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.