Identifying and Prioritizing Indicators that are Effective in Improving Organizational Productivity in the Country's Tax Affairs Organization, Benefiting from the Experiences of Several Developed Countries

Abstract

This study aimed to identify and prioritize indicators that influence the improvement of organizational productivity within the country's Tax Affairs Organization, drawing on the experiences of several developed nations (Germany, America, France, China, Finland, Switzerland, Singapore, and Japan). The research methodology was descriptive (comparative-exploratory) and, in terms of its objective, was developmentally applied. A mixed-methods approach was utilized. Initially, in the qualitative phase, interviews with experts were conducted, and the data was analyzed through thematic analysis. Additionally, a systematic review of research literature and related articles from 2004 to 2024 was undertaken, following George F. Brady's (1969) four-step method (description, interpretation, neighborhood, and comparison). This approach identified factors that influence productivity improvement in the Iranian Tax Affairs Organization by drawing on the experiences of the eight aforementioned countries. Based on the identified dimensions and components, a research questionnaire was created and employed in the quantitative phase. In the quantitative phase, the researcher tested, validated, and calibrated the proposed model using the survey method with the questionnaire developed in the previous step. The qualitative findings indicated that 28 factors contribute to improving organizational productivity in tax organizations in developed countries, with 20 common factors identified for the Iranian Tax Affairs Organization. However, eight factors were found to be different and not present in the interviews conducted. The quantitative results revealed that, firstly, the relationships between the 28 identified factors in the research model were positive and significant at a 95% confidence level, based on path analysis. Secondly, the structural-interpretive model analysis indicated that the research model comprises five levels, with the fifth level being the most influential and the first being the least. Thirdly, model validation, using common fit indicators like GOF, Q2, and the results of a single-sample t-test for internal and external validity, confirmed the suitability of the research model. Finally, based on the research findings, recommendations and solutions were offered.