Iranian journal of management sciences

Iranian journal of management sciences

Determinants of Meritocratic Organizational Behavior

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Organizational Behavior Management, Faculty of Economics, Management and Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.
2 Professor of Management, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Economics, Management and Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Economics, Management and Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.
100/jiams.2026.9042.7881
Abstract
Fatemeh Leilidoost

Hossein Damghanian**

Seyed Abbas Ebrahimi***

Purpose: Meritocratic organizational behavior, as a novel concept in human resource management, combines structural meritocracy with extra-role behaviors of employees, serving as an organizational remedy that can ensure performance and survival in today's complex conditions. Despite the critical importance of the electricity industry in Tehran province as one of Iran's most vital energy infrastructures, no systematic study has yet identified Determinants of meritocratic organizational behavior in this specific context. Therefore, this study aims to identify the determinants of meritocratic organizational behavior among employees in the electricity industry companies of Tehran province. Specifically, it investigates whether the antecedent factors of meritocratic organizational behavior can be identified and categorized in this industry and what role (causal or effect) each factor plays in shaping these behaviors.

Methodology: This study employed a mixed-methods approach with a sequential exploratory design. For the qualitative phase, grounded theory with the systematic approach of Strauss and Corbin was utilized, and for the quantitative phase, a survey method using Fuzzy Dematel technique was applied to determine causal relationships among factors. The research population included all employees of the electricity industry in Tehran province. Participants in the qualitative phase consisted of 18 experts (managers and specialists familiar with the research topic) selected through purposive judgmental sampling, with interviews continuing until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data collection was conducted through and semi-structured interviews with three main questions and several generative questions during the interviews. Qualitative data analysis involved three stages of open, axial, and selective coding. To ensure the trustworthiness of the data collection tool and analysis process, the four criteria proposed by Guba and Lincoln credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability were employed. In the quantitative phase, after identifying the Determining factors, a questionnaire to measure the impact and influence of criteria on each other was designed and administered to 5 experts to determine the intensity of influence and susceptibility of each factor using the Fuzzy Dematel technique.

Findings: The qualitative findings revealed that Determinants of meritocratic organizational behavior can be categorized into three main categories: 1) Individual factors including: individual motivation and orientation, organizational thinking and attitude, perception of role and individual impact, and individual and job competencies; 2) Managerial factors including: leadership support, change and innovation management, human resource management,and relationship and participation management; and 3) Organizational factors including: transparent structure and relationships, organizational order and regulations, justice-based motivational system, promotion and meritocracy system, and performance evaluation system. In the quantitative phase, based on the Fuzzy Dematel results, the most influential (causal) factors on meritocratic organizational behavior, in order are: Leadership support, human resource management, organizational discipline and rules, individual and job competencies, and the promotion and meritocracy system. Additionally, the justice-based motivational system, a performance evaluation system, individual motivation and orientation, etc were identified as susceptible (effect) factors, indicating that these factors are more influenced by others than being sources of influence.

Conclusion and Implications: The results indicate that managers and authorities in the electricity industry can promote meritocratic behaviors among employees by focusing on the identified factors (particularly the causal ones), thereby improving organizational performance. Practically, it is recommended that managers create transparency in organizational relationships and facilitate employees' access to job-related information to strengthen trust and participation.
Keywords
Subjects

Ahmadi, H. (2022). Identifying and analyzing the factors affecting the core competencies of  teachers
              for effective talent management; Case study: teachers in Ardabil city, Theory and Practice                       ITeacher  Education, No. 14, 73-96. (in Persian)   
Abd Sabour, F., Abtahi, S. H., Sharifzadeh, F., & Babaei Zakliki, M. A. (2008). A systematic approach in analysis of meritocracy obstacles in Iran Ministry of Energy. PhD thesis in Public Administration, Allameh Tabatabaei Faculty of Accounting and Management. ( in Persian)

Aghamoradi, Sh & Bahari, N. (2020). Investigating the relationship between the components of meritocracy and improving employee performance with the mediating role of  Organizatio- -nal culture (Case study: Tehran Municipality Cultural and Artistic Organization).Scientific Journal of Cultural Leadership Studies, 2(3),70-87. ( in Persian)

Atkinson, C., Millar, D., Schlossberg, A., Stein, Dr H. (2018).Whitepaper: Broad Diversity as a Driver of eritocracy, Invesco.
Bilhim, J. (2013). Managers'role in the cultural change to have occurred within portuguese public administration: the case of meritocracy. Passagens: International Review of Political History & Legal Culture, 5(2).
Bu, Y. (2019). Analysis of the Role of Organizational Behavior in Improving Performance in Enterprise Management Based on Author Cocitation Analysis. International Journal of New Developments in Engineering and Society, 3(2).
Buening, T. K., Segal, M., Basu, D., & Dimitrakakis, C. (2021). Fair Set Selection: Meritocracy and Social Welfare. CoRR.‏
Barbosa, L. (2014). Meritocracy and Brazilian Society. Journal of Business Administration, 54(1), 80-85. https://www. gv.br/rae/artigos/revista-rae-vol-54-num-1-ano-2014-nid-48323.

Cabaluna,A. (2021). Meritocracy as Foundation of Human Resource Practices Cognizant to the LGBT Community. International Journal of Academic Accounting, Finance & Management Research (IJAAFMR).5(7),1-33.

 Castilla, E. J., & Ranganathan, A. (2020). The production of merit: How managers understand and apply merit in the workplace. Organization Science, 31(4), 909-935.
Castillo, J., Iturra-Sanhueza, J., Meneses, F., Maldonado, L., & Atria, J. (2021). Measuring perceptions and preferences for meritocracy.
Chen, G. Y., & Kim, J. W. (2022). The Effects of Meritocratic Attribution of Inequality and Group identity on Cooperative Behavior in Public Goods Experiment.‏
Cho, Y., Fang, Z., & Sim, N. C. S. (2023). Meritocratic beliefs and economic growth: A mediating effect of economic inequality. Asia and the Global Economy, 3(2), 100072.
Clarke, J., Hurst, C., & Tomlinson, J. (2024). Maintaining the meritocracy myth: A critical discourse analytic study of leaders’ talks about merit and gender in academia. Organization Studies, 45(5), 635–660.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of applied psychology, 98(2), 199.‏
Dhiraj, A., Joshi, M., Kumar, A., & Gupta, A. (2020). Antecedents of character merit and organisational citizenship behaviour augmenting public life performance in India. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 6(1), 85-104.
Dinc, M. S. (2017). Organizational behavior in higher education. Lap Lambert Academic Publishing.
Do Rosario, V. S. (2024). The Effect of Diversity Initiatives and Meritocratic Values on Belief in Anti-Black Discrimination.
Du, B., Yu, X., Luo, N., & Liu, X. (2022). The effect of core self-evaluations on career adaptability: The mediating role of protean career attitudes and the moderating role of meritocratic beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1000615.
Faria, J. R. V. de and Faria, J. H. de. (2017). “The State Conception and Public Administration in  Brazil in the Scope of the Reform of the State Reform Plan”. Journal Public Administration and Social Management, 9(3), p0, 140-147.
Fehr, D., & Vollmann, M. (2025). Misperceiving economic success: experimental evidence on meritocratic beliefs and inequality acceptance: D. Fehr and M. Vollmann. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 23(3), 835-855.‏
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2001). Fairness as a dependent variable: Why tough times can lead to bad management. In Justice in the workplace (pp. 97-118). Psychology Press.‏
Garcia, D. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of personality.
García-Sierra, A. (2023). The dark side of meritocratic beliefs: Is believing in meritocracy detrimental to individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds?. Social Justice Research, 36(4), 385-409.
Gore, L. L. (2019). The Communist Party-dominated governance model of China: Legitimacy, accountability, and meritocracy. Polity, 51(1), 161-194.
Geng, X., Chiu, C. Y., & Wang, Y. (2025). Meritocracy Beliefs Are Positively Related to Institutional Trust Only in Societies With Many Economic Freedoms: A Multi‐Society Multi‐Level Analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 81(4), e70046.‏
Gibson, J., Ivancevich, J., & Konopaske, R. (2011). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Gündemir, S., Homan, A. C., Usova, A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2017). Multicultural meritocracy: The synergistic benefits of valuing diversity and merit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 34-41.‏