Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
PhD Candidate, Department of Public Administration and Policymaking, Faculty of Public Administration and Organizational Sciences, College of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2
Professor, Department of Public Administration and Policymaking, Faculty of Public Administration and Organizational Sciences, College of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3
Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration and Policymaking, Faculty of Public Administration and Organizational Sciences, College of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
4
Professor, Public Administration Department., Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/jhrs.2026.591265.2610
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Despite the adoption of executive regulations and guidelines for attracting and retaining elites in executive agencies, a profound gap persists between their objectives and implementation outcomes in Iran’s administrative system. This study aimed to identify the key elements required for the effective implementation of these policies and to explain their structural relationships.
Methodology: This study employed an exploratory mixed-methods design. In the qualitative phase, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 23 experts and analyzed using thematic analysis. In the quantitative phase, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and MICMAC analysis were used to hierarchically structure the identified elements and examine their driving power and dependence.
Findings: Thematic analysis identified 11 key components of policy implementation. Using ISM, these components were organized into a five-level hierarchy: Level 5, as the most foundational level, includes process transparency, professional security, and continuous monitoring of elite human capital; Level 4 includes linkage with the frontiers of science and technology; Level 3 comprises reciprocal support and mentoring, management of mutual expectations, and mutual openness to criticism; Level 2 includes appropriate delegation of authority and process agility; and Level 1, as the most outcome-oriented level, includes elite rotation and mission-oriented attraction, employment, and retention. MICMAC analysis further classified these components into independent, autonomous/intermediate, and dependent variables.
Conclusion: Successful implementation requires a paradigm shift from command-driven approaches to a phased, capacity-building architecture. The proposed model shows that achieving final outcomes is bound to fail without establishing fundamental institutional and cultural prerequisites.
Keywords