifer Juhl Majersik, MD Marc D. Malkoff, MD, FAHA Randolph S. Marshall, MD John H. Martin, PhD Alexander Mason, MD Masayasu Matsumoto, MD, PhD Elizabeth Mayeda, MPH William G. Mayhan, PhD Avi Mazumdar, MD Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD Erin McDonough, MD Lisa Merck, MD, MPH James F. Meschia, MD, FAHA Steven R. Messe, MD Joseph Mettenburg, MD,PhD William Meurer, MD BA Brett C. Meyer, MD Robert Mikulik, MD, PhD James M. Milburn, MD Kazuo Minematsu, MD, PhD J Mocco, MD, MS Yousef Mohammad, MD MSc FAAN Mahendranath Moharir, MD, MSc, FRACP Carlos A. Molina, MD Joan Montaner, MD PhD Majaz Moonis, MD, MRCP Christopher J. Moran, MD Henry Moyle, MD, PhD Susanne Muehlschlegel, MD, MPH Susanne Muehlschlegel, MD, MPH Yuichi Murayama, MD Stephanie J. Murphy, VMD, PhD, DACLAM, FAHA Fadi Nahab, MD Andrew M. Naidech, MD, MPh Ashish Nanda, MD Sandra Narayanan, MD William Neil, MD Edwin Nemoto, PhD, FAHA Lauren M. Nentwich, MD Perry P. Ng, MD Al C. Ngai, PhD Andrew D. Nguyen, MD, PhD Thanh Nguyen, MD, FRCPC Mai Nguyen-Huynh, MD, MAS Raul G. Nogueira, MD Bo Norrving, MD Robin Novakovic, MD Thaddeus Nowak, PhD David Nyenhuis, PhD Michelle C. Odden, PhD Michael O'Dell, MD Christopher S. Ogilvy, MD Jamary Oliveira-Filho, MD, PhD Jean Marc Olivot, MD, PhD Brian O'Neil, MD, FACEP Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, FAHA Shahram Oveisgharan, MD Mayowa Owolabi, MBBS,MWACP,FMCP Aditya S. Pandey, MD Dhruvil J. Pandya, MD Nancy D. Papesh, BSN, RN, CFRN, EMT-B Helena Parfenova, PhD Min S. Park, MD Matthew S. Parsons, MD Aman B. Patel, MD Srinivas Peddi, MD Joanne Penko, MS, MPH Miguel A. Perez-Pinzon, PhD, FAHA Paola Pergami, MD, PhD Michael Phipps, MD Anna M. Planas, PhD Octavio Pontes-Neto, MD Shyam Prabhakaran, MD, MS Kameshwar Prasad, MD, DM, MMSc, FRCP, FAMS Charles Prestigiacomo, MD, FAANS, FACS G. Lee Pride, MD Janet Prvu Bettger, ScD, FAHA Volker Puetz, MD, PhD Svetlana Pundik, MD Terence Quinn, MD, MRCP, MBChb (hons), BSc (hons) Alejandro Rabinstein, MD Mubeen Rafay, MB.BS, FCPS, MSc Preeti Raghavan, MD Venkatakrishna Rajajee, MD Kumar Rajamani, MD Peter A. Rasmussen, MD Kumar Reddy, MD Michael J. Reding, MD Bruce R. Reed, PhD Mathew J. Reeves, BVSc, PhD, FAHA Martin Reis, MD Marc Ribo, MD, PhD David Rodriguez-Luna, MD, PhD Charles Romero, MD Jonathan Rosand, MD Gary A. Rosenberg, MD Michael Ross, MD, FACEP Natalia S. Rost, MD, MA Elliot J. Roth, MD, FAHA Christianne L. Roumie, MD, MPH Marilyn M. Rymer, MD, FAHA Ralph L. Sacco, MS, MD, FAAN, FAHA Edgar A. Samaniego, MD, MS Navdeep Sangha, BS, MD Nerses Sanossian, MD Lauren Sansing, MD, MSTR Gustavo Saposnik, MD, MSc, FAHA Eric Sauvageau, MD Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, FAHA, FAAN Sean I. Savitz, MD, FAHA Judith D. Schaechter, PhD Lee H. Schwamm, MD, FAHA Phillip Scott, MD, FAHA Magdy Selim, MD, PhD, FAHA Warren R. Selman, MD, FAHA Souvik Sen, MD, MS, MPH, FAHA Frank Sharp, MD, FAHA, FAAN George Shaw, MD, PhD Kevin N. Sheth, MD Vilaas Shetty, MD Joshua Shimony, MD, PhD Yukito Shinohara, MD, PhD Ashfaq Shuaib, MD, FAHA Lori A. Shutter, MD Cathy A. Sila, MD, FAAN Gisele S. Silva, MD Brian Silver, MD Daniel E. Singer, MD Robert Singer, MD Aneesh B. Singhal, MD Lesli Skolarus, MD Eric E. Smith, MD Sabrina E. Smith, MD, PhD Christopher Sobey, PhD, FAHA J David Spence, MD Christian Stapf, MD Joel Stein, MD Michael F. Stiefel, MD, PhD Sophia Sundararajan, MD, PhD David Tanne, MD Robert W. Tarr, MD Turgut Tatlisumak, MD, PhD, FAHA, FESO Charles H. Tegeler, MD Mohamed S. Teleb, MD Fernando Testai, MD, PhD Ajith Thomas, MD Stephen Thomas, MD, MPH Bradford B. Thompson, MD Amanda Thrift, PhD, PGDipBiostat David Tong, MD Michel Torbey, MD, MPH, FCCM, FAHA Emmanuel Touze, MD, PhD Amytis Towfighi, MD Richard J. Traystman, PhD, FAHA Margaret F. Tremwel, MD, PhD, FAHA Brian Trimble, MD Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD Tanya Turan, MD, FAHA Aquilla S. Turk, DO Michael Tymianski, MD, PhD, FRCSC Philippa Tyrrell, MB, MD, FRCP Shinichiro Uchiyama, MD, FAHA Luis Vaca, MD Renee Van Stavern, MD Susan J. Vannucci, PhD Dale Vaslow, MD, PHD Zena Vexler, PhD Barbara Vickrey, MD, MPH Ryan Viets, MD Anand Viswanathan, MD, PhD Salina Waddy, MD Kenneth R. Wagner, PhD Lawrence R. Wechsler, MD Ling Wei, MD Theodore Wein, MD, FRCPC, FAHA Babu Welch, MD David Werring, PhD Justin Whisenant, MD Christine Anne Wijman, MD, PhD Michael Wilder, MD Joshua Willey, MD, MS David Williams, MB, BAO, BCh, PhD, Dip.Med.Tox, FRCPE, FRCPI Linda Williams, MD Olajide Williams, MD, MS Dianna Willis, PhD John A. Wilson, MD, FACS Jeffrey James Wing, MPH Carolee J. Winstein, PhD, PT, FAPTA Max Wintermark, MD Charles Wira, MD Robert J. Wityk, MD, FAHA Thomas J. Wolfe, MD Lawrence Wong, MD Daniel Woo, MD, MS Clinton Wright, MD, MS Guohua Xi, MD Ying Xian, MD, PhD Dileep R. Yavagal, MD Midori A. Yenari, MD, FAHA William L. Young, MD Darin Zahuranec, MD Allyson Zazulia, MD, FAHA Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri, PhD John H. Zhang, MD, PhD Justin Zivin, MD, PhD, FAHA Richard Zorowitz, MD, FAHA Maria Cristina Zurru, MD