Case Study
Self-Directed Work team
It's hard to think of the Internal Revenue Service[1]as a service organization, let alone on thathas customers. But for the last decade or so, the IRS has actually devoted itself to customer service - in fact, the agency considers customer service to be a strategic business objective.
Realizing that the only way to achieve better service was through its employees, former IRScommissioner Larry Gibbs turned to the human resource department for help. In conjunction with the union, the HR department instituted a quality improvement process with more than400 formal task groups to identify and solve problems, then move to a strategy of continuous improvement in service.
Initially, the IRS formed four task groups (called "impact teams") that could be monitoredclosely for their effectiveness. Each group was small, about twenty members. A managerwas assigned as the leader. The groups were aligned by function, such as tax collection or criminal investigation, and tasks were specific and measurable, within the realm of each group's own work processes. Groups were required to use a structured decision-making model, and though consensus was encouraged, it was not a high priority.
Even with a rigid, closely monitored structure, the groups had to go through stages of development. Leaders and facilitators (who had separate roles within the groups) first completed special training sessions on small-group dynamics. But as the groups actually got going, members often discovered the theories weren't necessarily applicable because opportunities to practice them didn't always arise. So the groups had to find their own paths of development.
Eight months after the impact teams began working together, the IRS administered a questionnaire designed to measure their progress in effective small-group dynamics and communication. It seemed that three of the four groups were pleased with the way they had devolved, and most members had developed mutual acceptance, trust, and an ability to communicate and make decisions together. They said they valued being able to ask each other questions.
How productive were the groups? Those that tackled small, concrete projects first did the best. For instance, one team that was located in an area that served a high volume of taxpayers decided that service could be improved by ensuring that lunch and other breaks were taken on schedule - so they synchronized the office clocks every two weeks. Later, as the program expanded, different groups achieved the following; one created an automated database program that identified taxpayers who were liable for federal taxes so that state benefits could be withheld; one wrote a step-by-step employee handbook for preparing tax adjustments; and one made changes in a single tax form that reduced the taxpayer's time to complete it by nearly half. If we as taxpayers consider ourselves customers of the IRS, we can say that we are better served by an agency that has embraced groups to improve quality.
Questions
1. Why is it just as important for a government agency like the IRS as it is for a commercial business firm to rely on productivity groups to benefit the organization as a whole?
2. Do you think the rigid structure and close monitoring of the initial impact teams inhibited their development? Why or why not?
3. What characteristics of an effective group did the IRS impact teams have?
[1] The Internal Revenue Service an American governmental organization, its purpose is to collect the proper amount of tax revenue at the least cost.