The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-7003.htm

Investigating the relationship Career

development
between career development and and
productivity
productivity with the mediating
role of self-regulation among
university staff Received 13 June 2019
Revised 1 October 2019
13 January 2020
Samira Delbari, Saeed Rajaipour and Yasamin Abedini 7 April 2020
8 June 2020
Department of Educational Management, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran Accepted 18 July 2020

Abstract
Purpose – The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between career development and
productivity of the university staff with the mediating role of self-regulation.
Design/methodology/approach – The research approach is quantitative-relational and is based on
structural equation modeling (SEM). The population consisted of the staff of two Iranian universities in 2018
out of which 331 participants were selected using Cochran’s formula and a proportionate stratified random
sampling method. To gather data, the self-regulation questionnaire (SRQ), the career development
questionnaire (CDQ) and a researcher-made employees’ productivity questionnaire (EPQ) were used. In
terms of reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the instruments was found to be 0.97, 0.84 and 0.88,
respectively. Face and content validity were confirmed by a group of field experts.
Findings – The findings indicated that the staff’s self-regulation had a positive and significant effect on
individual, organizational and environmental productivity factors. In addition, self-regulation had the ability to
predict those factors. It was found that self-regulation had a mediating role in the relationship between career
development and staff productivity. According to the results, educational institutions, especially universities,
can provide their staff with the opportunity to exploit their full potentials through reinforcing their self-
regulation and increasing their productivity.
Research limitations/implications – Higher self-regulation capacity among university staff helps them
liberate their potential energy for disinterested selfless service to the society. Higher self-regulation capacities
allow individuals to increase the energy resource for self-regulation and contribute to the productivity and
quality of life. The statistical population of the quantitative section is confined only to the staff working at
Iranian universities. Therefore, our results should be cautiously generalized to universities in other countries.
Practical implications – Our findings can help in empowering human resources and consequently
improving education and research processes.
Social implications – Universities play a decisive role in the economic growth and development of countries
because of their diverse services in the production and distribution of science and knowledge.
Originality/value – This study was conducted on university’s staff productivity, while most previous
researches have been conducted in industrial enterprises. Thus, the present study seeks to fill this research gap
by means of providing new perspectives and information on the factors affecting staff productivity and the
relationship between research variables in higher education institutions.
Keywords Career development, Self-regulation, Staff productivity, University staff
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
As one of the most basic institutions of any society, higher education is responsible for
training and educating future generations. Human beings have always sought to make the
most out of available resources and equip them efficiently and effectively. Universities play a
decisive role in the economic growth and development of countries due to their diverse
services in the production and distribution of science and knowledge. In addition, universities
are under pressure from internal and external bodies. The pressure is exerted through Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education
disciplinary and institutional assessment mechanisms aimed at increasing (academic) © Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-7003
productivity, resource revisions and quality rating. The internal pressure comes from the DOI 10.1108/JARHE-06-2019-0153
JARHE university employees and administrators, who seek to reorganize, monitor and regulate
university staff and improve work conditions. The fusion of internal and external pressures is
forming a new reality in universities, which is determined by power relations and new
management models, new knowledge generation methods, changes in centralization level of
decision-making in universities and authority of individual leadership versus a communal
institute (Gornitzka et al., 2017). According to Castro-Ceacero and Ion (2018), these changes
include improving university structural level, increasing competition among employees,
marketing public sector services and monitoring productivity, efficiency and individual
performance of the staff through measuring the results. Kyvik and Aksnes (2015) pointed out
four reasons for the increase in productivity including qualified new generations of academic
staff, research collaboration, improved funding and research conditions and the introduction
of incentive systems. In addition, reforming norms of appropriate academic behavior usually
explains the increase in productivity.
Growth and development of organizations, especially universities, is not feasible without
adept human resources and productivity. The development of higher education in a country
depends on staff performance and suitable careers for them (Shirbagi and Aryamanesh,
2017). One of the goals is to reach higher job levels in the organization through a successful
career path. Employees’ constant movement from one job to another in the form of casual,
contract, part-time and full-time work options depend on their productivity. Due to
uncertainties and incessant occupational pressure in this aspect of life, one has to make
deliberate and conscious actions in order to be successful in a career. These deliberate and
conscious actions should gear toward equipping individuals with requisite attitudes,
competencies and knowledge to be able to fit into an organization. Organizations serve as the
heartbeats of career development (Gyansah and Guantai, 2018). In most cases, there is no
clear and specific career path for organizations. This issue may reduce staff motivation and
satisfaction and, as a result, decrease their productivity (Haghighatjoo and Nazem, 2007).
Therefore, a clear career path can ensure staff productivity (Sunyoto, 2015). In this regard,
successful organizations make attempts to design career development by means of
implementing proper management and accurate planning. An effective planning for career
development increases satisfaction, reduces employee turnover, increases commitment and
ultimately boosts staff productivity and effectiveness. This leads to improved organizational
productivity (Orizi Samani and Barati, 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to pay special
attention to the productivity of universities and examine the relationship between career
development and staff productivity with the mediating role of self-regulation.

2. Literature review
Career development is an intervention program in human resources, which allows the
workforce to act and feel more secure when facing organizational changes and adapt to a
dynamic environment (Oluchi et al., 2018). A career has objective (external) and subjective
(internal) dimensions. The objective dimension represents a set of duties and responsibilities
that a person takes, and the subjective aspect refers to values, aspirations, motivations and
perceptions in one’s career (Ituma and Simpson, 2007). Career development is defined as the
outcomes or achievements that people derive from their work experiences. Braer et al. (2008)
contend that an individual’s career development is a lifetime process that encompasses the
growth and changes in childhood, formal career education at school and the maturational
processes leading to adulthood and retirement. The Canadian Standards and Guidelines for
Career Development Practitioners describe career development as the lifelong process of
managing learning, work, leisure and transitions in order to move toward a personally
determined and evolving preferred future (Braer et al., 2008). Career development includes
internal and external components. External career development involves payment,
promotion, etc. On the other hand, the development of internal career depends on individuals’ Career
assessment of their careers and job satisfaction (Van der sluis and Poell, 2003). development
Staff productivity is defined as the quantity and quality of a job done by an employee and
embraces the cost of resources used to achieve that work (SylvaComfort, 2017).Productivity is
and
the ratio of the output of goods or services to primary sources (e.g. labor, capital, technology, productivity
materials and energy) (Alaghbari et al., 2017), requiring the development of various
techniques to improve workplace and development of the educational and professional
qualification of the human resources (Petrova et al., 2018) and innovative methods to promote
productivity(Sushchenko and Trunina, 2016). Productivity is influenced by various variables
such as work-related issues, materials, tools and equipment, construction methods, political
factors, financing and even environmental effects (Mahamid et al., 2013; Barbosa, 2017).
Zemguliene (2012) identified factors affecting bank operation’s staff productivity including
skill, instrumental equipment of work processes, intangible and tangible work place
environment, motivation, based on intrinsic motivation and customer satisfaction. Holsinger
(2005) in a descriptive study, entitled the relationship of human resource education and
productivity, considered the correlation between education and human resource productivity
in industries as the most effective factor in productivity increase. Jafari and Memarzadeh
Tehran (2017) introduced the factors affecting the productivity of the staff in the military
organization in two dimensions of individual factors (motivation, mental development,
individual health and ability) and organizational environmental factors including
(organizational support, job clarity, environment, management style, education, culture
and performance evaluation).
Staff productivity generally depends on the staff’s innate talents, personality traits,
knowledge, experience and motivation (Mokhniuk and Yushchyshyna, 2018). Yet, the factors
affecting the promotion of university staff productivity, the effects of career development on
staff productivity and the relationship between staff productivity and their self-regulation
remain unclear. These factors differ in different organizations according to their missions, styles
and management together with the maturity and needs of the staff. Even if the factors affecting
the promotion of productivity in organizations are similar, the extent of their influence on the
efficiency of human resources (HR) is not the same. Thus, the effect of these factors should be
examined in different organizations. Universities and higher education centers need appropriate
tools to determine and evaluate HR productivity. Most studies on productivity have addressed
staff productivity of industrial sectors and noneducational organizations such as (Sutermeister,
1976; Ainsworth and Smith, 2001; Hersey and Goldsmith, 1980; Mohanty and Rajput, 1988;
Allen and Bunn, 2003; Bosch-Badia, 2010; Rahnavard and Khodabakhsh, 2011; Afsharian et al.,
2013) and studies conducted by noneducational organizations and industrial sectors are not
suitable for higher education centers; the present study is trying to provide new perspectives
and information on productivity and other research variables in higher education institutions.
In the present study, by study the theoretical literature of the research and related articles
(for example, Karimi Shahabi et al., 2016; Afsharian et al., 2013), the main factors affecting the
productivity of employees in three sections of individual, organizational and environmental
factors were identified, and the factors of each department were identified by interviewing
university human resources specialists. Organizational factors consist of goals,
organizational learning, human communication, organizational culture, job description,
occupational proportionality, structure and management. Individual factors include
motivational, functional, personality and value factors. Finally, environmental factors
include socioeconomic factors. It is hypothesized that if personal behaviors change, staff
productivity would change as well. In this regard, the effect of SRL on learning and
performance is significant (e.g. Dignath and B€ uttner, 2008).
Self-regulation theory (SRT) is related to a variety of organizational phenomena including
management (Ashford and Tsui, 1991), staff associations (Ashford and Black, 1996), staff
JARHE performance (Porath and Bateman, 2006; Vandewalle et al., 1999) and staff creativity
(Stobbeleir Katleen et al., 2011). Honary et al. (2006) confirmed the positive relationship
between staff motivation and productivity. Self-regulation has direct and indirect effects on
staff performance and ultimately on productivity (Baumeister et al., 2018). Self-regulation
consists of sociological (Skibbe et al., 2018), physiological (Fjell et al., 2017) and cognitive skills
(Clark et al., 2016), which help individuals control and plan their behavior. More specifically,
in order to achieve their learning goals, individuals try to improve their various learning
strategies (cognitive, motivational and emotional strategies) (Panadero et al., 2015). Self-
regulation may be improved directly through promotion or indirectly through increases in
staff incentives. Self-regulation activities can act as mediator variables between personal,
environmental and actual performance factors (Pintrich, 2004).
A mediator variable plays the role of an intermediary between the predictor and the
criterion variable. Mediators explain how external physical events take on internal
psychological significance and how or why such effects occur. The general test for
mediation is to examine the relationships between the predictor and the criterion variables, the
predictor and the mediator variables and the mediator and criterion variables. All of these
correlations should be significant in order for the role of the mediator variable to be
determined. The relationship between the predictor and the criterion variable should be
reduced (to zero in the case of total mediation) after controlling the correlation between the
mediator and criterion variables (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Mediation explains “how” one
variable is related to an output, and this is supported necessarily by a theoretical logic
(Theory) relevant to the field of study. For example, in motivational theories, psychological or
social motivation intervenes between many contextual and individual factors and employee
outcomes. If the relationship between two variables is consistently significant (in empirical
sense), a mediation is used. And, if the relationship is inconsistent, a moderator is used. This
explanation fits well in Baron and Kenny’s (1986) seminal paper on moderation and mediation.
Motivational, behavioral and emotional self-regulatory processes act as driving forces in
the goal-outcome relationship (Kanfer and Heggestad, 1997; Locke and Latham, 1990). Fugate
et al. (2004) argued that individuals with a strong career identity (i.e., established a salient
career goal) were motivated to actively create, adapt and engage in activities that matched
their career aspirations, and that these led to greater career success. According to self-
regulation theory, the staffs actively manage their creativity and steer their own
development. Self-regulated staffs are more motivated to set standards (goals) and move
toward them through their self-regulatory process, which guides their targeted activities and
their performance (Carver and Scheier, 1981; Vohs and Baumeister, 2004) and results in
productivity. Staff self-regulation coupled with indirect supervision by managers is an
optimal controlling method in organizations. This can have several advantages including
cost reduction, voluntary work and profitability (Alistair et al., 2011).
As mentioned above, self-regulation can lead to improved productivity ultimately. In fact,
higher self-regulation capacity among university staff helps them liberate their potential
energy for voluntary service to the society, and higher self-regulation capacities allow
individuals to increase the energy resource for self-regulation and contribute to the
productivity and quality of life (Galina Ozhiganova, 2018). Miller and Brown (1991) have
developed a seven-step self-regulation model which underlies the present research. It includes
(1) receiving relevant information, (2) evaluating the information and comparing it to norms,
(3) triggering change, (4) searching for options, (5) formulating a plan, (6) implementing the
plan and (7) assessing the plan effectiveness (which recycles to steps 1 and 2) (Brown, 1998).
Research shows that there is a relationship between career growth and productivity. In
their study, Hafsteinsdottir et al. (2017) emphasized the effect of education on improved
productivity and career growth of nurses. Besides, career growth increases their
productivity. Danziger et al. (2008) showed that there is a significant difference between
men and women in terms of career technicality and security, and career trajectory affects job Career
satisfaction. development
Previous studies show that there is a significant relationship between career expansion
and productivity of the staff and the skills required for management (Abbasi, 2002). Nagy
and
et al. (2019) concluded that the right career development in workplaces guarantees productivity
productivity. Defining and developing career for academics significantly increases
productivity; however, it requires new organizational resources (Santiago et al., 2015).
Gyansahand Guantai (2018) demonstrated that to develop career by taking informed actions
to adapt to the organizational attitudes, competencies and knowledge and keeping up with
rapid changes in information and communication may result in maximum productivity.
Mokhniuk and Yushchyshyna (2018) considered motivation as the most effective and
powerful factor in human resource productivity.
In a ten-year longitudinal research conducted on 191 different organizations, Groen et al.
(2019) investigated employees’ satisfaction with their organizational facilities and
productivity support and found out that 38% of productivity support can be explained by
their satisfaction with facilities, current job procedure and personal and job characteristics.
Other factors are also influential including communication, privacy, job flexibility and
freedom, job attractiveness and comfort at workplace. However, the most important predictor
of productivity was found to be employees’ satisfaction with facilities at their place of work.
Erlinda and Ernawati (2017) investigated the relationship between office redesign and staff
productivity and concluded that friendship, collaboration and employee privacy have
positive impacts on staff productivity.
Suggesting a productivity paradigm for the staff of Iranian military academies, Mardani
Shahr Babak and Khaki (2019) demonstrated that information and communications
technology has a positive and significant impact on HR productivity to the extent that ICT
accounts for 33% of productivity changes among the staff of these academies. Wilk and
Redmon (2008) found that goal setting and feedback (verbal feedback and visual presentation
of individual performance) on a daily basis improve persona performance, productivity and
job satisfaction among university staff.
Parker et al. (2015) acknowledged the positive effect of self-regulation on productivity
improvement. Millikin et al. (2010) found that productivity was higher in the teams that had
self-management practice and self-management strategies. In a longitudinal field study with
vendors, Porath and Bateman (2006) found that self-regulation tactics act as mediator
variables between goal orientation and performance. The researchers concluded that
individuals with more effective self-regulation strategies are more motivated, better able to
control negative anxiety-related events, cope with career changes and manage their own
career in the desired direction (De Vos et al., 2009; Fugate et al., 2004; Hall and Chandler, 2005;
Rapee et al., 1996; Savickas, 1999). Research supports this. Creed et al. (2009) found that
greater career adaptability (self-regulation) was associated with fewer career concerns
(Praskova et al., 2014). Also self-regulation increases performance (Panadero and Romero,
2014). The self-regulation played a mediating role in the relationship between job call and life
satisfaction (Praskova et al., 2014). Since life satisfaction plays an important role in people’s
growth and working effectively toward their goals (Park, 2004) and enjoying their jobs
(Dobrow and Tosti, 2011).Therefore, we expect that the self-regulation plays a mediating role
between career development and productivity.
Mohrman and Baker (2008) analyzed the leading universities in the world and concluded
that these universities have eight features including a global mission, research intensification,
new roles for professors, diversified funding, worldwide recruitment, increasing
organizational complexity, collaboration between the business sector, the government, the
university and creation of global collaboration networks. These positions depend on factors
JARHE such as career progression (Santiago et al., 2015), gender (Ion and Duran, 2014), professional
phase as a researcher (Loxley et al., 2014) and academic culture (Lucas, 2009).
Since universities are training and preparing efficient, competent and skillful human
resources to meet the real needs of society, they play an important role in contributing to
social development. Paying attention to productivity of university staff plays a significant
role in employees’ success and organization productivity (Parsa et al., 2014). Due to the
increasing importance of competitive advantages of organizations and the issue of limited
funding in universities, there is a need for university staff with higher productivity.
According to the literature, career development affects staff productivity by means of
increasing organizational commitment, job satisfaction and self-regulation.
Considering the significance of this issue, investigating career development, self-regulation
and staff productivity in universities, most of which are relatively new and still burgeoning,
seems to be necessary. The sample universities studied in the present study have had negative
productivity growth universities from 2006 to 2011. The productivity factors of university
included managerial efficiency (methods of work and equipment, organization, hard work and
effort) and educational and research efficiency (number of faculty members and articles and
books), and their overall efficiency is lower than the average compared to that of other
universities (Dabbagh and Javaheriyan, 2016). In recent years, in spite of the decrease in
funding allocated to Iranian universities, educational and research facilities such as the number
of computers and Internet access have increased. However, according to the findings of
Dabbagh and Javaheriyan (2016) productivity in main universities has not grown significantly.
Therefore, to manage this problem, it is necessary to pay special attention to the productivity of
universities and examine the relationship between career development and staff productivity
with the mediating role of self-regulation. This research can provide suggestions for
empowering human resources and for consequently improving education and research
processes. In today’s knowledge-based society, increasing the productivity of scientific
activities in universities is a necessity. University staffs are able to facilitate this productivity if
their professional and career development needs are met, and they can achieve their career
goals with more freedom. The conceptual model of research is presented in Figure 1.
According to Figure 1, career development was considered as the predictor variable, self-
regulation as the mediator variable and productivity of employees as the criterion variable. In
order to evaluate staff productivity, a researcher-made questionnaire was developed. It was
conducted based on Hersey and Goldsmith (1980) model. Career development was examined
based on Van der Sluis and Poell’s theoretical framework (2003) that divides career
development into internal and external components. The self-regulation model of Miller and
Brown (1991) was considered to assess self-regulation (Brown, 1998).

2.1 Research Hypotheses

Career development (internal, external) is related to employee productivity factors
(individual, organizational and environmental).

Figure 1.
The conceptual model
of the research
 Career development (internal and external) is related to self-regulation. Career
Self-regulation and employee productivity factors (individual, organizational and development
environmental) are related. and
Self-regulation has a mediating role in the relationship between career development and productivity
employee productivity factors.

3. Research methodology
The present study is an applied research in terms of purpose. The research approach is
quantitative-relational and is based on structural equations. The statistical population of the
study comprised of the staff of Iranian universities in 2018 with at least a high school diploma
and two years of service experience with 578 individuals. Using the Cochran formula (Sorayi,
2003), the sample size was estimated to be 298 individuals (with a margin error of 0.05).
Tabachnick and Fidell (2012) offers a number of 300 subjects for the minimum sample needed
in factor analysis. Since the university staff productivity questionnaire was researcher-
designed, and its validity needed to be ensured using factor analysis, the sample included 331
subjects, was selected via stratified random sampling and was volume-based. Each university
had one main category, and the sub-categories were the departments (administrative-financial,
educational, cultural-student and research and technology departments).Then, 360
questionnaires were randomly and anonymously distributed (on paper) among the staff of
the university, and respondents were assured that their personal information would be kept
confidential. Finally, 331 valid and complete questionnaires were returned. The KMO test was
also obtained for the variables of career development (0.91), self-regulation (0.97) and employee
productivity factors (0.95). Given that the KMO value is bigger than 0.7, and the value of
Bartlett’s test is significant (p < 0.5), we concluded that the sample size is sufficient.
The research instruments include three questionnaires:
A. Career development questionnaire (CDQ): To evaluate career development, we adapted
the questionnaire from the experimental study of Van der sluis and Poell (2003), which
included 15 two-component items of external career development (five-item career
development scale of Nabi (2001)) and internal career development (five-item job
satisfaction scale of Judge and Bono (2000) and five-item career satisfaction scale of
Greenhaus et al. (1990) with a five-point Likert scale). Poursafar et al. (2014) used this
questionnaire in their study, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was reported for internal career
development (0.87) and external career development (0.81). Confirmatory factor analysis was
performed to examine construct validity, indicating that all questions had acceptable factor
loadings (above 0.7).The internal career development scale had the factor loading of 0.96, and
the external career development had a factor loading of 0.88. Reliability of the questionnaire
in the present study was calculated to be 0.84 using Cronbach’s alpha.
B. Self-regulation questionnaire (SRQ): To measure self-regulation skills of the employees,
the modified Miller and Brown’s (1991) self-regulation questionnaire, which had 7
components and 49 items based on a five-point Likert scale, was used. Confirmatory factor
analysis was conducted to assess the validity of the structure, which showed that all
questions had an acceptable load factor: information received (0.95), information evaluation
(0.92), launch of changes (0.97), search (0.94), planning (0.94), implementation of the plan (0.94)
and evaluation (0.93), as well as Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the reliability of this
scale (0.88).
C. Employees’ productivity questionnaire (EPQ): A researcher-made questionnaire was used
to measure the productivity of employees. Experts and administrators were interviewed, and the
content was analyzed. The questionnaire consists of 14 components and 57 questions. The
related factors and questions are as follows: organizational goals (questions 1–3), organizational
JARHE learning (questions 4–7), human communication (questions 8–10), organizational culture
(questions 11–13), job description (questions 14–17), proportion of jobs and the staff (questions
18–20), structure (questions 21–24), management (questions 25–29), motivation (questions 30–
34), functionality (questions 35–42), personality (questions 43–48), value (questions 49–51), social
purposes (questions 52–54) and economy (questions 54–57). Confirmatory factor analysis was
run to verify the validity of the construct, which showed that the identified factors and their
related questions had acceptable factor loads: personal factors (factor load of 0.90 and t-
value 5 43.13), organizational factors (factor load of 0.88 and t-value 5 35.59) and environmental
factors (factor load of 0.84 and t-value 5 33.80). Moreover, Cronbach’s alpha was used to
measure the reliability of the scale, which was found to be 0.97 in this study.
Table 1 shows the factors affecting the productivity of university staff. These factors
result of interviews with university human resources experts and administrators. Smart-PLS

Main factors Factors Items

Organizational Organizational goals Clear goals, accurate understanding of the goals and
factors coordination of tasks with goals
Organizational In-service training, productivity training, human relations
learning training and knowledge transfer training
Human Staff-manager collaboration, staff-faculty members
communications communication, healthy and interactive communication
among the staff
Organizational culture Optimum culture of resource use, a work-free atmosphere and
the opportunity to express opinions
Job description Job description clarity, proportion of workloads, job
challenges and job promotion opportunities
Proportion of jobs and Proportion of psychological and personality traits, education
the staff and work experience
Structure Administrative structure commensurate with goals, division
of labor by expertise, coordination of different occupations
and staff participation in determining work methods
Management Performance assessment, (cash or non-cash) awards for
performance, appropriate work environment, adequate
resources and facilities, facilitative and supportive
management
Personal Motivational Spontaneous activities, commitment to work, job satisfaction,
avoidance of underemployment and positive perception of
job
Performance Skills and abilities, optimal utilization of resources and
facilities, quality of tasks, operation speed, ability to adapt to
job conditions, self-control ability, compliance with rules and
regulations and work accuracy
Personality Interested in maintaining organizational norms, intellectual
maturity, willing to transfer knowledge and experience,
understanding issues and dealing wisely, learning spirit,
responsibility, creativity and innovation
Spiritual Desire to acquire spirituality, to have a working conscience
and to believe in the values of the organization
Environmental Social Positive social status of the organization, providing up-to-
date and useful service to the community and social status of
Table 1. the job
University staff Economic Proportion of salaries to economic conditions of the society,
productivity ability to adapt to economic changes and competitive
questionnaire items advantages
Version 2 and SPSS-22 were used to analysis convergent validity and divergence validity. Career
Interpretation of PLS-SEM results were done in two steps: (1) evaluation of the measurement development
models and (2) evaluation of the structural model. Composite reliability was employed to
evaluate reflective measurement model, indicator reliability for internal consistency and
and
average variance extracted (AVE) convergent validity. Besides, Fornell-Larcker criterion was productivity
used to examine discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2016). In order to check the first and second
research hypotheses, multiple regressions were used to analyze path coefficients. On the
other hand, correlational analysis was employed to test the third hypothesis via SPSS.
Finally, Sobel test was employed to examine the fourth hypothesis.

4. Findings
Based on the descriptive findings of the study, out of 331 participants, 153 were women
(46.2%) and 178 were men (53.8%). The majority of the participants (150 respondents; 45.3%)
were graduates, while only 18 participants had PhD and associate degrees (5.4%). In addition,
104 (31.4%) of the participants had 11–15 years of work experience, whereas only 13 (3.9%) of
the participants had less than 5 years of working experience. Finally, 195 respondents were
permanent staff (58.9%) and 136 were contractual employees (41.1%).
In addition, Table 2 presents the mean, standard deviation and correlational findings for
different variables. Zero-order correlations among research variables correspond to our
expectations. In fact, career development (r 5 0.80, p < 0.01) and self-regulation (r 5 0.84,
p < 0.01) were positively related to employee productivity. Furthermore, career development
had a positive relationship with self-regulation (r 5 0.66, p < 0.01).
SEM-PLS models are analyzed, and the results are interpreted in two stages. Following
Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Tenenhaus et al. (2005), the first stage evaluates the validity of
the measurement model, whereby the scales used for the constructs of the model are verified
to discover whether they (theoretical) were properly measured through the selected
indicators. This is the assessment of the measurement model. Once the quality of the
measurement model is verified, the path model needs to be evaluated in the second stage, and
each structural regression equation is used to accept or reject the hypothesized relationships.

4.1 Measurement model evaluation

In this study, composite reliability was employed to evaluate the reflective measurement
model, indicator reliability for internal consistency, and AVE convergent validity. Moreover,
Fornell-Larcker criterion was used to ensure discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2016).
According to Hair et al. (2018), the first evaluation criterion is usually the internal consistency
reliability. In Table 3, results from Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values are
higher than 0.708 and within an acceptable range. Regarding the reliability of the indicators,
all outer loadings were above 0.708. In addition, the AVE values of convergent validity were
higher than 0.50. Finally, the Fornell-Larcker criterion in Table 4 indicates that the square
root of AVE for each construct is higher than its correlation with other constructs in the
model, and thus the discriminant validity is confirmed. The evaluation of resultant validity
and reliability criteria demonstrate that the measurement models are acceptable, and
conditions are favorable for evaluating the structural model of the research.

4.2 Structural model analysis

Having determined the validity and reliability of the measurements of the constructs, we
must conduct an interpretation of the internal model to check whether the proposed model
includes the relationship between the latent variables targeted by the theory. The structural
model evaluates the weight and magnitude of the relationship between the two main
constructs of the model, which are CSR orientation and performance. The procedure
consists of:
 Table 2.
JARHE

Correlation and
descriptive statistics
Variables Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Gender 1.53 0.49 –

2 Education 3.35 0.95 0.13* –
3 Years of service 3.20 1.17 0.16** 0.27** –
4 Type of university 1.47 0.50 0.04 0.03 0.02 –
5 Type of employment 1.41 0.49 0.01 0.18** 0.31** 0.01 –
6 Career development (internal, external) 3.05 0.70 0.13* 0.01 0.19** 0.14** 0.04 –
7 Self-regulation 3.36 0.75 0.11* 0.02 0.10 0.48** 0.02 0.66** –
8 Staff productivity 3.26 0.68 0.13* 0.03 0.14** 0.34** 0.05 0.80** 0.84**
Note(s): N 5 331; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
 Factor Composite Average variance Cronbach’s
Career
Construct Indicators loadings reliability extracted alpha development
and
Career 0.92 0.86 0.84
development productivity
External 0.91
Internal 0.94
Self-regulation 0.98 0.88 0.97
Receiving 0.93
Evaluating 0.96
Triggering 0.95
Searching 0.94
Formulating a 0.92
plan
Implementing 0.90
Assessing 0.94
Staff 0.92 0.80 0.88
Productivity
Organizational 0.89 Table 3.
Environmental 0.88 Evaluation of reflective
Individual 0.91 measurement model

Staff productivity Career development Self-regulation

Staff Productivity (0.89)

Career Development 0.81 (0.93) Table 4.
Self-regulation 0.83 0.67 (0.92) Discriminant validity
Note(s): The square root of AVE is shown in the matrix diagonal (Fornell-Larcker)

(1) Collinearity assessment

(2) The value of the trajectory coefficients (the path coefficient or standardized
regression weights and significance levels)
(3) Analysis of R2 (the explained variance of the endogenous variable)
(4) Values of f 2 effect size
(5) Q2 (predictive relevance)
The collinearity of the predictor variables was checked through variance inflation factor
(VIF). According to Hair et al. (2018), values lower than 3 (VIF < 3) indicate an ideal
collinearity. In our model, VIF values for both independent variables of career
development and self-regulation were equal to 1.805 (VIF-CD 5 1.805; VIF-SR 5 1.805).
Therefore, collinearity between the constructs was not a critical consequence of the
proposed model.
The analysis of path coefficients was standardized with regression weights. This
coefficient may be interpreted as an indicator of the relative strength of the statistical
relationship. Chin (1998) suggests values higher than 0.2 and ideally higher than 0.3. The
analyses of the path coefficients are presented in Table 5. All path coefficients are positively
higher than the recommended limit. The strength of the model is determined by the strength
of each structural path and is analyzed using R2 value in terms of the latent dependent
variable. Since the value of R2 in our research is 0.811, latent dependent variables are able to
predict the model very satisfactorily (Hair et al., 2016).
JARHE In addition, the effect of (f2) was measured. F2 calculates variations in R2, when a given
dependent construct is eliminated in the model. According to Cohen (1998), 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35
values for f2 represent small, moderate and large effects of the latent dependent variable,
respectively. We obtained significant effects of self-regulation (0.81) and career development
(0.52) on employee productivity. Stone-Geyser’s Q2 criterion represents an evaluation
criterion for the predictive relevance of the model. The values higher than 0, 0.25 and 0.50
depict small, medium and large predictive relevance of the PLS-path model, respectively. The
Q2 value in our model was 0.64, which indicates an agreeable predictive relevance of the
model in the case of the endogenous construct of employee productivity. Overall, these results
demonstrate that the structural model of the research has is appropriate.

4.3 Hypotheses
In order to check the first and second research hypotheses, multiple regressions were used to
analyze path coefficients, while correlation was employed to test the third hypothesis using
SPSS (Table 6). The findings of the first hypothesis indicate that the modified R2 value is

Coefficient of determination (R2) Effect size (f2) Criterion Q2

Table 5.
Fitness indexes of the 0.81 0.52 0.64
structural model Acceptable limit R2 > 0.19 f2 > 0.02 Q2 > 0.02

Hypotheses Path coefficients β t sig

Internal 0.58 12.41 0.001

Career Staff
H1
development External productivity 0.27 5.85 0.001

Note(s): R2 adj = 0.651, F (2,328) = 312.07

Personal Organizational Environmental

Correlation Internal 0.70** 0.73** 0.69**

coefficients Career
productivity development
External 0.52** 0.74** 0.66**
factors

Note(s): N = 331; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Internal 0.62 10.88 0.001

Career Self-
H2
development External regulation 0.08 1.53 0.126

Note(s): R2 adj = 0.481, F (2,328) = 154.18

Variables Environmental Organizational Individual

Self-
H3 0.86** 0.69** 0.68**
regulation
Table 6.
Hypotheses testing Note(s): N = 331; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
statistically significant (R2 adj 5 0.651, F (2,328) 5 312.07). The two parameters of internal Career
career development (β 5 0.58, p < 0.01) and external career development (β 5 0.27, p < 0.01) development
are significantly effective in predicting employee productivity. There is also a positive
relationship between internal and external career development and productivity factors
and
(individual, organizational and environmental). productivity
With regard to the second research hypothesis, results indicate that the modified R2 value
is statistically significant (R2 adj 5 0.481, F (2,328) 5 154.18). The parameter of internal career
development is significantly effective in predicting self-regulation (β 5 0.62, p < 0.01). The
external career development parameter, however, cannot predict self-regulation
(β 5 0.08, p > 0.05).
The findings related to the third research hypothesis, which analyzes the relationship
between self-regulation and employee productivity factors (personal, organizational and
environmental factors) demonstrate a positive and meaningful relationship between self-
regulation and personal factors (r 5 0.86, p < 0.01), organizational factors (r 5 0.69, p < 0.01)
and environmental factors (r 5 0.68, p < 0.01). Thus, the third research hypothesis is
confirmed (Table 6) (see Figure 2).
In order to further investigate and test the role of self-regulation in our study, the indirect
effect of career development on employee productivity through self-regulation was tested
(Table 2). According to the methodological approach introduced by Baron and Kenny (1986),
three conditions were met, which allowed us to analyze the role of mediator: (1) there was a
meaningful relationship between the independent variable and mediator variable (r 5 0.66,
p < 0.01); (2) there was a meaningful relationship between the mediator variable and the
dependent variable (r 5 0.84, p < 0.01); (3) the regression coefficient between the independent
and dependent variables was significant (β 5 0.80, p < 0.01) and (4) when the mediator
variable was introduced to the model, the relationship was found to be less meaningful

Evaluating Assessing Search Receiving Triggering Plan

Implementing

0.921 0.941 0.9510.967

0.940 0.907 0.939

0.453

0.673 Self-regulatory 0.522

Organizational
0.894
External 0.918 0.462
0.811 0.883
0.940 0.000
0.917 Individual

Internal
Figure 2.
Productivity Environmental The role of self-
Career regulation mediators
development
JARHE (β 5 0.46, p < 0.01). These results demonstrate that self-regulation possibly acts as a mediator
in the relationship between career development and staff productivity. Therefore, Sobel Test
was employed to test the fourth Baron and Kenny condition (significant indirect effect). The
results related to the mediation role showed that career development has a direct and
significant effect on the productivity of the employees (direct effect 5 0.46, t 5 6.07, p < 0.01).
Furthermore, the indirect effect of career development on the productivity of employees with
self-regulation as a mediator is equal to 0.35. In this regard, results of Sobel test in Table 7
shows that the value of the test statistic (11.10) is meaningful at 0.05 (p < 0.05). Therefore, self-
regulation variable acts as a mediator in the relationship between these two variables, and the
fourth hypothesis of the research is also accepted. In addition, the value of variance accounted
for (VAF) is 0.35 and lies within the range of more than 20% and less than 80%.
Consequently, the self-regulation variable has a minor mediation role (Hair et al., 2016).

5. Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between career
development and the productivity of staff with self-regulation a mediator variable in
universities under study. Self-regulation (0.81) and career development (0.52) had significant
effects on employee productivity. Stone-Geyser’s Q2 criterion represents an evaluation
criterion for the predictive relevance of the model. Values higher than 0, 0.25 and 0.50 depict
small, medium and large predictive relevance of the PLS-path model, respectively. The Q2
value in our model was 0.64, which indicates an agreeable predictive relevance of the model
for the endogenous construct of employee productivity. Overall, these results demonstrate
that the structural model of the research is appropriate. With regard to the mediating role of
self-regulation in the relationship between career and productivity, the two self-regulation
skills of motivation control and emotion control manage an individual’s level of daily
motivation, as expressed by Leach (1998). Previous research findings show that emotional
and motivational control has direct and indirect effects on staff productivity. In fact,
motivational control directly increases staff performance, while emotional control reduces
role ambiguity and indirectly results in increased productivity. This indirectly leads to an
increased productivity (Pahlavan Sadegh and Abdollahi, 2015). Goleman (1995) considers
self-regulation as an emotional management. According to this definition, self-regulating
individuals can avoid distress or disturbance and properly deal with negative consequences
or failures (Ghadami et al., 2017).
The results of the first hypothesis indicate that the modified R2 value is statistically
significant (R2 adj 5 0.651, F (2,328) 5 312.07). The two parameters of internal career
development (β 5 0.58, p < 0.01) and external career development (β 5 0.27, p < 0.01) are
significantly able to predict employee productivity. Thus, there is a relationship between
external and internal career development and the productivity of university staff. There is
also a positive relationship between internal and external career development and
productivity factors (individual, organizational and environmental). This finding is
consistent with the results of Hafsteinsdottir et al. (2017). In their research, they point to
the impact of training and career development on productivity growth among nurses. The
results of the research are also consistent with the findings of Gyansah and Guantai (2018)
and Hirschi et al. (2017). In their research, Gyansah and Guantai (2018) showed that
technology innovation, globalization and competition among corporate organizations have

Test Statistic Standard error Sig

Table 7.
Sobel test Sobel test 11.101 0.046 0.001
over-activated the career world, which requires updated knowledge and skills and needs to be Career
organized in order for people to survive in their professional context. Hence, the managers, by development
developing career paths, support employees to advance in their careers and motivate them to
take responsibility for their jobs. For instance, they provide feedback on individual
and
performance and disclose information about the organization, job opportunities and positions productivity
that may be important to the employees (Hirschi et al., 2017). Having this, the quality of
products or services improves and consequently productivity increases (Hill et al., 2014).
Therefore, by designing, developing and managing a career path, the organization strives to
facilitate and guide the individuals in pursuit of their goals. Once employees have internal
satisfaction with their career path, they are motivated with growth-based activities and have
the right career development; they become aware of the methods and policies of professional
growth. In this vein, they are trying to do their jobs more effectively. Therefore, internal
career development (internal satisfaction with career development) is a stronger predictor of
productivity of university staff.
The results of the second hypothesis indicate that the modified R2 value is statistically
significant (R2 adj 5 0.481, F (2,328) 5 154.18). The parameter of internal career development
is significantly effective in predicting self-regulation (β 5 0.62, p < 0.01 sig 5 0.001). The
external career development parameter, however, cannot predict self-regulation (β 5 0.08,
p > 0.05 sig 5 0.126). It can be posited that internal career development and self-regulation of
the staff are significantly correlated. Internal career development is an inner satisfaction with
one’s career, which acts as a motivation for the staff to turn to self-regulation. By planning a
career, an individual analyzes his/her interests, values, personality and capabilities and
strives to adapt his/her personal characteristics to the available careers (Ahi and Bjani, 2012)
and achieve a kind of self-regulation. However, since only the development of the inner career
path can predict self-regulation, it can be argued that the development of the inner career path
refers to the inner satisfaction of the career path, and the satisfaction of the career path
motivates employees to self-regulate.
In other words, those employees who are satisfied with their career development (internal
career path development) have enough ability to develop self-regulation skills, this sense of
happiness and satisfaction motivates them to engage in self-regulation activities. On the other
hand, employees who focus solely on career promotion (external career path development)
may promote their jobs with a plan set-up by a specialist or manager; however, the behaviors
themselves cannot be regulated. In other words, employees do not move toward self-
regulation without satisfying their career path and need external control to perform their
jobs. Self-regulating individuals are not controlled by external individuals and agents and
regulate their actions on their own. Self-regulation is, in fact, an internal control mechanism
that determines what behavior is to be done and allows internal controls to gradually replace
external controls. In this way, people are constantly going through the process of setting
goals for themselves and then comparing their achievements with their goals and standards.
Self-regulation skills can induce individuals to work harder or change their behaviors to
achieve a specific goal or standard.
The results of the third hypothesis demonstrate a positive and meaningful relationship
between self-regulation and personal factors (r 5 0.86, p < 0.01), organizational factors
(r 5 0.69, p < 0.01) and environmental factors (r 5 0.68, p < 0.01). Thus, the third research
hypothesis is confirmed, demonstrating that staff self-regulation has a positive and
significant effect on the factors of productivity (individual, organizational and
environmental). This result is consistent with the findings of Panadero et al. (2015),
suggesting that self-regulation improves learning and performance and ultimately boosts
productivity. Markovits (2012) showed that self-regulation moderates the relationship
between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. As mentioned in the literature
review, motivation, employee satisfaction and job commitment are positively related to the
JARHE employees’ productivity. Therefore, it can be argued that employees’ motivation, satisfaction
and commitment are the key concepts behind a positive and meaningful relationship between
self-regulation and employees’ productivity. By self-regulating, individuals coordinate their
concepts, cognition, feelings and behaviors with their goals and standards. Self-regulation is
comprised of two systems of promotion and prevention that are related to a set of cognitive,
motivational and behavioral aspects. The university staffs who focus on promotion and
progress also focus on obtaining more success, the result of which is greater productivity.
However, the individuals focusing on prevention focus on maintaining the present conditions,
which results in job security. These two self-regulating systems both contribute to the
increased productivity and are effective in behavior management (Dan, 2010).
Through developing strategy, employees tend to do high volume or faster work that leads
to increased efficiency. On the other hand, by a preventive strategy, they tend to abide by
labor laws and responsibilities and try to do things with caution and better quality, which
ultimately leads to increased effectiveness. Employees therefore use any of their self-
regulation strategies to increase productivity by modifying and adopting their targeted
thoughts and activities. Human resource managers must strive to improve staff productivity
by finding ways that potentially exist in most staff (Amirtash et al., 2011).
According to the methodological approach introduced by Baron and Kenny (1986), three
conditions were met in the present study, which allowed us to analyze the role of mediator: (1)
there was a meaningful relationship between the independent variable and mediator variable
(r 5 0.66, p < 0.01); (2) there was a meaningful relationship between the mediator variable and
the dependent variable (r 5 0.84, p < 0.01); (3) the regression coefficient between the
independent and dependent variables was significant (β 5 0.80, p < 0.01) and (4) when the
mediator variable was introduced to the model, the relationship turned to be less meaningful
(β 5 0.46, p < 0.01). These results demonstrate that self-regulation possibly acts as a mediator
in the relationship between career development and staff productivity. Therefore, Sobel test
was employed to test the fourth Baron and Kenny condition (significant of indirect effect).
The results related to the mediation role showed that career development had a direct and
significant effect on the productivity of the employees (direct effect 5 0.46, t 5 6.07, p < 0.01).
Furthermore, the indirect effect of career development on the productivity of the employees,
with self-regulation as mediator, was equal to 0.35. In this regard, the results of Sobel test
(Table 7) showed that the value of the test statistic (11.10) was meaningful at 0.05 (p < 0.05).
Therefore, self-regulation variable acts as a mediator in the relationship between these two
variables, and the fourth hypothesis of the research is also corroborated. In addition, the value
of variance accounted for (VAF) was 0.35 and lay within the range of more than 20% and less
than 80%. Consequently, the direct path from career development to productivity of the
employees remained significant this mediation was partial (Hair et al., 2016). This finding is
consistent with the results of a study conducted by Praskova et al. (2014), where the focus is
on the role of self-regulation as a mediator between work and life satisfaction (occupational
effort and emotional regulation), as well as career and the ability to understand the matter of
employment (work effort, emotional regulation and job strategies), which has a positive
impact on staff performance and productivity.

6. Conclusion and recommendations

A career path can provide opportunities for employees to acquire new skills and promote
professionally. Individuals prefer jobs that enable them to use their skills and abilities,
achieve accomplishments and ultimately make their career in line with their expectations.
Humans are flexible beings with potentially unlimited abilities, and these potentialities can
gradually become practical under proper educational curricula. Helping educational
organizations, such as universities, achieve their goals requires the capabilities and skills
necessary to perform the assigned tasks and roles to fit the needs and necessities. In order to Career
survive, organizations need to set improvement and development as their ultimate goals development
(Soltani, 2005). Employees’ promotion not only affects their professional development but
also affects their perception of fairness and justice in organizational behavior and increases
and
their productivity (when they are satisfied with their work). Therefore, managers should productivity
develop specific policies to develop the career path of their employees.
In the present study, important findings were obtained with regard to university
staff’s productivity factors and the relationship between research variables (career
development, self-regulation and productivity). However, as it is the case in other studies,
our study has some limitations in the methodological analysis of changes due to the
limited number of sample universities. Therefore, further extensive research should be
conducted in other universities and the findings need to be compared. Although we used
sophisticated statistical methods to test plausible causal relationships, our research was
cross-sectional; therefore, causality has not been established. A longitudinal design that
tracks individual trajectories over time would permit stronger causal interpretations.
Similar patterns in different universities, longitudinal studies and pilot projects can open
up the opportunity for causal conclusions. Interpretation of the quantitative results is
solely justifiable within the frameworks of the models, Nabi’s external career development
scales (2001), career satisfaction scale of Greenhaus et al. (1990) and Judge and Bono
(2000), self-regulation scale of Miller and Brown (1991) and the researcher-made staff
productivity questionnaire.
According to the results of the present study, it is suggested that educational institutions
with career planning, such as universities, provide the opportunity for the staff to develop
and ensure the optimal use of their resources and abilities. By designing a career development
plan, the HR unit at universities leads the staff’s needs, demands and the goals and missions
of the organization toward increased self-regulation and productivity.
Since career development in universities requires structural changes, organizational
resources and educational facilities, a comprehensive support of university leadership and
management is needed. In addition, career development requires special attention due to its
significant impact on university staff productivity. The limited influence of academicians on
decision-makings about the design and development of university staff’s career has
numerous implications for organizational and professional environments. Therefore,
designing plans for university staff’s professional development should be carried out with
the help of a professional network of stakeholders who have considerable roles in generating
scientific, technical and human knowledge.
We found that self-regulation acts as a mediator in the relationship between the university
staff’s career development and productivity. Thus, HR managers are recommended to
increase staff’s self-regulation through educational and counseling programs. Moreover, as
descriptive (demographic) results showed that the degree of self-regulation and productivity
of staff are correlated with the type of university, the two variables are higher in public
university staff. University staffs are encouraged to move toward self-regulation and perform
their activities with the help of self-regulation skills to increase their productivity.
University leadership should be aware of the fact that motivated and efficient staff can
contribute to the growth of an organization and achieve the competitive advantages
demanded by today’s world. Accordingly, they are suggested to design, implement and
evaluate a system of work to enhance motivation and productivity of the staff of
universities.
Various factors (including persona, organizational and environmental factors) influence
university staff’s productivity (However, there may be other potential factors that we did not
mention). Taking these factors into account in planning may contribute to accomplishing the
university mission and improving the quality of activities, research, instruction and
JARHE eventually academicians’ quality of life. Previous research on the quality of higher education
and teaching as well as students’ growth have pointed to factors such as the productivity of
university faculties (faculty and research capability), teaching facilities, etc. However,
important factors such as the importance of productive university staff remain unknown in the
previous research. Academically developed, self-regulated, motivated, capable and productive
staff in universities can greatly influence the quality of the teaching and learning process. This
is due to the fact that staffs are associated with faculty members, principals, and students and
can be effective in providing grounds for the growth of the higher education quality. The
present study can be effective in raising awareness of this very important factor.
Creating a new organizational culture of cooperation and mechanisms of transfer to society
and production sector by the institutional leadership at universities can lead to a reciprocal
exchange and benefit for the society in technical, scientific, social, cultural and economic fields.
This, in turn, may result in increased productivity in universities and sustainable development
throughout the society. It is hoped that the results and suggestions of the present study play
an important role in increasing staff productivity and higher education development.

References
Abbasi, T. (2002), “Investigating the relationship between the skills required by managers and the
management of the caravan in one of the industries in iran”, Master’s Thesis in Management,
Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Islamic Azad University of Kerman, Iran.
Afsharian, M., Mirghasemi, S.M., Ebadzadeh, K. and KhodaBakhshi, N. (2013), “A study of the factors
affecting productivity”, Advances in Environmental Biology, Vol. 7 No. 11, pp. 3350-3355.
Ahi, P. and Bjani, H. (2012), “The role of career planning in the success of the organization”, Scientific-
Promotional Journal, Vol. 7 No. 28, pp. 79-109.
Ainsworth, M. and Neville Smith, N. (2001), Managing Performance, Managing People: Understanding
and Improving Team Performance Paperback, Longman Publishing Group, Britain.
Alaghbari, W., Al-Sakkaf, A.A. and Sultan, B. (2017), “Factors affecting construction labour
productivity in Yemen”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Allen, H.M. and Bunn, W.B. (2003), “Validating self-reported measures of productivity at work: a case
for their credibility in a heavy manufacturing setting”, Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 926-940.
Alistair, R.A. and Russell, E.O. (2011), “Self-regulation: a strategic alternative for small firms”,
available at: www.emeraldinsight.com.
Amirtash, A.S.M., Mozafari, A.A., Mehri, K. and Chenani, H. (2011), “Comparison of job anchors and
organizational commitment among faculty members of physical education and physical
education of islamic Azad universities”, Beyond Management, Vol. 5 No. 17, pp. 111-130.
Ashford, S.J. and Tsui, A.S. (1991), “Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: the role of active
feedback seeking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 251-280.
Ashford, S.J. and Black, S.J. (1996), “Proactivity during organizational entry: the role of desire for
control”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 199-214.
Barbosa, A. (2017), “Productivity and innovation as a support in project management: a study
through construction industry in Brazil”, PM World Journal, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 1-11.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-1182.
Baumeister, R.F., Tice, D.M. and Vohs, K.D. (2018), “The strength model of self-regulation: conclusions
from the second decade of willpower research”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 141-149.
Braer, R.B., Flexer, R.W., Luft, P. and Simmons, T.J. (2008), Transition Planning for Secondary Career
Students with Disabilities, Pearson Education, New Jersey, NJ, pp. 78-90.
development
Brown, J.M. (1998), “Self-regulation and the addictive behaviors”, in Miller, W.R. and Heather, N. (Eds),
Treating Addictive Behaviors. 2, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 61-73.
and
Bosch-Badia, M.T. (2010), “Connecting productivity to return on assets through financial statements:
productivity
extending the dupont method”, Manpower, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 45-62.
Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (1981), Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control Theory Approach to
Human Behavior, Springer, New York, NY, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-5887-2.
Castro-Ceacero, D. and Ion, G. (2018), “Changes in the university research approach: challenges for
academics’ scientific productivity”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 681-699, doi: 10.1057/
s41307-018-0101-0.
Chin, W.W. (1998), Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling, JSTOR.
Clark, C.A., Chevalier, N., Nelson, J.M., James, T.D., Garza, J.P. and Choi, H.J. (2016), “Executive control in
early childhood”, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 81, pp. 7-27.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New
Jerssey, NJ.
Creed, P.A., Fallon, T. and Hood, M. (2009), “The relationship between career adaptability, person and
situation variables, and career concerns in young adults”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 219-229.
Dabbagh, R. and Javaheriyan, L. (2016), “Productivity of educational and research units in Iranian
public universities”, Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 123-152.
Dan, S. (2010), “Chief executive’s self-regulation and strategic orientation: a theoretical model
European”, Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 467-478.
Danziger, N., Rachman-Moore, D. and Valency, R. (2008), “The construct validity of Schein’s career
anchors orientation inventory”, Career Development International, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-19.
De Vos, A., De Stobbeleir, K. and Meganck, A. (2009), ““The relationship between career-related
antecedents and graduates’ anticipatory psychological contracts””, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 289-298.
uttner, G. (2008), “Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. a
Dignath, C. and B€
meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level”, Meta cognition
and Learning, Vol. 3, pp. 231-264, doi: 10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x.
Dobrow, S.R. and Tosti-Kharas, J. (2011), “Calling: the development of a scale measure”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 1001-1049.
Erlinda, N.Y. and Ernawati, E., (2017), “Productivity paradox? The impact of office redesign on
employee productivity”, Permanent link to this document, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, Vol. 67 No. 9, pp. 1918-1939, doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-12-2017-0350.
Fjell, A.M., Sneve, M.H., Grydeland, H., Storsve, A.B. and Walhovd, K.B. (2017), “The disconnected
brain and executive function decline in aging”, Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 27, pp. 2303-2317.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, 000003, ABI/
INFORM Global.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J. and Ashforth, B.E. (2004), “Employability: a psycho-social construct, its
dimensions, and applications”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65, pp. 14-38.
Galina Ozhiganova, V. (2018), “Self-regulation and self-regulatory capacities: components, levels,
models”, Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 255-270.
Ghadami, K., Piri zamane, M. and Vahay, R. (2017), “Application of emotional intelligence on the
psychological empowerment of military personnel in confronting Soft threats, case study: a
military organization”, Soft Power Studies, Vol. 7 No. 17, pp. 154-184.
JARHE Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligences: The Theory in Practice, Basic Book, New York, NY.
Gornitzka, A., Maassen, P. and de Boer, H. (2017), “Change in university governance structures in
continental Europe”, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 71, pp. 274-289.
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S. and Wormley, W.M. (1990), “Effects of race on organizational
experience, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-86.
Groen, B.H., Van der Voordt, Theo, J.M., Hoekstra, B. and Sprang, H.V. (2019), “Impact of employee
satisfaction with facilities on self-assessed productivity support”, Journal of Facilities
Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, doi: 10.1108/JFM-12-0069.
Gyansah, T.S. and Guantai, H.K. (2018), “Career development in organizations: placing the
organization and the employee on the same pedestal to enhance maximum productivity”,
European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 10 No. 14, pp. 142-158.
Hafsteinsdottir, T.B., van der Zwaag, A.M. and Schuurmans, M.J. (2017), “Leadership mentoring in
nursing research, career development and scholarly productivity: a systematic review”,
International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 75, pp. 21-34.
Haghighatjoo, Z. and Nazem, F. (2007), “Creativity of managers, organizational health and productivity
of employees of iranian medical sciences universities”, Health Information Management, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 143-151.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, CA.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2018), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Hall, D.T. and Chandler, D.E. (2005), “Psychological success: when the career is a calling”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 155-176.
Hersey, P. and Goldsmith, M. (1980), “A situational approach to performance planning”, Training and
Development Journal, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 10-38.
Hill, C., Jones, G. and Schilling, M. (2014), Strategic Management: Theory: An Integrated Approach,
Cengage Learning.
Hirschi, A., Jaensch, V. and Herrmann, A. (2017), “Protean career orientation, vocational identity, and
self-efficacy: an empirical clarification of their relationship”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 208-220.
Holsinger, J. (2005), Policy for Annual Assessment of Faculty Members [Dissertation], University of
Kansas, Lawrence.
Honary, H., Rezaeian, A., Kouzian, H. and Ehsani, M. (2006), “The relationship between motivation and
human productivity in the physical education organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran”,
Movement Magazine, Vol. 27, pp. 45-54.
Ion, G. and Duran, M. (2014), “Successful women researchers in the social sciences: a case study of
catalan public universities”, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 68-84.
Ituma, A.N. and Simpson, R. (2007), ““Moving beyond Schein’s typology: individual career anchors in
the context of Nigeria”, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 978-995.
Jafari, A. and Memarzadeh Tehran, G. (2017), “Identification of effective components on employee
productivity in a military healthcare organization”, Military Medicine, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 244-234.
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2000), “Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 751-765.
Kanfer, R. and Heggestad, E.D. (1997), “Motivational traits and skills: a person-centered approach to
work motivation”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational
Behavior, Jai Press, London, Vol. 19.
Karimi Shahabi, A., Memarzadeh, G.H., Alvani, M. and Modiri, M. (2016), “Designing productivity Career
model of Iranian governmental organizations”, Productivity Management (Beyond
Management), Vol. 10 No. 37, pp. 7-27. development
Kyvik, S. and Aksnes, D.W. (2015), “Explaining the increase in publication productivity among academic
and
staff: a generational perspective”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1438-1453. productivity
Leach, M.P. (1998), “The effects of self-regulation training on salesperson job satisfaction and
performance: examining the role of self-regulation skills and self-efficacy”, Dissertation of Doctor
of Philosophy in the College of Business Administration of Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Loxley, A., Seery, A. and Walsh, J. (2014), Higher Education in Ireland. Practices, Policies and
Possibilities, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Lucas, L. (2009) “Research management and research cultures: power and productivity academic
research and researchers”, in Brew, A. and Lucas, L. (Eds), McGraw-Hill International,
Maidenhead, pp. 36-48.
Mahamid, I.A., Al-Ghonamy, A. and Aichouni, M. (2013), “Major factors influencing employee
productivity in the KSA public construction projects”, Journal of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 16-20.
Mardani Shahr Babak, M. and Khaki, A. (2019), “Presenting employee productivity model in armed forces
employees with emphasis on the role of information and communication technology”, Journal of
Human Resource Management Research, Imam Hossein University, Vol. 2 No. 36, pp. 167-189.
Markovits, Y. (2012), “The development of self- regulatory characters and moderation effects on
satisfaction and commitment”, International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Vol. 2
No. 4, pp. 71-80.
Miller, W.R. and Brown, J.M. (1991), “Self-regulation as a conceptual basis for the prevention and
treatment of addictive behaviors”, in Heather, N., Miller, W.R. and Greely, J. (Eds), Self-control
and the Addictive Behaviors, Maxwell Macmillan, Sydney, pp. 63-79.
Millikin, J.P., Hom, P.W. and Manz Charles, C. (2010), “Self-management competencies in self-
managing teams: their impact on multi-team system productivity”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 687-702.
Mohanty, R.P. and Rajput, I. (1988), “Productivity measurement in a manufacturing company”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 65-78.
Mohrman, K., Ma, W. and Baker, D. (2008), “The research university in transition: the emerging global
model”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Mokhniuk, A. and Yushchyshyna, L. (2018), “The impact of monetary and non-monetary factors of
motivation on employee productivity”, Economic Journal of Lesya Ukrainka East-European
National University, Vol. 1 No. 13, doi: 10.29038/2411-4014-01-94-101.
Nabi, G.R. (2001), “The relationship between HRM, social support and subjective career success
among men and woman”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 457-475.
Nagy, N., Froidevaux, A. and Hirschi, A. (2019), Lifespan Perspectives on Careers and Career
Development, in Baltes, B., Rudolph, C. and Zacher, H. (Eds), Elsevier, doi: 10.1016.
Oluchi, V., Umoh, G.H. and Amah, E. (2018), “Career development and organizational success of
government parastatals in rivers state”, International Journal of Advanced Academic Research,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 294-319.
Orizi Samani, H.R. and Barati, H. (2015), “Direct and indirect effects of job and individual variables on
job satisfaction”, Contemporary Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Pahlavan Sadegh, A. and Abdollahi, B. (2015), “Structural modeling the relationship between
psychological empowerment and job satisfaction with the intermediate means of self-adherence
and self-regulation”, Management and Planning in the Educational System, Vol. 8 No. 14,
pp. 85-105.
JARHE Panadero, E. and Romero, M. (2014), “To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of self-assessment on self-
regulation, performance and self-efficacy, assessment in education: principles”, Policy and
Practice, Vol. 21, pp. 133-148.
Panadero, E., Kirschner, P.A., Jarvela, S., Malmberg, J. and Jarvenoja, H. (2015), “How individual self-
regulation affects group regulation and performance”, Small Group Research, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 431-454.
Park, N. (2004), “The role of subjective well-being in positive youth development”, The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 591, pp. 25-39.
Parker, D.W., Melanie, H. and Raghhuvar, P. (2015), “Improving productivity with self-organized
teams and agile leadership”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 112-128.
Parsa, B., Bin Idris, K.H., Bahaman Bin, A.W., Nor Wahiza, B. and Parsa, P. (2014), “Relationship between
quality of work life and career advancement among iranian academics”, Procedia -Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 152, pp. 108-111, available at: www.sciencedirect.com.
Petrova, M., Tepavicharova, M. and Dikova, L. (2018), “Possibilities for personnel development in the
mining and quarrying sector in Bulgaria”, E3S Web of Conferences, Vol. 41, pp. 17-40.
Pintrich, P.R. (2004), “A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in
college students”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16, pp. 385-407.
Porath, C.L. and Bateman, T.S. (2006), “Self-regulation: from goal orientation to job performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 92-185.
Poursafar, A., Rajaeepour, S., Siyadat, S.A. and orizi Samani, H.R. (2014), “The role of mediator of
organizational commitment and organizational support in the relationship between
performance appraisal performance and career development with job performance of
employees of Gilan Province Gas Company”, Ph.D, Educational Management, University of
Isfahan.
Praskova, A., Creed, P.A. and Hood, M. (2014), “Self-regulatory processes mediating between career
calling and perceived employability and life satisfaction in emerging adults”, Journal of Career
Development, Vol. 42, pp. 86-101.
Rahnavard, F. and Khodabakhsh, M. (2011), “Structural model improvement of manufacturing
productivity”, Governmental Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 81-94.
Rapee, R.M., Craske, M.G., Brown, T.A. and Barlow, D.H. (1996), “Measurement of perceived control
over anxiety-related events”, Behavior Therapy, Vol. 27, pp. 279-293.
Santiago, R., Carvalho, T. and Cardoso, S. (2015), “Portuguese academics’ perceptions of Higher
Education Institutions’ governance and management: a generational perspective”, Studies in
Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1471-1484.
Savickas, M.L. (1999), “The transition from school to work: a developmental perspective”, Career
Development Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 326-336.
Shirbagi, N. and Aryamanesh, M. (2017), “Representation of teachers’ experiences from the concept of
career paths”, Journal of Career and Organizational Counseling, Vol. 9 No. 31, pp. 65-84.
Skibbe, L.E., Montroy, J.J., Bowles, R.P. and Morrison, F.J. (2018), “Self-regulation and the development
of literacy and language achievement from preschool through second grade”, Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, Vol. 46, pp. 240-251.
Soltani, N.M. (2005), The Study of the Pathway of the Job Path (Teachers ’and Teachers’ Directions) to
Education in Lorestan Province and its Impact on the Amount of Motivation, Efficiency and
Quality of Educational Services, Master’s Thesis, Payam Noor university of Tehran.
Sorayi, H. (2003), Introduction to Sampling in Research, Samt, Tehran.
Stobbeleir Katleen, E., Susan, J. and Ashford, D.B. (2011), “Self-regulation of creativity at work: the role of
feedback- seeking behavior in creative performance katleen E, M. De Stobbeleir Vlerick Leuven
Gent Management School”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 811-831.
Sunyoto, D. (2015), Management and Development of Human Resources, CAPS, Yogyakarta, Vol. 44 Career
No. 2, pp. 53-97.
development
Sushchenko, O. and Trunina, I. (2016), “Creation of innovation clusters as a line of enterprise
competitiveness improvement in the field of foreign economic activity”, Economic and
and
Management Enterprises, Vol. 177 No. 3, pp. 191-198. productivity
Sutermeister, R.A. (1976), People and Productivity, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Sylva Comfort, D. (2017), “Ethical culture, employee intention to Stay and employee productivity in
the rivers state civil service”, Journal of International Business Research and Marketing, Vol. 2
No. 5, pp. 7-13.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L. (2012), Using Multivariate Statistics, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modeling”, Computational
Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48, pp. 159-205.
Van der sluis, L. and Poell, R.F. (2003), “The impact on career development of learning opportunities
and learning behavior at work”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 159-179.
Vandewalle, D., Brown, S.P., Cron, W.L. and Slocum, J.W. Jr (1999), “The influence of goal orientation
and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: a longitudinal field test”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 249-259.
Vohs, K.D. and Baumeister, R.F. (2004), “Understanding self-regulation: an introduction”, in
Baumeister, R.F. and Vohs, K.D. (Eds), Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and
Applications, The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-9.
Wilk, L.A. and Redmon, W.K. (2008), “Study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Organizational
Behavior Management (OEM) intervention designed to improve the productivity and job
satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 5897, p. 14, available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20.
Zemguliene, J. (2012), “Employee perceived factors of labour productivity: evidence from bank
enterprise”, Social Sciences, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 18-24.

Further reading
Brown, J.M., Miller, W.R. and Lawendowski, L.A. (1999), “The self-regulation questionnaire”, in
VandeCreek, L. and Jackson, T.L. (Eds), Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Sourcebook,
Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange, Sarasota, FL, Vol. 17,
pp. 281-292.

Corresponding author
Saeed Rajaipour can be contacted at: S.rajaipour@edu.ui.ac.ir

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com