Case Study ( 1000 words )

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 orso, the IRS has actually devoted itselfto customer service - in fact,the agency considers customer service to be astrategic 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 conjunctionwith the union, the HRdepartment 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 IRSformed four task groups (called "impact teams") that couldbe monitoredclosely for their effectiveness. Each group was small, about twenty members. A managerwas assigned as the leader. The groups were aligned by function, such astax collection or criminal investigation, and tasks were specific and measurable, within the realm of eachgroup'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 ofdevelopment. 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, membersoften discovered thetheories 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 theyhad 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 didthe best. For instance, one team that was located in an area that served a high volume oftaxpayers decided that service could be improved byensuring that lunch and otherbreaks were taken on schedule -so they synchronized the office clocks every twoweeks. Later, as the program expanded, different groupsachieved the following; one created anautomated 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 thatreduced 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 improvequality.

Questions: Must be 1000 words

1. Why is itjustas important for a governmentagency like the IRSas itis for a commercial business firm to rely onproductivity groups to benefit the organization as awhole?

2. Do you think the rigid structure and close monitoring of the initial impact teams inhibited their development? Why or whynot?

3. What characteristics of an effective group did the IRS impact teams have?