Home / Summaries / Class notes - Organisational design / compensatory-scrutiny-supplementary

Contrasting Goald - Artikel Hahn et al

5 important questions on Contrasting Goald - Artikel Hahn et al

Hahn et al also discusses two fits: the compensatory fit and the supplementory fit. How do these fits differ from Mintzberg?

The fit's of Mintzberg are more related to mechanisms including parameters and output. The fits of Hahn et al are related to different organizational goals. So, they differ conceptually.

Hahn distinguishes compensatory and supplementary fit. What is the difference?

Within compensatory fit the contrasting organizational goals result in different outcomes, which are not connected. One outcome compensates for the other. This way you increase your performance scope.

Within supplementory fit, the contrasting organizational goals result in outcomes which are more in the same direction. They are jointly valuable in achieving a certain outcome. Put it differently: the outcomes make each other more effective. This way, the performance scale is increased: goals are getting closer together in a way that you can be more in depth.

The nature of this is determined by research constraints and external contingencies.

Regarding CSP (Corporate social performance), Hahn et al distinguishes between instrumental rationale and moral rationale. What is the difference?

Instrumental rationale is about the business case. Motivation for CSP is extrinsically driven. Organizations only address social problems if they have an economic incentive.

Moral rational is about the moral case in which CSP is intrinsically driven. Organizations address social issues because they want to do the right thing.

The key take away of the article of Hahn et al is that it is important to take into account the external contingencies when making decisions between balancing and combination (compensatory vs supplementary fit). What should organizations do when striving for CSP and there is:
- Stakeholder uncertainty?
- Stakeholder scrutiny?

When there is stakeholder uncertainty it means that it is unclear which social issue will be most relevant and which will become dominant. To achieve successful CSP, organizations should balance between morally and instrumentally driven alternatives, corresponding with a more compensatory fit, using structural separation.

when there is stakeholder scrutiny, it means that stakeholders pay a lot of attention to the social issue. Then it makes more sense to make a combination of moral and instrumental driven alternatives, corresponding with a more supplementary fit, using linking mechanisms and climate reflexivity.

What are linking mechanisms as discussed by Hahn et al, related to CSP?

Linking mechanisms cause the structurally separated units corresponding with instrumental and moral driven initiatives to interact with each other. So, this is more in-between climate of reflexivity and structural separation.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

Organisational design

View summary