Transparency and organisational culture

Work with non-profits in Europe for any length of time and you will realise that they are no different from other types of organisation or community. There is as wide a range of styles of internal organisation amongst non-profits as there is amongst companies, or clubs, or neighbourhood associations, or possibly even families. Each of these ways of organising has an impact on internal transparency, the extent to which people within the organisation are aware of the work, the knowledge, the skills or the connections of others.

Internal transparency is often best seen from the outside. The philanthropist who approaches an organisation with an offer of help may be met by a well-informed, tightly coordinated team of people who can provide her with the information she needs. But she might equally be met by a junior fundraiser who has no real idea of what her colleagues are doing, and no power to convene those colleagues to find out.

The types of organisational culture envisaged by Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn occur across the non-profit sector in Europe, and will serve to illustrate the ways in which organisations handle internal transparency. They propose four models of organisational cultures (Cameron and Quinn, 2011, p 22–4):

• • The Clan Culture: ‘A friendly place to work…like an extended family’

• • The Adhocracy Culture: ‘A dynamic, entrepreneurial and creative place to work [where] … people take risks’

• • The Hierarchy Culture: ‘A very formalised and structured place to work’ governed by procedures

• • The Market Culture: ‘A results-oriented organisation. The major concern is getting the job done’.

This is emphatically not a book about organisational culture so we will not be debating here the pros and cons of different ways of modelling organisations. We simply use Cameron and Quin's typology as a structure in which to place examples of non-profit organisations in Europe and to illustrate the points about internal transparency.

Clan Charity

Clan organisations are places of ‘sensitivity to customers and concern for people’, say Cameron and Quin, where the leaders ‘are considered to be mentors and, maybe even, parent figures’. This should make them ideal organisations to build strong and lasting relationships with high-value philanthropists. Some do.