Management and Educational Perspective

Abstract This study was conducted with the aim of identifying the dimensions and validating a model of organizational capacity‑building to enhance human resource productivity. The research adopted an applicable purpose and employed a mixed‑method design. In the qualitative phase, semi‑structured interviews were conducted with 19 academic and executive experts in the fields of organizational capacity‑building and human resource productivity, selected through purposive sampling until theoretical saturation was reached. The data obtained from these interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis, leading to the extraction of basic and organizing themes.
In the quantitative phase, the statistical population consisted of all employees of Karaj Municipality in 2024. Stratified random sampling was employed, and data were collected using a researcher‑developed questionnaire designed based on the qualitative findings. Instrument validity was assessed through internal consistency, and reliability was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Data analysis was performed at both descriptive and inferential levels, including confirmatory factor analysis, by SmartPLS version 3.
The findings revealed that the organizational capacity‑building model for enhancing human resource productivity is grounded in five fundamental dimensions: individual capacity‑building, process capacity‑building, institutional capacity‑building, cultural and organizational learning capacity, and governance capacity. These dimensions encompass components such as the development of job‑related knowledge and skills, enhanced motivation and job satisfaction, innovation and continuous improvement, participatory leadership, technological infrastructure development, sustainable financing, inter‑organizational collaborations, promotion of a learning culture, strengthening ethical values and organizational trust, and alignment with legal frameworks and macro‑level policies. Overall, the results indicate that applying this model can facilitate the improvement of human resource productivity within Karaj Municipality.
Introduction
In the contemporary era, where non‑governmental institutions increasingly play a significant role in addressing social and economic challenges, organizational capacity‑building is considered an inevitable necessity. Given that more than 70% of the world’s population is influenced by non‑governmental institutions, empowering these organizations can contribute to improving the quality of life for millions of people (Molaei & Bandeali, 2020). Furthermore, in circumstances where global crises such as climate change and pandemics require rapid and effective responses, organizations with stronger capacities can emerge as key actors in addressing these challenges (Marzek, 2022).
Organizational capacity‑building refers to strengthening an institution’s capabilities and resources in order to enhance its performance and productivity. In non‑governmental organizations, this process is particularly important in improving human resource productivity. According to management theories, organizational capacity‑building enables institutions to achieve better outcomes by improving internal processes, enhancing employees’ skills, and creating a positive organizational culture. In this regard, organizations can employ effective capacity‑building strategies to improve service quality and increase their impact on society (Wang et al., 2020).
One of the major challenges in organizational capacity‑building is the shortage of financial resources. Organizations often face financial constraints that limit their ability to invest in capacity‑building initiatives and employee skill development. Reports indicate that more than 60% of such organizations are unable to implement their development programs due to insufficient financial resources. This challenge directly affects human resource productivity and leads to a decline in the quality of services provided (Flink & Chen, 2021).
Another challenge is the lack of managerial and leadership skills among organizational managers. Many institutions, due to insufficient training in management, are unable to establish effective organizational structures. This issue may result in difficulties in attracting and retaining high‑quality human resources and consequently affect the overall productivity of the organization (Jafarzadeh, 2024). Therefore, addressing these challenges and identifying effective solutions to overcome them is of great importance.
To address existing issues related to organizational capacity‑building and the improvement of human resource productivity in Karaj Municipality, comprehensive and multidimensional approaches are required. One effective strategy is the development of continuous and systematic training programs for employees to enhance their technical and managerial skills. Additionally, fostering a positive and participatory organizational culture can increase employees’ motivation and work morale. Alongside these measures, improving managerial processes and increasing transparency in decision‑making are necessary to strengthen public trust in governmental institutions. Considering these issues, the present study seeks to answer the following question: What dimensions constitute organizational capacity‑building for improving human resource productivity in the Karaj metropolitan municipality, and how valid are these dimensions?
Theoretical Framework
Capacity is a multidimensional and dynamic concept that can be examined at different levels and entities within an organization, including the individual, system, and organizational levels. Capacity can be considered both as a process and as an outcome. The concept of capacity‑building is also somewhat intangible. Theoretical information in the literature generally defines capacity‑building in broad terms and emphasizes its importance rather than providing a precise definition. However, practical insights obtained through discussions with practitioners more clearly and accurately explain the concept of capacity‑building through experiential understanding, measurement of different capacity elements, and evaluation of the effects of capacity‑building interventions.
Capacity‑building involves creating an enabling environment with appropriate policies, legal frameworks, and institutional development that includes community participation, human resource development, and the strengthening of management systems (Lafond & Watts, 2004). In general, capacity‑building refers to processes or activities that improve the ability of an individual or entity to perform tasks and achieve objectives (Lafond & Watts, 2008). For example, any activity, project, or organizational change that enhances the ability of an organizational system to produce positive outcomes can be considered a capacity‑building variable.
Capacity‑building is inherently multidimensional. Understanding it requires examining its elements, strategies, dimensions, and intervention mechanisms. Scott and Wolfe (2014) define capacity‑building along a spectrum ranging from broader to more specific interpretations. In a general sense, capacity‑building refers to any activity that enhances the ability of partners to perform their work or assist others in improving the lives of disadvantaged populations. This includes equipping organizational staff with the training necessary to effectively implement their programs (Mohammadi, 2022).
Capacity‑building also encompasses multiple levels, including the community and environmental level (empowering individuals), the organizational level (empowering non‑governmental and civil society organizations), and the network level (empowering networks that function as information and collaboration systems).
Research Methodology
This study is applicable in nature, and employs a descriptive–exploratory design, utilizing a sequential mixed‑methods approach (qualitative followed by quantitative). In the qualitative phase, the phenomenological exploration of experts’ perspectives and experiences was used to identify the dimensions and components of the research subject, ultimately leading to the development of a conceptual model. Participants in this phase consisted of 19 theoretical and practical experts selected through purposive non‑random sampling until theoretical saturation was achieved (interviews 20 and 21 yielded no new insights). The experts included university faculty members and senior officials of Karaj Municipality. Semi‑structured interviews, each lasting up to 40 minutes, were conducted to examine the dimensions, components, indicators, and the current state of capacity‑building for human resource productivity.
In the quantitative phase, all employees of Karaj Municipality involved in capacity‑building and human resource functions were targeted through stratified random sampling. Structural equation modeling was employed to determine the sample size. The data collection instrument was a 65‑item Likert‑scale questionnaire (ranging from 1 = very low importance to 5 = very high importance), developed based on the qualitative findings and divided into demographic and main sections. Validity and reliability in the qualitative phase were evaluated by Guba and Lincoln’s (1982) criteria—credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability—through participant feedback, auditing, and diverse expert viewpoints. In the quantitative phase, content validity was confirmed by specialists; discriminant validity was assessed by the Fornell‑Larcker criterion; convergent validity was evaluated through AVE values (> 0.5); and reliability was examined by Cronbach’s alpha.
Qualitative data analysis employed inductive content analysis with three‑stage coding (open, axial, and selective). Quantitative analysis involved descriptive and inferential statistics through SPSS, and structural equation modeling was conducted with SmartPLS at a 5% significance level.
Research Findings
The qualitative interviews reached theoretical saturation with 15 experts (7 academics and 8 managers). As a result, five main dimensions and 18 components of the organizational capacity‑building model were identified, forming a conceptual network framework.
The quantitative sample indicated that 67% of the respondents were male, 78.8% held a master’s degree, and 87.7% had more than 20 years of work experience. Discriminant validity was confirmed through the Fornell–Larcker matrix. Convergent validity was also verified, with AVE values greater than 0.5 and composite reliability (CR) exceeding AVE. Model fit indices (e.g., SRMR < 0.08 and NFI > 0.90) demonstrated an acceptable model fit.
The results of the structural equation modeling confirmed all hypothesized paths as statistically significant. The individual capacity structure—including knowledge development, motivation/job satisfaction, individual evaluation, and productivity—showed strong factor loadings, with the highest loading (0.816) related to motivation. The process capacity structure, consisting of innovation, transformational/participatory leadership, process improvement, and technological infrastructure, demonstrated factor loadings above 0.70, with leadership showing the highest loading (0.821). The institutional capacity dimension, which included formal structures, human resource policies, and inter‑organizational collaboration, had factor loadings ranging from 0.733 to 0.859, with collaboration showing the highest value. The cultural and organizational learning capacity dimension—comprising a culture of continuous learning, ethical values and trust, and productivity through culture and learning—showed factor loadings in the range of approximately 0.63. Finally, the governance capacity dimension—including legal and policy compliance, stakeholder support, and monitoring, evaluation, and learning—demonstrated factor loadings around 0.718 across its components.
Conclusion
This study confirms a five‑dimensional model of organizational capacity‑building for enhancing human resource productivity in Karaj Municipality: individual, process, institutional, cultural/organizational, and governance capacities. Together with its associated components, each dimension contributes to a comprehensive framework supported by significant structural paths and strong model fit indicators.
The findings are consistent with previous research emphasizing the importance of training (Greer et al., 2023), motivation (Jahanbaz et al., 2023), leadership (Apat & Mohapatra, 2025), human resource policies (Djazilan & Arifin, 2022), and cultural learning (Rommerskirch‑Manietta et al.). These results highlight the integrated role of multiple organizational capacities in strengthening human resource productivity within public sector institutions.
However, the study has several limitations, including the restriction of the sample to Karaj Municipality, the potential for respondent bias, and the rapidly evolving technological and managerial context. Future research could expand the model to other municipalities, employ comparative or longitudinal research designs, utilize social network analysis, and conduct cross‑cultural comparisons with other countries.
From a practical perspective, policymakers and managers should prioritize employee training programs, empowerment initiatives, technological infrastructure development, clear policy frameworks, and the promotion of a capacity‑building organizational culture in order to improve productivity and enhance the quality of public services. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge all individuals, institutions, and organizations that provided scientific, technical, administrative, or advisory support throughout this research and the preparation of this manuscript. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial, personal, professional, or institutional conflicts of interest relevant to this work. Data Availability Statement The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. AI Use Statement The authors declare that no generative artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies were used in the preparation, writing, or editing of this manuscript. Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other financial support were received during the conduct of this research or the preparation of this manuscript. Ethics Approval All procedures performed in this study were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible institutional and national research committee.

Abstract Abstract The present study aims to design a model of the dimensions of merit-based managerial governance with an intelligentization approach to the administrative system. In the qualitative phase, the research method was descriptive–exploratory, employing the meta-synthesis method. In the quantitative phase, a descriptive-survey approach was adopted using Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). The statistical population in the qualitative phase (meta-synthesis section) consisted of 415 articles in the fields of merit-based managerial governance and intelligent organizations. Using the Sandelowski and Barroso method, 45 articles were selected as the sample. Among 20 experts, 15 were purposively selected to participate in a focus group discussion regarding the dimensions of the model. In the quantitative phase, 15 experts were engaged to respond to the CASP questionnaire and complete self-interaction matrices within the framework of Interpretive Structural Modeling. The results of the meta-synthesis identified 38 components within 125 indicators. Through the focus group process, 20 components were categorized into 10 dimensions, including process governance, structural and organizational governance, managerial governance, ethics-oriented governance, economic and social governance, legal and regulatory governance, benevolent behavior governance, technology- and expertise-oriented governance, and political governance. Finally, using the Interpretive Structural Modeling method, the proposed model was designed and the types of variables were determined. Introduction After World War II, governance emerged as a new concept in the development literature. In 1989, the World Bank first used the term governance to describe the need for institutional reforms in African countries. Subsequently, the concept of good governance was used by the President of the World Bank to refer to efficient public services, a reliable judicial system, and an accountable government (Kamrani et al., 2023). On the other hand, in the knowledge era, intelligence is one of the undeniable requirements for organizational survival and represents the total knowledge that an organization possesses about the environment in which it competes. In fact, an intelligent organization should function as a system in which participatory decision-making is adopted, employee collaboration and team building are considered fundamental principles, and decentralization is encouraged in order to facilitate organizational learning and process integration (Mehdibeigi & Yaghoubi, 2021). In the contemporary era, attention to the characteristics of merit-based governance based on religious teachings and adopting them as a model is of considerable importance, as it can provide a guiding framework for Islamic governments (Tahmasbi Baldaji, 2023). Nahj al-Balagha, like a shining sun, has continuously illuminated the course of history, guiding sincere seekers of truth and satisfying the spiritual thirst of those in search of knowledge. Therefore, this study seeks to explore the concept of merit-based governance based on the teachings of Amir al-Mu’minin (Imam Ali, peace be upon him). Accordingly, the research question addressed in this study is: What is the model of merit-based governance for an intelligent organization based on the teachings of Nahj al-Balagha? To clarify the theoretical gap in the literature, previous studies such as Newman et al. (2022), Ismail and Al‑Assa’ad (2020), Dovali et al. (2023), Yaghoubi et al. (2022), Zohrabi et al. (2022), and Saberifar (2020) have examined factors related to intelligent governance, including the strength of democracy, smart businesses, social cohesion, policies and regulations, and intelligent economic competition. These studies have also discussed challenges of intelligent governance such as the lack of digital infrastructure development, gaps in data and statistics within governance systems, digital security issues, challenges related to digital literacy, weaknesses in inter-organizational information integration, and limitations in big data visualization and dashboarding in governance systems. Moreover, some studies have addressed elements of intelligent organizations, including intelligent mobility, intelligent living, intelligent people, intelligent economy, and intelligent environment. Furthermore, studies on governance within Nahj al-Balagha, such as those by Montazeri et al. (2018) and Rastegar and Mousavi Davoudi (2022), have identified factors such as religious transparency, behavioral transparency, structural transparency, economic transparency, rule of law, public participation, openness to criticism and accountability, responsibility and responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, and meritocracy as components of merit-based governance. However, a review of previous research indicates that most studies have examined good governance or merit-based governance separately. Few studies have attempted to design a comprehensive model of merit-based governance specifically for organizations. Therefore, considering the above, the main research question of this study is: How can a model of the dimensions of merit-based managerial governance be designed with an intelligentization approach to the administrative system? Theoretical Framework Merit-Based Governance Merit-based governance encompasses the mechanisms and processes through which citizens, groups, and civil institutions pursue their interests, exercise their legal rights, and fulfill their obligations. In general, governance emphasizes the concept of partnership rather than mere participation (Bagherzadeh Khodashahri et al., 2023). Intelligent Organization Intelligent organizations need to adapt to their environment in order to perform smart and timely actions (Hamidzadeh et al., 2023). In the global knowledge economy, the task of an intelligent organization is to address the problem of knowledge obsolescence by providing timely access to learning content and identifying the best ways to obtain knowledge resources that are increasingly distributed (Gope et al., 2018). The development of this concept toward becoming a society reflects the emergence of intelligent organizations (Mehdibeigi & Yaghoubi, 2021). Dovali et al. (2023), in a study entitled Designing an Organizational Intelligentization Model, stated that the categories related to the concept of intelligentization include tools for adapting to environmental changes, transformation into a learning organization, and the use of technology. The causal subcategories include organizational factors, human factors, technical factors, and economic factors. The contextual conditions include organizational culture, decision-making infrastructures, legal infrastructures, and business skills, while the strategic categories include decision-making strategies, economic strategies, cultural development, and the provision of infrastructures. Tahmasbi Baldaji (2023), in a study entitled Analyzing the Characteristics of Merit-Based Governance Based on Nahj al-Balagha, examined the key indicators of merit-based governance and analyzed them within cognitive, political, social, and economic dimensions. Intelligent Organization Intelligent organizations need to adapt to their environment in order to carry out intelligent and timely actions (Hamidzadeh et al., 2023). In the global knowledge economy, the role of an intelligent organization is to address the problem of knowledge obsolescence by ensuring timely access to learning content and identifying the most effective ways to obtain knowledge resources that are increasingly distributed (Gope et al., 2018). The development of this concept toward becoming a knowledge-based society reflects the emergence and expansion of intelligent organizations (Mehdibeigi & Yaghoubi, 2021). Dovali et al. (2023), in a study entitled Designing an Organizational Intelligentization Model, stated that the categories related to the concept of intelligentization include tools for adapting to environmental changes, transformation into a learning organization, and the use of technology. The causal subcategories include organizational factors, human factors, technical factors, and economic factors. The contextual conditions include organizational culture, decision-making infrastructures, legal infrastructures, and business skills, while the strategic categories consist of decision-making strategies, economic strategies, cultural development, and the provision of infrastructures. Tahmasbi Baldaji (2023), in a study entitled Analyzing the Characteristics of Merit-Based Governance Based on Nahj al-Balagha, examined the key indicators of merit-based governance and analyzed these indicators within the cognitive, political, social, and economic dimensions. Research Findings To analyze the research findings, the meta-synthesis method and Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) were employed. The results of the meta-synthesis indicated that 38 components were identified within 125 indicators. Through the use of a focus group, these components were consolidated into 20 components across 10 dimensions, including: process governance, structural and organizational governance, managerial governance, ethics-oriented governance, economic and social governance, legal governance, benevolent-behavior governance, technology- and expertise-oriented governance, and political governance. Finally, using the Interpretive Structural Modeling method, the proposed model was designed and the types of variables and their relationships were determined. Conclusion The present study aimed to design a model of merit-based managerial governance dimensions with an approach toward the intelligentization of the administrative system. The results of this study are consistent with the findings of previous studies, including those by Dovali et al. (2023), Tahmasbi Baldaji (2023), Manouchehri and Karimi (2023), Nasuri (2023), Alavian et al. (2023), Nohadi and Siahkali Moradi (2021), Montazeri et al. (2018), Falletta and Combs (2019), Pazireh et al. (2019), and Istudor et al. (2016). Nohadi and Siahkali Moradi (2021) indicated that the greatest difference between the two types of governance lies in accountability. There are also major differences in combating corruption; however, there is less divergence between the two governance types in terms of transparency and rule of law. Governance in the Islamic Republic of Iran differs from other governance systems in the world. The primary distinction lies in the fact that governance within an Islamic system must be grounded in Sharia principles. Another important issue concerning good governance is legislation. Lawmaking requires thoughtful consideration and research; therefore, since institutions such as the Guardian Council and some other bodies operate at the final stage of the legislative process, intermediary institutions should play a more active role in supporting the legislative process so that public issues can be addressed more accurately and effectively.