CASE STUDY 7: A Funeral in the Public Service Center Hal G. Rainey For many years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) followed a very bureaucratized process for handling claims. A “claim” is a request for services, such as a retiree’s application for SSA to begin paying his or her social security benefits (that is, to start sending monthly checks to him or her). Claims handling also involves many different functions, such as updating records, adding and deleting dependents and relatives from records, handling changes in the requests, and other matters. For years, the claims would be handled like this: a client (a citizen making a claim) would apply at a local Social Security Administration office, or by mail. The local office would forward the claim to one of eight public service centers (PSCs) in eight different regions of the country. At the PSC, a different unit would handle each different phase of handling the claim. One unit would receive the claim and route it to the others. Another unit had specialists, called claims authorizers, who would rule on the legality of the claim—did the person have a legitimate claim? Then a claim would be shipped, with a large batch of other claims, to a next unit that contained benefits authorizers, or specialists who would calculate how much the client should receive in social security payments. Then the claim would move to another unit for disbursement or payment of claims, and to another for filing and retention. This process was like a big assembly line, with the claim moving from one phase of the work to another. Congress added many programs and specifications to social security and related programs. At the same time, the nation’s population grew and became more complex. The claims-handling process got much more complicated, and this assembly-line system began to have problems, such as many delays in handling claims and many lost claims. As an example of the problems with the system, when a benefits authorizer would find that a claims authorizer had not provided all the information about a claim that the benefits authorizer needed, the claim had to be delivered back to the claims authorization unit that had previously handled it. Often, the returned claim went back to a different person from the one who worked on it to begin with. This resulted in slow processing and frequent mistakes. SSA went through a long period of trying to figure out how to resolve the problems, and finally decided to adopt a modular design in the PSCs. They put together in units, called modules, all the different specialists needed to process a claim—claims authorizers, benefits authorizers, typists, file clerks, and others. These groups worked together like teams. They would take a client’s claim and work it through to completion, so that they actually had the person as the client of their module—they could identify the clients as theirs. They could also communicate more readily with each other about any problems tha ...

1. CASE STUDY 7: A Funeral in the Public Service Center
Hal G. Rainey
For many years, the Social Security Administration (SSA)
followed a very bureaucratized process for handling claims. A
“claim” is a request for services, such as a retiree’s application
for SSA to begin paying his or her social security benefits (that
is, to start sending monthly checks to him or her). Claims
handling also involves many different functions, such as
updating records, adding and deleting dependents and relatives
from records, handling changes in the requests, and other
matters.
For years, the claims would be handled like this: a client (a
citizen making a claim) would apply at a local Social Security
Administration office, or by mail. The local office would
forward the claim to one of eight public service centers (PSCs)
in eight different regions of the country. At the PSC, a different
unit would handle each different phase of handling the claim.
One unit would receive the claim and route it to the others.
Another unit had specialists, called claims authorizers, who
would rule on the legality of the claim—did the person have a
legitimate claim? Then a claim would be shipped, with a large
batch of other claims, to a next unit that contained benefits
authorizers, or specialists who would calculate how much the
client should receive in social security payments. Then the
claim would move to another unit for disbursement or payment
of claims, and to another for filing and retention. This process
was like a big assembly line, with the claim moving from one
phase of the work to another.
Congress added many programs and specifications to social
security and related programs. At the same time, the nation’s
population grew and became more complex. The claims-
handling process got much more complicated, and this

2. assembly-line system began to have problems, such as many
delays in handling claims and many lost claims. As an example
of the problems with the system, when a benefits authorizer
would find that a claims authorizer had not provided all the
information about a claim that the benefits authorizer needed,
the claim had to be delivered back to the claims authorization
unit that had previously handled it. Often, the returned claim
went back to a different person from the one who worked on it
to begin with. This resulted in slow processing and frequent
mistakes.
SSA went through a long period of trying to figure out how to
resolve the problems, and finally decided to adopt a modular
design in the PSCs. They put together in units, called modules,
all the different specialists needed to process a claim—claims
authorizers, benefits authorizers, typists, file clerks, and others.
These groups worked together like teams. They would take a
client’s claim and work it through to completion, so that they
actually had the person as the client of their module—they
could identify the clients as theirs. They could also
communicate more readily with each other about any problems
that came up. There were some tough problems in implementing
this new system, but it worked out very well, and has become
the standard design in the PSCs.
Time passes and brings changes that require adjustments by all
people and organizations. Advances in information
technology—computers and communications technology—
brought changes for the SSA. The processing of claims became
more computerized. Local offices handle many claims by
entering the data directly into the main SSA computers in
Baltimore, and getting answers back directly. This reduced the
load of claims coming to the PSCs. In addition, the work in the
PSCs became more computerized and automated through higher
technologies. Claims authorizers and benefits authorizers
handled more correspondence by simply hitting a key on the

3. computer terminal that caused the needed correspondence to
print out. This reduced the need for typists. More information
was going directly into the computer, and requiring less
paperwork, and this reduced the need for file clerks to file the
papers. The modules needed fewer and fewer typists and file
clerks. This created problems, because if a module needed only
a couple of file clerks, and was only assigned two, the module
became more dependent upon their work habits. If both file
clerks were absent, the module managers had to do the filing to
keep the module’s work going.
Social Relations Among Specialists
. In the old system, a social and educational hierarchy existed
among the specialists. Benefits authorizers were the most highly
paid and highly trained, followed by claims authorizers, and
then by typists and filing clerks. The filing clerks were often
single mothers with low incomes and low educational levels.
They often struggled with serious personal challenges in their
lives outside of work. They would sometimes miss work or
arrive late because of child care problems. When SSA moved to
the modules, the move helped to break down social distance
between these groups. The file clerks would work directly with
the others, usually as friends and coworkers. Also, SSA tried to
move file clerks up the ranks through training and development
processes.
In one of the PSCs in the midwestern United States, the
assistant director (A.D.) of the PSC had an idea for responding
to the problem of the declining need for file clerks. He started a
new organizational design, in which file clerks were assigned to
special units, from which they would be farmed out, as needed,
to the modules. The design was something like the old idea of a
typing pool or secretarial pool. The problem was that the file
clerks felt isolated and demoted by being taken out of their
modules.

4. The A.D. learned of the file clerks’ unhappiness in a fairly
dramatic way. In his office one day, he received a request from
the members of the file clerks’ unit to come down to their office
area. When he arrived, he found the office draped with black
crepe and black balloons. A large black casket lay on a desk in
the middle of the room. The file clerks, dressed in funeral
clothing, began singing funeral hymns. A spokesperson for the
group came forward to tell him that they were there to hold a
funeral for the file clerks unit, to mourn the death of the file
clerks.
The A.D. was stunned. He had heard that the file clerks were
unhappy with the change he had made, but had not expected
such a development. He was not sure how to proceed. He was
not really sure what the “funeral” was supposed to mean or to
communicate, except that the file clerks were unhappy.
Questions were running through his mind. What should he do
right now, as he faced the file clerks and their funeral? What
should he do in the longer term? Should he discipline them? He
knew that people in other units would be very aware of how he
treated these file clerks and some would complain if he “let
them get away” with such disruption and insubordination.
Because of the problems mentioned earlier, that file clerks often
had with late arrival or absences, the discipline and work habits
of the file clerks were sensitive issues in the PSC.
Source:
This case was written by Hal G. Rainey, Alumni Foundation
Distinguished Professor, Department of Public Administration
and Policy, University of Georgia
Discussion Questions
Analyze the incident in relation to questions of values.
1a. What values was the A.D. promoting with the

5. change?
1b. What values were the file clerks emphasizing
through their behavior?
What motivation concepts and theories help you to analyze the
case?
What leadership concepts and theories help you to analyze the
case?
On the basis of your answers to the preceding questions, make
suggestions to the A.D. about actions he should take.
4a. What should he say and do, as he stands before the
file clerks at their “funeral?”
4b. Once he leaves the room and returns to his office,
what should he plan to do in the longer term?
4c. In advising him on actions to take, try to express the
relations between your advice and important issues about
values, motivation, and leadership.