Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

131

Human Resource Development: A Model for AgriculturalFaculty Members in Iran

Morteza Akbari 1*, Seyed Mahmood Hosseini 2 and Babak Ziyae 1

Keywords: Human resource development,Personal development, Pro-fessional development, Ed-ucational development,Organizational development

Received: 24 January 2015,Accepted: 08 August 2015 Nowadays, there is an agreement among organizations that

reinforcing of education leads to the improvement of or-ganizational performance. The emphasis on the human capitalin organizations reflects the view that market values dependless on tangible resources, but more on intangible ones, partic-ularly human resources. The main purpose of this study was todesign a model for faculty members in public AgriculturalHigher Education in Iran. A survey method was used to collectdata from nine Public Agricultural Faculties in Iran. Sampleswere collected from faculty members using a simple randomsampling method (n=284) and a questionnaire was used as themain research instrument to collect data. Reliability and validitywere calculated using Structural Equation Modeling throughLISREL software, version 8.54 (above 0.7). Finally, a modelwas developed and tested for faculty members in AgriculturalHigher Education System in Iran. The findings showed thatcontextual variables (i.e. personal, organizational, social, edu-cational, and professional development) had direct impacts onthe process of Human Resource Development (HRD). Fur-thermore, personal and organizational development had directand indirect impacts on HRD (R2 = 0.70).

Abstract

International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development (IJAMAD)Available online on: www.ijamad.iaurasht.ac.irISSN: 2159-5852 (Print)ISSN:2159-5860 (Online)

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Iran.2 Professor, Faculty of Agricultural Economic and Development, University of Tehran, .Iran.* Corresponding author’s email: mortezaakbari@ut.ac.ir

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

132

INTRODUCTIONTo meet the challenges of globalization, high

technology, economic transformation, and in-ternational competitions, there have already beennumerous educational reforms and initiatives inmany countries located in the Asia-Pacific Regionand other parts of the world (Cheng, 2005). Ed-ucational reform is an international entity buildingup its effort and impact over the years. Reformshave taken somewhat different patterns of de-velopment in different countries, but there areimportant visible similarities across nations andcultures (Beijaard et al., 2005). Internationalreform emphasizes the standards for teachingand teacher education that has grown out of aninterlocked set of circumstances, with educationalresearch operating as a contributing factor. In acritique of the standard-based reform of teachereducation in the U.S., some researchers illustratesome common trends. They refer to the devel-opment of generic teaching standards by statesin Australia; the efforts toward development ofa national curriculum related to standards forboth students and teachers in New Zealand;and the attempts to standardize teacher preparationin Europe by developing a system of coursecredit that permits comparison of learning ex-periences for prospective teachers in differentnations.

There is an agreement among organizationsthat reinforcing of education leads to the im-provement of organizational performance. Inaddition, a large and growing body of evidenceshas demonstrated a positive relationship betweenthe development of human capital and organi-zational performance. The emphasis on thehuman capital in organizations reflects the viewthat market values depend less on tangible re-sources, but more on intangible ones, particularlyhuman resources. Recruiting and retaining ofthe best employees, however, is only a part ofthe equation. The organization also has to leveragethe skills and capabilities of its employees byencouraging personal and organizational learningand creating a supportive environment, in whichknowledge can be created, shared and applied(Stiles and Kulvisaechana, 2011). Recently,Shin and Harman (2009) indicated that “with

rapid socio-economic changes, the twenty-firstcentury’s higher education systems face majorchallenges in its governance systems, curriculum,mission focus, external relations, research, andfinancing” On the other hand, quality assurancehas become a critical issue influencing newregulatory agencies (Jeliazkova and Westerhei-jden, 2002).

In addition, there has been a growing concernabout student issues, effective instructional methods,and student’s career development. These challengescan be viewed as both threats and opportunities.In discussing the ongoing direction of higher ed-ucation, scholars have identified a variety of chal-lenges, but Shin and Harman (2009) hold dis-cussion on privatization, accountability and gov-ernance, internationalization, and rankings andworld-class university.

Many researchers indicate that the majority oforganizational change and development programsin the world either fail or are not wholly successfulin achieving their objectives, such as qualitymanagement and business process reengineeringprograms and information-technology-relatedchange projects, etc. (Holland and Aitken, 1999).Nowadays, basic and spread revolution in dif-ferent areas has exposed higher education tonew environment, so the vision of higher edu-cation should be changed to HRD, studentswith higher quality, and developing knowledgeboundaries with cultural and technological de-velopment.

According to Donnelly et al., (2002), in spiteof its long history, the notion of teacher devel-opment was not a concern of human resourcemanagement and development in education until30 years ago. By the mid to late-1970s, move-ments of transformation and innovation in edu-cation had brought vast changes in educationmanagers, teachers and other educators’ attitude.Since then, together with teachers' seeking fortheir professional growth and improvement, theopportunities available for their professionalismhave increased significantly.

Every year, teacher professional developmentand HRD programs are implemented in univer-sities all over the world. These programs areheld to serve the purpose of providing managers,

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

133

staffs, teachers and faculty members with thebest environment to develop their profession. Anumber of additional studies show a deepercore or essence operating in teachers over manyyears. Pobre (1996) has studied how teachersviewed their own teaching, how the teachersworked in the classroom, and how they relatedto mathematics in regard to their life as a whole(Donnelly et al., 2002). Pobre’s case studiesdescribe core motivations of teachers as beingin harmony with their personalities (Beijaard etal., 2005).

All professions require continuous updatingof knowledge and skills (Somers and Sikorova,2002). The teaching profession is no exception.However, although teachers and faculty membersgenerally support high standards for teachingand learning, they are not mostly prepared forimplementing teaching practices based on highstandards (Garet et al., 2001). Many teacherslearn to teach using a teaching and learningmodel that heavily focuses on memorizing facts,without any emphasis on deeper understandingof subject matter.

Nowadays, higher education is being driventowards commercial competition imposed byeconomic forces resulting from the developmentof global education markets and the reductionof governmental funds, forcing colleges anduniversities to seek other sources of financing.Higher education institutions have to be concernedwith not only what society values in terms ofthe skills and abilities of their graduates (Ginsberg,1991), but also skills and abilities of their facultymembers. The World Bank’s observation is un-derscored by the reality that the most valuableand crucial organizational resources are people.Among different factors affecting the HigherEducation System (HES), human resources (e.g.,lecturers and faculty members) have a dynamicrelation with other factors and play a core rolein promoting the goals of HES (Mirzaee, 2004;Sadeghi and Emadzade, 2004). In spite of thewide and comprehensive role of HR in organi-zational, national, and international development,some prominent studies showed the lack of re-search on higher education, especially on HESin Iran. Regarding the situation of higher edu-

cation and agricultural colleges in Iran, there isa crucial need for planning and implementationof comprehensive and systematic HRD programsand practices. The aforementioned need is basedon several factors such as the low professionaland pedagogical qualifications of agriculturalfaculties, the low morale among the faculty re-sulting from the lack of quality mobility, andthe poor promotion prospects. Moreover, littleis known about the attitudes of the faculty mem-bers related to HRD and its dimensions (Hejaziand Rostami, 2010;Hosseini, 1991; Sadeghi etal., 2009; Sadeghi and Emadzade, 2004). Atpresent, there is not eligible research in HRDdimensions and also there is a crucial lack in anappropriate model for HRD in HES. Therefore,the main purpose of this study is to determinedimensions the HRD of faculty members andto develop a model for faculty members in theaspect of human resources in Iran.

Conceptualizing HRD in Higher EducationSystem

Since the mid-1960s, HRD has been concep-tualized and defined in many different ways.As Mc-Goldrick et al., (2001) observed theprocess of defining HRD by academics, re-searchers and practitioners to be frustrating dueto the lack of clear boundaries and parameters,elusive due to a lack of depth of empirical evi-dence for some conceptual aspects, and confusingdue to confusion over the philosophy, purpose,location and language of HRD. As an academicfield, HRD remains segmented, incomplete,lacking comprehensiveness and coherence, withdiverse theories and models offering competingexplanations (Garavan et al., 2007). This suggeststhat a distinctive conceptual or theoretical defi-nition of HRD has not yet been established, andthis issue has hence become a subject of constantdebate and discourse (McLean and McLean,2001; Wang and McLean, 2007).

The process of defining HRD is made stillmore difficult by the evolving nature of HRD;for example, the term HRD started out as simply“training”, and then evolved into “training anddevelopment” (T&D), and then into HRD(Haslinda, 2009). There were different definitions

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

134

for HRD and many researchers have tried todifferentiate HRD from T&D (Garavan et al.,1999; Harrison, 2000).

The ambiguous and problematic nature of theconcept of HRD is reflected in the use of termssuch as the ‘emergent nature’ of HRD and inthe fact that ‘there are no universally accepteddefinitive statements of the meaning of HRMor HRD’ (Mankin, 2001). Are the two conceptsone and the same, or are they different, witheach demonstrating personal or unique charac-teristics? It has been argued that HRD andHRM are interrelated concepts, with HRM/HRDinterventions being described as ‘an integratedprocess linking together different combinationsof organizational variables’.

The views of these different authors clearlyindicate that HRD contributes to the strength-ening of a firm’s human capital base by raisingthe level of people’s know-how, skills and ca-pabilities in an organization and thus, contributesto improved performance and competitive ad-vantage. HRD supports both the process andthe outcomes of performance management tobe properly delivered at different levels of or-ganizations (Raj Adhikari, 2010).

The concept of HRD in organization is relatedto continuing development and growth, devel-opment and improvement of different aspectsof people. In other words, HRD is personal de-velopment in all aspects. Personal developmentis in work life, social life, personal life andcultural issues. The nature of HRD is the peoplewho are organizational assets and their valuemust be improved through a logical and sys-tematic approach. HRD is an important devel-opmental program to ensure that the organizationhas an institutionalized way of developing, uti-lizing and committing human resources in orderto meet current and future organizational chal-lenges.

There have been well over 20 definitions of HRDoffered since the 1960s (Hamlin et al., 2008).Additionally, in recent years there have beenvarious calls for movement towards some level ofconsensual definition in order to continue to buildand develop the field (Wang and McLean, 2007).These calls are important and need to be re-

sponded to, not least because HRD is an appliedfield which most ‘professional’ practitioners op-erating within it perceive as an occupational do-main similar to related professional fields, suchas ‘education’, ‘human resource management’and ‘management’ (Hamlin and Stewart, 2011).

In this regard, for conceptualizing HRD inIran, several literature were used such as, in-structional development, staff development, fac-ulty development, academic development, edu-cational development, organizational develop-ment, and professional development becausemany of them are synonyms for HRD practi-tioners and experts in Iran (Akbari et al., 2012).

It is easy to logically connect the origins ofHRD to the history of humankind and thetraining required to survive or advance. WhileHRD is a relatively new term, training, thelargest component of HRD, can be tracked backthrough evolution of the human race.

HRD is a discipline that is more developed inWestern industrialized countries than in the restof the world. Although there is no agreementon one definition in this field, understandingHRD has been traditionally explored in the con-text of terms such as the ‘personal’, the ‘workgroup’, the ‘organization’ or the ‘work process’(Dirani, 2006). Some definitions of HRD arerelated to personal and organizational learning(Marsick and Watkins, 1994). Others are moreinterested in personal and organizational per-formance.

There are similarities between definitions ofprofessional, personal and so on. “In Nepal, theterm HRD is used synonymously with (employee)training and development” (Raj Adhikari, 2010).“The terms instructional development, facultydevelopment, academic development and edu-cational development are all used in higher edu-cation systems in different parts of the world.Although these designations have slightly conveyeddifferent meanings, they have a common core inthat they refer to the work conducted by developersto study and enhance the professional performanceof university academics” (Ahmady, 2009).

According to Swanson and Holton, “the HRDprofession is large and widely recognized. Aswith any applied field that exists in a large

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

135

number and variety of organizations, HRD cantake on a variety of names and roles. This canbe confusing to those outside the professionand even sometimes confusing to those in theprofession. HRD, embracing the thinking un-derlying: training, training and development,employee development, technical training, man-agement development, executive and leadershipdevelopment, human performance technology,organization development, and organizationallearning (Swanson and Holton, 2001). McLagandefined HRD through training and development,and organizational and career development(Marquardt and Engel, 1993). The terms in-structional development, faculty development,academic development and educational develop-ment are all used in higher education systems indifferent parts of the world (Shahpasand, 2005).

Hendricson indicated that “faculty developmenthas been described in various ways in theliterature on cultivation of the professional skillsof the academician, but consistent themes areevident” (Hendricson et al., 2007). In one ofthe earliest works on the topic, for example,Centra (1977) described faculty development as“the broad range of activities that institutions useto renew or assist faculty in their roles” and includesinitiatives designed to improve the performance offaculty in teaching, research, and administration”.

According to Bergquist and Phillips (1975),effective faculty development must become aninteractive process among three dimensions: 1)organizational, representing structural compo-nents; 2) instructional, representing the processof education; 3) personal, representing the atti-

tudes, beliefs, and personal faculty members.Gaffs’ model (1975) also included instructionaland organizational development, but he substitutedfaculty development for personal development(Hosseini, 1991). In addition, Siegel (1980)suggested a model for faculty development thatcontains professional, instructional, curricular,and organizational development.

Thomson and Mabey (1994) as referenced byMabey and Salaman (1995) refer to the followingcomponents of HRD: “organizational develop-ment (OD), career development, and trainingand development”, and also this is echoed byothers (e.g. McLagan 1989; (Mankin, 2001)(Table 1).

Research Framework and HypothesesFigure 1 shows a structural model based on

the theoretical perspectives described in theprevious section (Table 1). The model has beenimplemented and validated in the field of theoperation. This model introduces series of hy-potheses as follows:

H1: Personal/individual development (ID) hasa positive effect on HRD.

H2: Social development (SD) has a positiveeffect on HRD.

H3: Professional development (PD) has a pos-itive effect on HRD.

H4: Organizational development (OD) has apositive effect on HRD.

H5: Educational development (ED) has a pos-itive effect on HRD.

H6: Process of HRD has a positive effect onthe product of HRD.

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

Literature source a

Akbariet al.,2012

Hosseini,1991

Mankin,2001

Mabeyand

Salaman,1995

Thomsonand

Mabey,1994

Ahmady,2009

Harrisonand

Kessels,2004

Hejaziand

Rostami,2010

Sadeghiet al.,2009

Personal developmentSocio-Cultural developmentProfessional developmentOrganizational developmentEducational developmentProcessProduct

*******

*

***

* * **

*

*

** *

*

Table1: Seven competency areas identified in the literature

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

136

MATERIALS AND METHODSIn order to develop a model for HR (faculty

members of agricultural colleges in HES), thedata were purposefully extracted from previoussalient studies. These studies had synthesizedthe HRD, relevant definitions (e.g., personaldevelopment, individual development, instruc-tional development, organizational development,faculty development, academic development,educational development, and professional de-velopment), coaching literature on definitions,components, and models. A wide range of HRDdefinitions and components have been directlyand indirectly offered by a variety of authorsfrom the mid-1980s through the mid-2011s.Due to the nature of the subject and the broaddefinitions and components of HRD at themacro level, it was attempted to conceptualizethe topic at the organizational and HES levels.The literature review and scholars’ interviewshave depicted that the scope of Iran's HRD isbased on the following equation:

HRD = Personal Development + OrganizationalDevelopment + Social Development+ EducationalDevelopment+ Professional Development.

In this study, the research method was contentanalysis and thematic analysis. Then, HRDcomponents were compared to find similaritiesand differences using the aforementioned meth-ods. As the final step, 15 HRD experts were in-terviewed about the framework to confirm thevalidity and suitability of model components.

Additionally, a survey research method wasconducted for testing the model of HRD in

HES. A survey method was used to collect datafrom faculty members in nine public agriculturalcolleges in Iran. Using proportional simple ran-dom sampling method, 284 faculty memberswere selected by the formula introduced byKrejcie and Morgan (1970) with 5% margin oferror (N=1873). After determining an appropriatemeasurement model, the structural equationmodelling, using Linear Structural Relations(LISREL) software, was used to test the hy-pothesised model.

A structural equation model measures the con-tribution of various factors in predicting a par-ticular outcome while providing unique infor-mation about the direct and indirect paths of re-liable influence (Ransdell et al., 2001). LISRELsoftware allows for the simultaneous utilizationof a measurement model and a structural equationmodel. LISREL methods also allow the use ofone or more directly measured or manifest variablesto provide estimates and simultaneously test theeffects of the latent variables on one another.

The internal validity of the questionnaire wasassessed by faculty members in universities ofTehran, Tarbiat Modares, Razi, and Gorgan inIran. To measure reliability of the items, Cron-bach's Alpha coefficients were calculated ac-cording to which all items had Cronbach's Alphacoefficient of above 0.8 indicating high internalconsistency.

Based on the final model, Composite Reliability(CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE)were calculated manually by computing formulasintroduced by Fornell and Larckers (1981) using

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

Figure 1: Theoretical framework (Akbari et al., 2012)

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

137

the Lisrel. The CR and AVE values of morethan 0.6 and 0.5 respectively indicate good con-struct reliability and adequate convergent validity(Table 2).

The items in the questionnaire were arrangedand analyzed based on the literature review.The questionnaire includes 62 statements. Thesestatements were assessed based on the constructsof the model, as well as 10-item come from thefaculty members’ profile such as age, gender,background, and the like. Respondents answeredthe questions based on a five point Likert typescale (1=very low to 5=very high). Personal de-velopment was measured by eight statements.Ten statements were constructed by researcherfor social development. Professional devel-opment was also gauged through nine state-ments. Fourteen statements elicited the meas-urement of organizational development, andnine questions were used to create an indexfor educational development measurement.In addition, the process of HRD was alsomeasured through eight questions estimatingthree dimensions (creating new ideas, sharingexperiences, and a scientific communicationnetwork). Finally, eight questions were de-signed to create the index for the product ofHRD (learning organization, innovation, moreparticipation of faculty members in university,linking university and industry sector, anddeveloping students).

RESULTSRespondents’ Demographics

The mean age of faculty members was 45,ranging from 32 to 63 years old. The majorityof members held PhD degree. The majority ofrespondents (90.6%) were male, while 93%were married and the others were single. Morethan half of the respondents (68%) had obtainedan assistant degree, followed by 15.6, 10.8 and5.2 percent who had an associate professor,professor, and MSc degrees, respectively. Six-ty-six percent were graduated from Iranian uni-versities and 34 percent of them were graduatedfrom foreign universities. It is noteworthy tomention that 43 percent of faculty membershave used sabbatical.

Correlation and inter-correlations of Inde-pendent Variables with Constructs of Study

According to Table 3, faculty membersperceived their personal development (ID)at medium level (Mean= 23.27), suggestingthat personnel’ perception about their per-sonal development in higher education. Fur-thermore, the results showed that facultymembers perceived their social development(SD) and professional development (PD) atlow level. On the other hand, organizationaldevelopment (OD), educational development,process of HRD, and product of HRD wasat medium level.

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

ID SD PD OD ED Process Product

αCRAVE

0.820.960.92

0.80.960.91

0.790.970.91

0.840.980.94

0.890.970.93

0.9220.960.93

0.9090.970.92

Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient, CR, and AVE

Mean* S.D ID SD PD OD ED Process Product

IDSDPDODEDProcessProduct

23.2727.7525.0638.3324.3919.3320.29

5.266.806.449.266.5

6.4576.292

10.58**0.40**0.43**0.45**0.39**0.42**

10.73**0.67**0.65**0.67**0.70**

10.75**0.70**0.66**0.66**

10.81**0.75**0.74**

10.75**0.68**

10.75** 1

Table 3: Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations among constructs of study

*Mean range=ID (7-35), SD (10-50), PD (9-45), OD (14-70), ED (9-45), process (8-40), product (8-40)

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

138

The perceived personal development was cor-related positively and significantly with social,professional, organizational, educational devel-opment, the process of HRD, and the productof HRD (p<0.01). However, faculty member’sperceptions of social, professional, organizational,and educational development were correlatedsignificantly with the process of HRD.

Structural Equation Modeling AnalysisStructural equation modeling (SEM) was used

to test the hypotheses. The research model ispresented in Figure 2. As mentioned earlier, theresearch model was developed on the basis ofthe literature review. Table 4 presents the outputsof LISREL analysis. The outputs suggest thatthe structure in the model is suitable.

Given the suitability of criteria in the model,the variables fulfil the standard values. As ex-pected, H1 was supported with a negative impactimplying that high personal development is as-sociated with lower HRD of faculty members,but the results showed that personal developmentdirectly affects HRD product. For social devel-opment, H2 is also supported. The social devel-

opment has a significant positive effect on theprocess of HRD. H3 is also supported but thedirect impact is negative. This implies thathigher professional development is associatedwith lower HRD. For organizational development,H4 is supported as well. The organizational de-velopment has a significantly positive effect onthe process of HRD. For educational develop-ment, H5 is also supported. The educational de-velopment had a significantly positive effect onthe process of HRD. It was found that organi-zational development is a crucial determinantof HRD (β = 0.50).

Personal, social, professional, organizational,and educational development accounted for 82%of the variance contained in the process ofHRD. Moreover, the process of HRD (whichwas affected with contextual variables), personal,and organizational explained 70% of the variancecontained in product of HRD.

The model’s goodness-of-fitThe decision to accept or reject a hypothesized

structural model depends on the fitness statistics.Chi-square (χ2) is most frequently cited as a

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

From To β t SE

IDSDPDODEDIDODProcess of HRD

Process of HRDProcess of HRDProcess of HRDProcess of HRDProcess of HRDProduct of HRDProduct of HRDProduct of HRD

-0.270.42-0.250.5

0.430.140.290.58

-4.85**5.3**

-2.06**3.43**4.83**3.12**3.49**7.19**

0.0550.0790.1210.1440.0890.0440.0830.080

Table 4: Parameter estimates and significance levels calculated forindicators of the path analysis model of study

** p<0.01

Parameter/criteria Reference coefficient

RMRSRMRGFINFINNFIIFICFIRMSEA

0.0520.052

0.80.970.980.980.98

0.049

Table 5: Results of evaluation indicators

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

139

measure of the overall goodness of model fitness.The Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) rep-resents the average deviation of the predictedfrom the actual correlation matrix. The Good-ness-of-fit Index (GFI) indicates the proportionof the joint amount of data variance and co-variance that can be explained by the testedmodel.

The measurement models showed acceptablemodel-data fit: χ2=1813.56, (df = 1074, p<0.001),χ2/df ratio = 1.68, comparative fit index (CFI) =0.98, and the root mean square errors of ap-proximation (RMSEA) = 0.049. The constructvalidities of the latent constructs were evaluatedby both convergent and discriminant validity.For HRD, all path weights were significant(p<0.001). Considering the significance of 0.05,the research model is accepted. The compositereliabilities of all constructs were greater thanthe minimum criteria of 0.70 (Nunnally andBernstein, 1994), indicating adequate convergent

validity (Table 5). The common rule for an ac-ceptable fit of a model is an RMR below 0.05points, with AGFI (Adjusted Goodness-of-fitIndex) and GFI exceeding 0.90. Overall, thehypothesized model of study had a good fitwith the sample data. (NFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98,and AGFI = 0.93).

Table 6 shows the standardized direct, indirect,and total effects among antecedents and mediatorvariables in the final model. The results indicatethat organizational, educational, social, personal,and professional development has the highestimpacts on the process of HRD, respectively.These antecedents account for 82% of thevariance in the process of HRD. Additionally,organizational, process of HRD (through fivevariables), educational, social, professional, andpersonal development has the highest impactson product of HRD, respectively. These an-tecedents together accounted for 70% of thevariance in process of HRD (Figure 2).

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

Figure 2: A model for HRD in Iranm

Process Product

Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect Rank

IDSDPDODEDProcess

0.270.42-0.250.50.43

-

------

0.270.42-0.250.50.43

-

0.14--

0.29-

0.58

0.1560.243-0.1450.290.249

-

-0.0060.243-0.1450.580.2490.58

534121

Table 6 : Standardized direct and indirect effects of final hypothesized model

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

140

CONCLUSIONSIncreasingly higher educational institutions

are being required to operate more entrepre-neurially, commercializing the findings of theirresearch and spinning out new, knowledge-based enterprises. According to Etzkowitz “uni-versities are currently undergoing a ‘secondrevolution’ these days, incorporating economicand social development as part of their mission”(Etzkowitz, 2004). To meet the challenges ofglobalization, high technology, economic trans-formation, and international competitions in thenew century, there have been numerous educa-tional reforms and initiatives in many countriesin the Asia-Pacific Region (especially in Iran)and other parts of the world.

The current study showed a large and growingbody of evidence demonstrating a positivelinkage between the development of HRD andperformance. There is a strong correlation be-tween economic development and the spread ofhigher education and the societal returns onhigher education, including the spread of knowl-edge and culture. Nowadays, it has been revealedthat higher education in Iran suffers from lackof education quality. Much of this can beattributed to the ineffective management system,increased enrollments, shortage of technology,antiquated instructional methods greatly basedon the memorization, and the misaligned incen-tives for lecturers and students.

Among different factors affecting Higher Ed-ucation System, human resources (lecturers andfaculty members) are the most important factorswhich have a vibrant relationship with otherfactors and have a crucial role to promote goalsof HES. The purpose of this study was developinga model of HRD in HES for which a model wasdesigned based on the theory of system. The re-sults of the study showed a positive significantrelationship among all variables.

The results also revealed that personal, social,professional, organizational, and educationaldevelopment has a significant relationship withthe process of HRD and they explained nearly80% of variance. The results of the study are inagreement with some previous research (Ilesand Yolles, 2003; Steinert and Mann Karen,

2006; Tjepkema et al., 2002). Furthermore, ourfindings reveal that personal, organizational fac-tors and the process of HRD explain 70% of theproduct of HRD. The product of HRD leads tothe development of human resource developmentbetween university and industry, creating alearning organization, development of learningenvironment, behavioral change, and developinga learning climate. These are consistent with(Marquardt and Engel, 1993; Megginson et al.,2000 and Parker and Coleman, 1999).

The results of the present study also showedthat organizational factor is one of the most im-portant factors which directly and indirectlyaffect HRD process and product. This findingis in agreement with the result of most salientauthors (Grieves and Redman, 1999; Hamlin,2007; McLean et al., 2008; Zidan, 2001) whichhave indicated that HRD focuses on organiza-tional development. However, our results revealedthat professional and personal factors have neg-ative effects on HRD, Which were unexpectedbecause many studies indicated the impact ofprofessional and personal development on per-sonnel’s knowledge (Browell, 2000; Rhodesand Houghton-Hill, 2000) and professional de-velopment of educators is seen as an essentialingredient for creating effective schools, pro-moting the delivery of education and develop-ment, and improving learners' performance(Rhodes and Houghton-Hill, 2000; Wood and-Millichamp, 2000).

In investigating the professional programs inIran, it is obvious that most educations are notuseful and beneficial. It is perhaps the mainreason why many professional developmentprograms used for the promotion of facultymembers and they do not really result in devel-opment of faculty members. It merely leads tothe publication of a number of articles andbooks with no significant practical implicationsfor the universities. Therefore, according to ourfindings the organizational component is one ofthe most important factors affecting the im-provement of products and quality of the facultymembers. In order to improve the quality offaculty members, HES in Iran should focus onorganizational component. In this regard, HES

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

141

should certainly determine policies. To achieve,HES should dedicate budget to support facultydevelopment programs, and to provide the con-ditions for the improvement of knowledge, ex-periences, quality, and job satisfaction of facultymembers. Moreover, HES persuades facultymembers to learn skills, new knowledge, ideasand creative methods. Furthermore, continuousevaluation, infrastructure development, and par-ticipatory management are other factors that canhelp universities to access their goal. When theHES provide these conditions, it leads to thegeneration of new ideas, the sharing of experiencesand scientific communications network.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe authors gratefully acknowledge the sci-

entific board members of the Department ofAgricultural Extension and Education, the Uni-versity of Tehran for their valuable insights andguidance for carrying out this study and compilingthe questionnaire of the study.

REFERENCES1- Ahmady, S. (2009). Faculty development inMedical education: A comprehensive approach. Un-published dissertation, Karolinsika Institute, Stock-holm. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10616/385492- Akbari, M., Hosseini, S.M., Hejazi, S.Y., & Rez-vanfar, A. (2012). Validation components of HumanResource Development: the case of Agricultural Fac-ulty Members. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Eco-nomics and Development Research, 44(4), 629-644.3- Beijaard, D. Meijer, P. C. Morine-Dershimer, G.Tillema, H. & Goodwin, D. R. (2005). ComprehensiveDevelopment of Teachers Based on in-Depth Portraitsof Teacher Growth. Teacher Professional Developmentin Changing Conditions (pp. 231-243): SpringerNetherlands.4- Bergquist,W.H., & Phillips, S.R. (1975). Compo-nents of an effective faculty development program.Journal of Higher Education. 44(2), 177-211.5- Browell, S. (2000). Staff development and pro-fessional education: A cooperative model. Journalof Workplace Learning, 12 (2), 57-65.6- Centra, J.A. (1977). Faculty development practices.New Directions for Higher Education, 1977(17),49-55.7- Yin, C. C. (2006). New paradigm for re-engineering

education: Globalization, localization and individ-ualization (Vol. 6). Springer Science & BusinessMedia.8- Dirani, K. (2006). Exploring Socio-CulturalFactors that Influence HRD Practices in Lebanon.Human Resource Development International, 9(1),85-98.9- Donnelly, M. B. Dove, T. Tiffany-Morales, J.Adelman, N. & Zucker, A. (2002). Technology-Related Professional Development in the Contextof Educational Reform: A Literature Review. Ar-lington.VA: SRI International.1-5510- Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the En-trepreneurial University. International Journal ofTechnology and Globalization, 1(1), 64-77.11- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). EvaluatingStructural Equation Models with Unobservable Vari-ables and Measurement Error. Journal of MarketingResearch 18(1), 39-50.12- Garavan, T, N, Heraty, N, & Barnicle, B. (1999).Human resource development literature: Current is-sues, priorities and dilemmas. Journal of EuropeanIndustrial Training, 23 (4-5), 169-179.13- Garavan, T, N. O’Donnell, D. McGuire, D, &Watson. S. (2007). Exploring perspectives on humanresource development: an introduction. Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, 9(1), 3-10.14- Garet, M S, Porter, A C, Desimone, L, Binnan,B F, & Yoon, K S. (2001). What Makes ProfessionalDevelopment Effective? Results from a NationalSample of Teachers. American Educational ResearchJournal, 38(4), 915-945.15- Ginsburg, M. B. (1991). Understanding educa-tional reform in global context: Economy, ideology,and the state (Vol. 663). Taylor & Francis.16- Grieves, J, & Redman, T. (1999). Living in theshadow of OD: HRD and the search for identity.Human Resource Development International, 2(2),81-103.17- Hamlin, B., & Stewart, J. (2011). What is HRD?A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD do-main. Journal of European Industrial Training,35(3), 199-220. doi: 10.1108/0309059111112037718- Hamlin, R.G. (2007). An Evidence-Based Perspectiveon HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources,9(42), 42-57. doi: 10.1177/152342230 629449419- Hamlin, R.G. Ellinger, A D., & Beattie, R. S.(2008). The emergent ‘coaching industry’: a wake-up call for HRD professionals. Human ResourceDevelopment International, 11(3), 287-305.20- Harrison, R. (1998). Employee development.Universities Press.

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

142

21- Haslinda, A. (2009). Definitions of HRD: KeyConcepts from a National and International Context.European Journal of Social Sciences 10(4), 486-495.22- Hejazi, S, Y. & Rostami, F. (2010). A Study ofthe Factors Affecting the University of Tehran Agri-cultural Colleges’ Faculty Members’ ProfessionalDevelopment. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Eco-nomics and Development Research (in Persian),4(22), 347-358.23- Hendricson, W. D., Anderson, E., Andrieu, S.C., Chadwick, D. G., Cole, J. R., George, M. C., &Kalkwarf, K. L. (2007). Does faculty developmentenhance teaching effectiveness. Journal of dentaleducation, 71(12), 1513-1533.24- Holland, N. & Aitken, A. (1999). HR, line andIS as business partners in IT-related change: Willyou, won’t you, join the dance? AMED News, 10.April/May 10.25- Hosseini, S. M. (1991). Faculty developmentneeds and preferred developmental strategies asperceived by faculty members of Iranian agriculturalcolleges. Cornell University, Aug.26- Iles, P. & Yolles, M. (2003). International HRDalliances in viable knowledge migration and devel-opment: The Czech Academic Link Project. HumanResource Development International, 6(3), 301-324.27- Jeliazkova, M. & Westerheijden, D. F. (2002).Systemic adoption to a changing environment: To-wards a next generation of quality assurance models.Higher Education, 44(3-4), 433-448. doi: 10.1023/A:1019834105675.28- Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Deter-mining sample size for research activities. Educpsychol Meas. 30, 607-610.29- Mabey, C., & Salaman, G. (1995). StrategicHuman Resource Management: Oxford: BlackwellBusiness.30- Mankin, D.P. (2001). A model for human resourcedevelopment. Human Resource Development Inter-national, 4(1), 65-85. doi: 10.1080/1367886012171431- Marquardt, M., & Engel, D. (1993). Global Hu-man Resource Development: Prentice Hall.32- Marsick, V. & Watkins, K. (1994). The learningorganization: an integrative vision for HRD. HumanResource Development Quarterly, 5(4), 353 – 360.33- Mc-Goldrick, J., Stewart, J., & Watson, S.(2001). Theorizing human resource development.Human Resource Development International, 4(3),343-356.34- McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD Practice(Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press).35- McLean, G. N., & McLean, L.D. (2001). If we

can’t define HRD in one country, how can we defineit in an international context? Human Resource De-velopment International, 4(3), 313-326.36- McLean, M., Cilliers, F., & Van Wyk, J.M.(2008). Faculty development: yesterday, today andtomorrow. Medical Teache, 30(6), 555-584. doi:10.1080/0142159080210983437- Megginson, D., Matthews, J.J., & Banfield, P.(2000). Human Resource Development (2 Ed.): Lon-don, Kogan.38- Mirzaee, H. (2004). Influenced Factors of IranianWomen Economical Participating. Women ResearchJournal (in Persian), 2(1),113-13239- Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psycho-metric Theory: McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.40- Parker, S.C., & Coleman, J. (1999). Training inthe UK: Does national ownership matter? InternationalJournal of Training and Development, 3(4), 278-291.41- Pobre, E. (1996). Paradigm development amongpracticing school mathematics teachers. Universityof Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.42- Raj Adhikari, D. (2010). Human resource de-velopment (HRD) for performance management: Thecase of Nepalese organizations. International Journalof Productivity and Performance Management, 59(4),306-324. doi: DOI:10.1108/17410401011 03888343- Ransdell, S., Hawkins, C., & Adams, R. (2001).Models, modelling, and the design of the study. In-ternational Journal of Educational Research, 35(4),365-372.44- Rhodes, C., & Houghton-Hill, S. (2000). Thelinkage of continuing professional development andthe classroom experience of pupils: Barriers perceivedby senior managers in some secondary schools.Journal of In-Service Education, 26(3), 423-435.45- Sadeghi, F., Hosseini, S.M. Rezvanfar, A., Shar-ifzadeh, A., & Moridosadat, P. (2009). An Analysisof the Factors that Influence Faculty ProfessionalDevelopment in Agricultural Faculties. Iranian Jour-nal of Agricultural Economics and DevelopmentResearch, 2(4), 69-77. (in Persian)46- Sadeghi, M., & Emadzade, M. (2004). AnAnalysis of Economical Factors in Iranian WomenEmployment. Women Research Journal, 2(1), 5-22.(in Persian)47- Shahpasand, M.R. (2005). Determining profes-sional development components and its impacts onempowerment of Agricultural educators. (unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). University of Tehran, Iran.48- Shin, J. C., & Harman, G. (2009). New challengesfor higher education: Global and Asia-Pacific per-

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jou

rnal

of A

gric

ultu

ral M

anag

emen

t and

Dev

elop

men

t, 6(

2): 1

31-1

43, J

une,

201

6.

143

spectives. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s12564-009-9011-649- Siegel, M.E. (1980). Empirical findings onfaculty development programs. Effective approachesto faculty development. 131-144. Washington, DC:Association of American Colleges. 50- Somers, J., & Sikorova, E. (2002). The effec-tiveness of an in-service education on teachers’course for influencing teachers' practice. Journal ofIn-Service Education, 28(1), 95-114.51- Steinert, Y., & Mann, K.V. (2006). Faculty de-velopment: principles and practices. Journal of Vet-erinary Medical Education, 33(3), 317-324.52- Stiles, P.H., & Kulvisaechana, S. (2011). JudgeInstitute of Management: University of Cambridge,Cambridge, England.53- Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2001). Foun-dations of human resource development. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.54- Thomson, R. & Mabey, C. (1994). DevelopingHuman Resources: London: Butterworth Heinemann.55- Tjepkema, S., Stewart, J., Sambrook, S., Mulder,M., Horst, H., & Schecrens, J. (2002). HRD and LearningOrganizations in Europe: Routledge, London.56- Wang, X. & McLean, G. N. (2007). The dilemmaof defining international human resource development.Human Resource Development Review, 6(1), 96-108.57- Wood, E K. & Millichamp, P. (2000). Changingthe learning ethos in school. Journal of In-ServiceEducation, 26(3), 499-515.58- Zidan, S.S. (2001). The Role of HRD in EconomicDevelopment. Human Resource Development Quar-terly, 12(4). 437-447.

Human Resource Development / Akbari et al

How to cite this article:Akbari, M., Hosseini, S.M., & Ziyae, B. (2016). Human Resource Development: A Model forAgricultural Faculty Members in Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Management andDevelopment, 6(2), 131-143.URL: http://ijamad.iaurasht.ac.ir/article_523069_060639f2cbe13e32043d340376999beb.pdf