Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Nadler Tushman Congruence Model: NYC Medicaid

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    For the Case Assignment, you will analyze the NYC Medicaid offices transformation using the Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model for organizational change. Through using this model, you will come to appreciate its ability to home in on all the key areas required to conduct organizational change, including how the key factors within an organization must be in "congruence."

    Drawing on the material in the required and background reading, prepare a 5- to 6-page paper (not including cover and reference pages) in which you:

    1) Analyze the Medicaid Case Study using the Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model.

    2) What limitations does the model have, and how did they manifest in this particular situation? What should be done to ensure that when using it they do not impact your analysis / change project?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 8:26 am ad1c9bdddf


    Solution Preview

    In compliance with BrainMass rules this is not a hand in ready paper but is only guidance.

    1. We analyze the Medicaid Case Study using the Nadler Tushman Congruence Model.
    We first consider the Nadler Tushman Congruence Model Inputs in the Medicaid Case Study. The main input from the environment is the patients (clients) served by the Medicaid offices. The key input is the human resources, both managerial and front level workers. The history of Medicaid offices is that it is a bureaucratic organization that has a hierarchy and is relatively slow in decision making. The strategy for change adopted by the top management was to signal a change and encourage change and not become a champion of change.

    The System components:
    The basic task of Medicaid offices was to process client (patients). The basic characteristics of individuals in the organization were they were rule following, formal, and specialized. There was a hierarchy in place. Individuals only performed the tasks they were supposed to perform. Decision making and the chain of command were well defined. The formal arrangements were in the form of a succession of tiers from the frontline workers to the top management. Each level at Medicaid offices had clearly defined authority and responsibilities. The informal organization at Medicaid offices also had a narrow focus on special expertise.

    The output and performance at Medicaid offices was unsatisfactory. The performance and effectiveness were below standard. The organizational structure at Medicaid office was such that it did not perturb the employees if the problem was outside their expertise. At the same time there was little scope for frontline employees to question the decisions of top management. The top managers often remained unaware of problems that existed several rungs down the organizational ladder. The group and intergroup behavior included conflict and dissatisfaction with the enrollment process of Medicaid. The system functioning at the organizational level was that the goals of Medicaid offices were not attained. The Medicaid offices were inefficient, consumer unfriendly, physically difficult to traverse, long client waiting times, and confusing ...

    Solution Summary

    The response provides you a structured explanation of NYC Medicaid offices and Nadler Tushman Congruence Model. . It also gives you the relevant references.