The Clan CultureEssay title: The Clan CultureThe Clan CultureAs Cameron and Quinn describe each culture in great depth in the context of for-profit companies, this paper will summarize the cultures and apply them to the foundation setting. Starting from the top left box of the quadrant, the Clan culture is one that is similar to a family-run organization. The culture is marked by “shared values and goals, cohesion, participativeness, individuality, and a sense of we-ness” (Cameron & Quinn, 1999, p. 36). One would find a great deal of teamwork in these organizations, and a significant commitment to foster inclusion and having everyone’s voice heard. This culture might sound very appealing to foundation management. It might mirror the foundation’s values of inclusion and humility at every level. A Clan culture reflects a high value placed on flexibility and a strong internal focus. However, a foundation that finds itself squarely in this category might be failing to learn from communities and other stakeholders.
Clan cultures are more successful when the business environment is largely stable. For example, a company that intends on providing the same service year after year does not need to consult with its consumers on a daily basis. What it needs to do is reduce its labor and training costs. A Clan culture will do this, as employees are likely to take lower pay and stay around longer if they are receiving the emotional and social support that a Clan culture provides. A foundation must be internally focused enough to provide a level of participation among staff and to mirror its values of inclusiveness, but this focus must be counterbalanced by a commitment to also be outwardly focused and learn lessons that only community members and other external stakeholders can offer.
We consider work culture to be a part of the business life of a company, and work culture can be used interchangeably in different cultures. Our team understands the work culture of the business organization as a whole. This approach ensures that people can find work in a variety of industries, with individual choices, skills, experiences and culture. The result is that work culture can help make decisions and improve morale, productivity and co-operation. Our community-based works culture is as much a part of our business, as work culture, by which we say we can help people understand work culture, and work cultures can be used interchangeably for different business situations.
It is important to have a culture that is inclusive; for example, one that reflects the diversity of our community, while also being inclusive of the business environment. In doing so, we help others understand this value and that the process that they experience is meaningful, healthy and productive, and that they can develop their work and pursue their career through a meaningful and productive way. When this is done, we build a foundation by not being more inclusive but more inclusive of each other and with the community. The purpose of work culture is to help develop a culture where those in work are willing to collaborate, to be active (within community groups and organizations), and to create new ways of working with work cultures.
Workers do not live in a vacuum when it comes to value management; they must become a culture of value management, for example, by sharing responsibilities and sharing information in an effective way to reduce risks associated with work and enhance social engagement.
Workers are also good at being social; they have a great deal of respect for others and feel value as a whole, both in and out of work.
The value of work culture is one with which we are all in agreement.
It is important to build culture of trust and self-regulation in order to make good business decisions. Many industries are so diverse that working for one industry can be difficult, if not impossible, if not impossible, and there are a number of challenges with the way of business, such as new technology, automation, and the cost of maintaining that technology. One solution is to help create culturally stable communities to keep them all up to date on the process of making decisions about each individual company’s values and business goals and by taking the time to share knowledge, ideas and practices. If not, working professionally for one company will not yield work to others.
It is important to not forget that the value of work culture is universal. Any time one of us experiences a situation where a work culture is lacking, we recognize that most individuals, many of whom have never met a customer, and often others who have had similar experiences, must be taken to task for failing to follow their vision. We work hard to make that happen and to create an environment which encourages good work cultures for each of our employees, their families and in the community. Our work culture is built
The Adhocracy CultureThe Adhocracy culture is one that values innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship, and adaptability. Companies that succeed within the Adhocracy model are those that must change direction with little warning, rely on individual risk taking, and exist in a very dynamic environment. Cameron and Quinn offer examples such as aerospace, software development, think-tank consulting, and filmmaking. Effective management in this type of organization requires the ability to transform the stress that often accompanies uncertainty into a love for creativity and surprise. Individuals who succeed in these environments are those who are more concerned with being innovative than in being successful every time.
The Adhocracy culture would, from the outset, seem like a perfect fit for a foundation. While it is true that a foundation that functions with this type of culture may be very successful in spearheading innovative initiatives that create long-term change, foundation managers might want to pay attention to several potential pitfalls that this culture will create, namely the fact that innovative, long-time-horizon interventions might be more motivating to senior management than it is to rank-and-file staff members, and the fact that innovative practices might not align with the values originally envisioned by the grantor or the converting non-profit.
The Adhocracy Culture might motivate foundation management who are looking to the long-term, but it will not motivate the staff members who are working in a charitable environment because they are looking for the rewarding experience of being of service to individuals. While it could be argued that these types of workers should find employment in a public charity that provides direct service, management should not discount the large numbers of employees who are interested in creating societal solutions, and want to experience what if feels like to see the benefits immediately. While foundation staff should encourage the innovation that an Adhocracy requires, it must also realize that it will need to provide short-term “wins” for employees.
The Adhocracy model would most likely be very attractive to foundation managers, and the foundation that is committed to meeting the changing needs of the external environment would be well suited to this type of culture. However, foundations must balance this desire to be totally responsive and innovative with a sense of responsibility to the foundation’s original grantor and the community stakeholders. For example, while innovation should be the domain of foundations, they cannot responsibly bet large amounts of their corpus on a new, but unproven intervention style. Furthermore, conversion foundations, which are charged with spending money collected from the community (as opposed to a
) to give away a given contribution to an organization that is the most important to the Foundation, will be most reluctant to accept any money deposited by the foundation or other foundations. Furthermore, a
is unlikely to be considered an effective partner where the Foundation has to offer a more sustainable, consistent, and transparent platform, yet have already achieved the highest level of growth on the ground to date. Furthermore, there appears to be little or no commitment to developing or making an effective partner. A higher level of transparency and a public engagement approach is essential. It is possible that other foundations may feel they are not meeting needs for a less transparent, more transparent, and more effective model, and should start making sure that a higher level of the commitment to innovation is put into place. Such a model would be extremely unlikely to receive any support from any major international foundations at the moment. This could well lead to a more traditional Foundation in which the foundation is run by a more public-facing and professional board, and thus could lead to a smaller, less experienced, more dedicated, or more diverse Foundation, depending on the development of new initiatives. In particular, such a model will likely have an adverse effect on the development of the Foundation. As mentioned above, it is possible that philanthropy-like structures such as foundations will only succeed if they are highly transparent. They will fail if their mission and principles are overly complex or the foundation has low-level accountability because the Foundation needs to maintain its identity and maintain a foundation-wide governance of its operation. This process depends on very different criteria from one foundation to another to define their unique goals as well as the many challenges at the foundation level. It is important to note that this process can be very fast and expensive (for example, only a third of all world-wide donation efforts receive the attention of the International Digital Economy Commission or the General Staff of the ICEC). In the current paradigm, foundations and governments are not always going to get the broad approval of each other, as they may experience financial support short of reaching a consensus between the two countries. Such a model may work for many of the various international countries but it may be more effective for a few of them that the development of a more transparent governance model is more profitable.
4.8 The Open Source Infrastructure for Foundation Governance Principles The Open Source Infrastructure for Foundation Governance Principles (OSI) is an emerging technical principles (SDGs) that has developed over the years to ensure that foundation-level foundations can work together in a collaborative endeavor to achieve the vision of achieving the values defined in the Open Source Framework. The OSI is defined as: A set of principles that underpin the foundation, each of which represents a unique role, of the community (i.e., community governance) in the implementation of the