Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Expert Systems
with Applications
Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326
www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor for improving

organizational performance through human capital: A preliminary test
I-Chieh Hsu

*,1

Dept. of Business Administration, National Changhua University of Education, No. 1, Jin-De Road, Changhua 500, Taiwan

Abstract
Organizational knowledge sharing, argued to be able to improve organizational performance and achieve competitive advantage, is
often not induced successfully. How organizations should encourage and facilitate knowledge sharing to improve organizational performance is still an important research question. This study proposes and examines a model of organizational knowledge sharing that
improves organizational performance. Organizational knowledge sharing practices are argued to be able to encourage and facilitate
knowledge sharing, and are hypothesized to have a positive relationship with organizational human capital (employee competencies),
which is hypothesized to have a positive relationship with organizational performance. Two organizational antecedents (innovation
strategy and top management knowledge values) are hypothesized to lead to the implementation of organizational knowledge sharing
practices. The hypotheses were examined with data collected from 256 companies in Taiwan. All the hypotheses are supported. This
study has both theoretical and practical implications.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Knowledge sharing; Performance; Human capital; Innovation strategy; Top management knowledge values

1. Introduction
In the knowledge-based economy, internal resources
and competencies of companies have become a major
focus of management literature (Barney, 1991; Teece,
Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Wernerfelt, 1984). The analysis of
internal resources has transformed to a focus on intangible
resources; knowledge is seen as a crucial type (Alavi,
Kayworth, & Leidner, 20052006; Davenport et al., 1998;
Drucker, 1993). However, knowledge is not symmetrically
distributed within an organization. Thus, for an organization to develop competitive advantage, identifying, capturing, sharing and accumulating knowledge become crucial

*
Present address: 1600 West Bradley Avenue, Apt. No. C-56, Champaign, IL 61821, US. Tel.: +886 4 7232105x7316; fax: +886 4 7211290.
E-mail addresses: fbhsu@cc.ncue.edu.tw, ichsu@uiuc.edu
1
The present contact is valid only until July 2007.

0957-4174/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.012

(Husted & Michailova, 2002; Michailova & Husted,

2003). An emphasis on knowledge has sparked a recent
interest in performance implications of organizational
knowledge management/sharing processes and practices
(Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2001; Hsu, 2006; Lee
& Choi, 2003; Widen-Wul & Soumi, 2007).
However, knowledge sharing is a test of human nature
(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; French & Raven, 1959), and
accessing knowledge from colleagues and unknown others
can be dicult (Constant, Sproull, & Kiesler, 1996). As a
result, knowledge sharing within organizations very often
is not successful and organizational performance is not
improved. Managerial interventions are needed to encourage and facilitate systematic knowledge sharing (Hsu,
2006; Husted & Michailova, 2002). Despite the growing
interest in organizational knowledge sharing, empirical
research on performance implications of knowledge sharing practices has not been sucient and is called for (Choi
& Lee, 2003). More importantly, researchers caution that

I.-C. Hsu / Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326

organizational knowledge management/sharing practices

do not directly lead to an improvement of organizational
performance. Rather, organizational performance is
improved through an improvement of intermediate (or
individual) outcomes, following the implementation of
knowledge management/sharing practices (Davenport
et al., 1998; Liebowitz & Chen, 2001; Sabherwal & Bercerra-Fernandez, 2003). A major goal of this research is to
better understand such a causal mechanism.
An organization within which knowledge sharing takes
place will develop its human capital, i.e., competencies of
human resources, through knowledge transfer and
exchange (Quinn, Anderson, & Finkelstein, 1996; WidenWul & Soumi, 2007). As organizational human capital
is developed, human resources can improve their job performance and ultimately, organizational performance with
new and relevant knowledge. This paper seeks to propose
and examine a model of organizational knowledge sharing
in which knowledge sharing practices contribute to organizational performance through the development of human
capital. To this end, the importance of organizational
human capital is rst examined in the literature review section. If the importance of organizational human capital is
established, the importance of organizational knowledge
sharing practices is justied.
Further, although developing human capital is one of
the key objectives of organizational knowledge sharing
practices (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2002), the relationship
between these practices and human capital has not been
examined. Also, the notion of human capital has been
argued to lie at the core of business success in the 21st century (Hitt, 2000; Liebowitz, 2002). However, the link
between organizational human capital and organizational
performance has been prescriptive and requires empirical
investigation (Lado & Wilson, 1994; Youndt, Subramaniam, & Snell, 2004). Thus, investigating the eect of organizational knowledge sharing practices on organizational
performance through the development of human capital
will not only establish the importance of knowledge sharing practices but also result in ndings that have both theoretical and practical implications.
Finally, for organizational knowledge sharing practices
to eectively develop human capital, inuencing factors
in the organization must be understood (Demarest, 1997;
Malhotra, 2004; ODell & Grayson, 1999). These factors,
or antecedents, serve as infrastructure to improve the eectiveness of organizational knowledge sharing (Holsapple &
Joshi, 2000; Lee & Choi, 2003). This research investigates
the relationships between two important and yet neglected
antecedents (organizational strategy and top management
knowledge values) and knowledge sharing practices. From
a range of literatures, these two antecedents were identied
to underlie and drive knowledge sharing to develop and
exploit knowledge assets (including human capital) for perpetual survival and growth of organizations (Alavi et al.,
20052006; Hamel & Prahalad, 1993, 2005; Ruggles,
1998; Teece & Pisano, 1994; Teece et al., 1997).

1317

2. Literature review
2.1. Organizational human capital
The prevailing denition of organizational human capital adopts a competence perspective (Elias & Scarbrough,
2004). Flamholtz and Lacey (1981) emphasized employee
skills in their theory of human capital. Later researchers
expanded this notion of human capital to include the
knowledge, skills and capabilities of employees that create
performance dierentials for organizations (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998; Snell & Dean, 1992; Youndt et al., 2004).
Parnes (1984, p. 32) dened human capital as that which
. . . embraces the abilities and know-how of men and
women that have been acquired at some cost and that
can command a price in the labor market because they
are useful in the productive process. Thus, seen from
the competence perspective, the central tenet of human
capital is the purported contributions of human capital to
positive outcomes of organizations. Following this line of
thinking, organizational human capital is dened in this
paper as competencies of employees. Employee competencies can lead to eective job performance (Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2001; Davenport et al., 1998). They can
also help in improving nancial performance of organizations (Davenport et al., 1998).
The resource-based view of the rm portends how organizational human capital may help develop a competitive
advantage of an organization. According to this view,
intangible resources or capabilities that are valuable, rare
and dicult to imitate are sources of sustained competitive
advantage of organizations (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991;
Peteraf, 1993; Teece et al., 1997). In particular, a competitive advantage based on a single resource or capability is
easier to imitate than one derived from multiple resources
or capabilities (Barney, 1991; Ulrich & Lake, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). Organizational human capital constitutes
bundles of unique resources that are valuable, rare, and
inimitable for an organizations competitive advantage.
According to De Saa-Perez and Garca-Falcon (2002),
Lado and Wilson (1994), and Wright, McMahan, and
McWilliams (1994), organizational human capital is valuable because human resources dier in their knowledge,
skills, and capabilities, and they are amenable to value-creation activities guided and coordinated by organizational
strategies and managerial practices. Organizational human
capital is rare because it is dicult to nd human resources
that can always guarantee high performance levels for an
organization. This is due to information asymmetry in
the job market. More importantly, human resources with
various types of knowledge, skills and capabilities are congured in a way that is heterogeneous across organizations.
This makes organizational human capital not just rare but
also inimitable. Finally, the process by which human
resources create performance dierentials requires complex
patterns of coordination and input of other types of
resources. Each depends on the unique context of a given

1318

I.-C. Hsu / Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326

organization. The causal ambiguity and social complexity

inherent in the process have made organizational human
capital non-substitutable and inimitable.
Thus, the above theoretical arguments recognize the
importance of human capital and its development. In addition, in recent years, studies have started to examine the
relationship between organizational human capital and
nancial performance of companies. Findings generally
support that companies with a higher level of human capital tend to have better nancial performance (Youndt,
Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996; Youndt et al., 2004). However, as argued by previous literatures, it is worth noting
that a high level of human capital can achieve various other
kinds of positive outcomes, such as innovativeness (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005) and coping capabilities of organizations in fast-changing environments (Wright et al.,
1994). Based on the above discussion,
Hypothesis 1. Organizational human capital is positively
associated with organizational performance.
2.2. Knowledge sharing and organizational knowledge
sharing practices
Organizational knowledge has been commonly dened
as justied true belief (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p.
21). It is disseminated within an organization as information of which validity has been established through tests of
proof (Liebeskind, 1996, p. 94). This information can
guide organizational members in their judgments (Tsoukas
& Vladimirou, 2001), and can improve their job performance and ultimately, competitive advantage of organizations (Hsu, 2006).
Knowledge sharing involves the transfer or dissemination of knowledge from one person, or group to another.
Organizational knowledge sharing connects organizational
members with external knowledge sources (Garvin, 1993).
Organizational members benet from networking with
external knowledge sources for new information, expertise,
and ideas that may not be obtained inside the organization
(Hamel & Prahalad, 1993; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Organizational innovation can be derived from knowledge
exchange and learning from network connections across
organizational boundaries (Nooteboom, 2000). Further,
organizational knowledge sharing helps pass down idiosyncratic, competency-enhancing knowledge from the organization to individuals or from one individual to another.
For example, in a community of practice, collective problem diagnosis and resolution improves interpersonal relationships and knowledge sharing (Wenger & Snyder,
2000). The immediate benet is the enhancement of the
task eectiveness (Sabherwal & Bercerra-Fernandez,
2003) and innovativeness of individuals (Calantone, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002). As Quinn et al. (1996, p. 8) put it, As
one shares knowledge with other units, not only do those
units gain information (linear growth); they share it with
others and feed back questions, amplications, and modi-

cations that add further value for the original sender, creating exponential total growth. Thus, organizational
knowledge sharing is an important way to develop organizational human capital.
Organizational knowledge sharing can be the backbone
of organizational learning and bring enormous benets to
an organization (Argote, 1999; Garvin, 1993; Liebowitz
& Chen, 2001). However, employee knowledge sharing
can be dicult because of the costs perceived by the knowledge contributor. Two types of costs are discussed in the
literature (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2005). First, tacit
knowledge has to be codied or articulated before it can
be transferred to others (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Knowledge codication and transfer takes time and
resources. Second, in an organizational context, the knowledge contributor can be seen as forgoing potential rewards
for performing alternative tasks in order to engage in
knowledge sharing. There are opportunity costs associated
with knowledge sharing (Molm, 1997). Thus, employee
knowledge sharing should be facilitated if the costs associated with it can be justied or reduced.
Further, according to social exchange theory, people do
others a favor with a general expectation of some future
return but without a clear expectation of exact future
return (Blau, 1964; Kankanhalli et al., 2005). However, in
addition to the costs associated with knowledge sharing,
knowledge sharing may result in a loss of power or unique
value of the contributor in the organization (French &
Raven, 1959; Szulanski, 1996). Thus, a reward mechanism
should be designed and implemented in an organization in
order to reduce the costs associated with knowledge sharing and avoid the potential loss of value on the part of
the knowledge contributor. More importantly, one should
benet from ones own knowledge sharing behavior. For
example, one may be able to see that ones requests for
knowledge are reciprocally answered by colleagues to
improve ones task performance, after sharing ones knowledge (Connolly & Thorn, 1990; Wasko & Faraj, 2000).
Under such circumstances, employee knowledge sharing
is encouraged.
Organizational knowledge sharing practices facilitate
knowledge sharing because they are initiated and implemented to diuse knowledge and individual learning within
organizations (Calantone et al., 2002). Each individual in
the organization gains from knowledge sharing under the
condition that the organization takes the responsibility of
coding the usable knowledge for its employees (Husted &
Michailova, 2002). In this way, the costs of knowledge
sharing are incurred by the organization. However, not
all knowledge is codiable. Knowledge can be embedded
in action, contextualized in practice and subjected to
actors interpretation (Davenport et al., 1998; Lepak &
Snell, 1999). To achieve best possible gains in knowledge
sharing, social environments can be created within an organization so that individuals can interact with one another
for the sake of knowledge sharing and learning (Currie &
Kerrin, 2003; Liebowitz, 1999; Scarbrough & Carter,

I.-C. Hsu / Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326

2000). Also, an organization can provide incentives to

encourage employee knowledge sharing (Beer & Nohria,
2000; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Hsu, 2006; Liebowitz,
1999). The knowledge contributors future return is met
and knowledge sharing will continue to occur. Employees
do not only benet from the deliberate dissemination of
knowledge to them, but they also benet from employees
sharing knowledge with one another.
Consequently, organizational knowledge sharing practices develop organizational human capital (Liebowitz,
20032004, 2004). Employees knowledge, skills and abilities are enhanced. Calantone et al. (2002) proposed that
an organization should disseminate lessons learned from
past failure to its members. An organization can also use
interdependent arrangements such as work teams, to
enhance the exchange of tacit knowledge and expertise
(Becker, 1964; Lepak & Snell, 1999). Organizational
knowledge sharing practices also include training and
development programs (Becker, 1976; Liebowitz, 1999)
and mentoring programs (Lepak & Snell, 1999), which
equip employees with idiosyncratic knowledge that is more
valuable to the organization than to its competitors. Further, information technology (IT) systems are important
in organizational knowledge sharing (Alavi & Leidner,
2001). Finally, the use of incentive systems should increase
benets as measured by cost-benet equations of social
exchange theory. Employee knowledge sharing will be
encouraged and human capital will be developed.
Hypothesis 2. Organizational knowledge sharing practices
are positively associated with organizational human
capital.
2.3. Organizational strategy
The focal organizational strategy entails dierentiating
one company from its competitors through product innovation (innovation strategy). Organizational knowledge sharing practices are deliberate undertakings of management to
develop organizational human capital as important to
competitive advantage. Consequently, organizational
knowledge sharing practices depend greatly on the strategy
an organization pursues for competitive advantage.
Organizational strategies strongly aect how an organization promotes learning and knowledge sharing, and the
build-up of knowledge assets (including human capital)
within the organization, and ultimately, determines its
competitive advantage (Hamel & Prahalad, 1993, 2005).
Calantone et al. (2002) argued that rms with great innovation capabilities and high innovative performance start
with a shared strategic vision that stresses the importance
of innovation and that guides the creation of innovation
capabilities through organizational knowledge sharing
practices. Grover and Davenport (2001) claimed that a
companys strategy will be enhanced and supported by
an eective use of knowledge. Thus, knowledge management and sharing practices should be integrated with busi-

1319

ness strategy. Knott (2004) further argued that a company

in pursuit of product innovation should direct the implementation of knowledge-updating practices to facilitate
knowledge sharing and creation. Bae and Lawler (2000)
and Bae, Chen, Wan, Lawler, and Walumbwa (2003)
argued that an organizational strategy that aims to dierentiate one company from others through quality and
product or service innovation will support the use of high
performance work systems, which include a variety of practices aimed at information and knowledge sharing.
Therefore,
Hypothesis 3. Organizations that pursue an organizational
strategy characterized by product innovation are more
likely to implement organizational knowledge sharing
practices.
2.4. Top management knowledge values
Values held by top management prescribe how organizational members should conduct themselves, how they
should run the business, and what kind of organization
they should build. Top management values are seen as
the cornerstone of an organizations culture (Alavi et al.,
20052006; Collins & Porras, 1996; Van Maanen & Barley,
1985). Also, top management values underlie organizational culture that drives organizational knowledge sharing
(Alavi et al., 20052006; Ruggles, 1998). Thus, the initiation and implementation of organizational knowledge
sharing practices should start with a top management value
that sees knowledge as a source of competitive advantage
(Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2002; Grover & Davenport, 2001).
Davenport and Prusak (2000) reported that when top managers perceive knowledge as a key strategic resource and
knowledge sharing as the foundation for value creation,
they will support a range of knowledge management practices that aim to facilitate knowledge sharing within organizations. Hsus case study (Hsu, 2006) revealed that
companies that are dedicated to establishing organizational
knowledge sharing practices are observed to have top management support. Such support stems from a top management value that sees knowledge as an important source of
competitive advantage. Thus,
Hypothesis 4. Organizations with upper-level managers
that see knowledge as sources of competitive advantage are
more likely to implement organizational knowledge sharing practices.
3. Research methods
3.1. Procedures and sources of data
A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2004 with a
sampling frame derived from a senior manager database
provided by The Ministry of Economic Aairs (MOEA),
Taiwan. The MOEA, Taiwan, invites senior managers of

1320

I.-C. Hsu / Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326

business enterprises to participate in an association initiated by the ministry to serve as advisors for other indigenous companies in Taiwan to improve knowledge sharing
between indigenous companies and thereby their competitive advantage. Each company is allowed only one participant in the association. Via this program, the participant
companies obtain access to government advisors, funding
and training programs. Under the promotion of the ministry, the senior manager participants in the association were
aware of the importance of knowledge sharing. Thus, the
MOEA database oers a promising opportunity for this
knowledge sharing study.
Questionnaires were sent to a total of 1486 managers
enlisted as advisors for business enterprises. After followup telephone calls to these managers, 256 usable questionnaires were collected from 256 respective companies, representing a response rate of 17.2%. The 256 respondents
averaged 47.5 years in age and had 23 years of work experience; the male-to-female ratio was approximately 6.41.
They were either top managers (general managers and
chairmen of boards of directors) or functional managers.
The former accounted for 77.7% of the respondents and
the remaining were functional managers. The responding
companies varied in size and industries, and had an average
of 369 employees and 18.7 years of history. Appendix A
reports proles of the responding companies.
3.2. Questionnaire development
Measures of the focal constructs in this paper were
developed from existing literature. Two rounds of questionnaire pretesting were conducted. In the rst round, ve
senior managers with more than 20 years of work experience were provided with the survey. Ambiguities and
sources of confusion in the questionnaire were removed
in light of the comments and suggestions of senior managers. During the second round of pretesting, a revised questionnaire was given to a dierent group of ve managers
with a similar work tenure. Appendix B reports the questionnaire items.
The seven-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1
(totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) were used throughout the questionnaire. A six-item scale of organizational
human capital was developed by reference to a range of
studies (Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Edvinsson & Malone,
1997; Roos, Roos, Edvinsson, & Dragonetti, 1998; Snell
& Dean, 1992; Youndt et al., 2004). The scale contained
aspects of relative competencies of employees compared
to competitors and the employees use of their competencies to achieve organizational goals. Organizational performance was measured by six items developed from
Khandwalla (1977). The scale reected a range of performance measures and included long-run protability,
growth rate of revenues, employee satisfaction, employee
productivity, goodwill and product (or service) quality.
Organizational knowledge sharing practices are measured by seven items. They included the companys use of

the following practices for knowledge sharing: (1) mentoring programs (Lepak & Snell, 1999), (2) work teams
(Becker, 1964; Lepak & Snell, 1999), (3) training and development programs (Becker, 1976; Liebowitz, 1999), (4) IT
systems (Alavi & Leidner, 2001), (5) knowledge-sharing
mechanisms (Calantone et al., 2002; Liebowitz, 1999),
and (6) incentive systems to encourage knowledge sharing
(Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000;
Liebowitz, 1999). The seventh item is the company disseminating lessons learned from past failure to its members
(Calantone et al., 2002).
The measurement of top management knowledge values
contained six items. Top management: (1) emphasizes
knowledge sharing within the company, (2) believes that
its support is key to employee knowledge sharing (Davenport et al., 1998; Davenport & Prusak, 2000), (3) sees
through the establishment of knowledge sharing mechanisms (Hsu, 2006), (4) regards knowledge sharing policies
and practices as contributing to company performance,
and (5) protability (Hauschild, Licht, & Stein, 2001;
Husted & Michailova, 2002), and (6) regards rm-specic
knowledge as a source of competitive advantage (Cabrera
& Cabrera, 2002). Finally, a six-item scale for innovation
strategy was developed from Millers (1988) measurement
of innovative dierentiation, i.e., Porters (1980) dierentiation strategy that emphasizes product and service innovation. The scale reected such aspects of organizational
strategy as the speed and performance of new product
(or service) introduction, and cost of new product (or service) development.
4. Results
4.1. Measurement model
A conrmatory factor analysis using Amos 4.0 was conducted to test the measurement model. Six model-t measures were used to assess the models overall
appropriateness of t: the ratio of chi-square to degreesof-freedom, goodness of t index (GFI), adjusted goodness
of t index (AGFI), normed t index (NFI), comparative
t index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Following the recommendation of previous literature (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, &
Magley, 1997; Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, &
Lawler, 2000), three indicators were formed from original
measuring items for each of the latent constructs on the
basis of the items psychometric properties and substantive
content. This procedure maximizes the degree to which the
indicators of each construct share variance. The model
resulting from the conrmatory factor analysis showed
adequate
t
(chi-square/df. = 2.46,
GFI = 0.91,
AGFI = 0.86, NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08).
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and bivariate Pearson
correlations for the ve construct scales.
Reliability of our construct scales was estimated through
composite reliability (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,

I.-C. Hsu / Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326

1321

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Construct

Mean

SD

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.09
5.90
5.28
5.27
5.47

0.81
0.80
1.07
0.97
0.88

0.49
0.64
0.51
0.46

0.57
0.55
0.61

0.75
0.65

0.71

Top management knowledge values

Innovation strategy
Organizational knowledge sharing practices
Organizational human capital
Organizational performance

N = 256. Correlations are signicant at 0.001 level.

1998). The composite reliability can be calculated as follows: (the square of the summation of the factor loadings)/{(the square of the summation of the factor
loadings) + (the summation of item measurement error)}.
The composite reliabilities for the ve constructs scales suggested acceptable reliability of the scales for further analysis (top management knowledge values: 0.90, innovation
strategy: 0.85, organizational knowledge sharing practices:
0.91, organizational human capital: 0.92, and organizational performance: 0.89). Convergent validity was evaluated by examining the factor loadings of indicators and
their squared multiple correlations (see Table 2). Following
Hair et al.s (1998) recommendation, factor loadings
greater than 0.50 are considered to be very signicant.
All factor loadings reported in Table 2 are greater than
0.50. Consequently, squared multiple correlations between
these individual indicators and their a priori constructs are
also high. Therefore, all constructs in the measurement
model were judged as having adequate convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was assessed by examining
whether the condence interval around the correlation

Table 2
Factor loadings and squared multiple correlations of remaining items for
all constructs
Construct/indicators

Factor loadings

Squared multiple correlations

Top management knowledge values

Indicator 1
0.86
Indicator 2
0.89
Indicator 3
0.81

0.74
0.79
0.66

Innovation strategy
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3

0.53
0.62
0.60

0.73
0.79
0.78

Organizational knowledge sharing practices

Indicator 1
0.84
0.70
Indicator 2
0.90
0.81
Indicator 3
0.86
0.74
Organizational human capital
Indicator 1
0.93
Indicator 2
0.92
Indicator 3
0.82

0.87
0.85
0.67

Organizational performance
Indicator 1
0.91
Indicator 2
0.92
Indicator 3
0.73

0.82
0.84
0.54

between any two latent constructs includes one (Anderson

& Gerbing, 1988). No condence interval around the correlation in the measurement model included one, which
indicated discriminant validity of the model. A more prudent test of discriminant test requires comparing an unconstrained model that estimates the correlation between a
pair of constructs and a constrained model that xes the
value of the construct correlation to 1 (Chiou, 2004). A signicant dierence in chi-square values between these models (larger than 3.84) was observed. This implied that the
unconstrained model is a better t for the data supporting the existence of discriminant validity.
4.2. Structural model
A similar set of t indices were used to examine the
structural model as shown in Fig. 1. This models t indices
showed good t (Chi-square/df. = 2.75, GFI = 0.90,
AGFI = 0.86, NFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95, and RMSEA =
0.08). The structural model helped to examine the predictive power of innovation strategy and top management
team values on organizational knowledge sharing practices,
the predictive power of organizational knowledge sharing
practices on organizational human capital, and the inuence of organizational human capital on organizational
performance.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 investigate the inuences of innovation strategy and top management knowledge values on
organizational knowledge sharing practices. As expected,
innovation strategy (b = 0.42, t-value = 5.66, p < 0.001)
and top management knowledge values (b = 0.46,
t-value = 6.73, p < 0.001) showed strong associations with
organizational knowledge sharing practices. Thus, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported. The proposed model
explained 61% of the variance in organizational knowledge
sharing practices.
Hypothesis 2 examines the path from organizational
knowledge sharing practices to organizational human capital. The analysis suggested that organizational knowledge
sharing practices (b = 0.83, t-value = 14.52, p < 0.001)
showed a strong, positive association with organizational
human capital. Hypothesis 2 was supported. The proposed
model accounted for 68% of the variance in organizational
human capital.
Hypothesis 1 examines the path from organizational
human capital to organizational performance. The analysis

1322

I.-C. Hsu / Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326

Top Management
Innovation Strategy

Knowledge Values

0.42 (5.66)** *

0.46 ( 6.73)* **

Organizational
Knowledge Sharing
Practices
R2 = 0.61
0.83 (14.52)***

Organizational
Human Capital
R 2 = 0.68

0.74 (13.56)** *

Organizational
Performance
R2 = 0.55
Notes: ** * p < 0.001; t-values for standardized path coefficients are provided in
parentheses.

Fig. 1. Hypothesis testing results.

suggested that organizational human capital (b = 0.74,

t-value = 13.56, p < 0.001) showed a strong, positive association with organizational performance. Hypothesis 1
was supported. The proposed model accounted for 55%
of the variance in organizational performance.
5. Discussion and implications
5.1. Implications for theory
This study shows the importance of organizational
human capital by providing supporting evidence on its
positive eect on organizational performance. Previously
the importance of organizational human capital was
emphasized, but its eect on organizational performance
has not been thoroughly explored. Instead of using nancial performance as the only measurement of organizational performance, this study uses a wider range of
indicators to measure performance. The data were provided by top or senior managers of the surveyed companies. The study results bring insight into the eects of
organizational human capital. Organizational human capital does not just aect both top-line and bottom-line gures, but also aect a range of performance indicators,
such as quality of products and services and growth potential of companies.
This study also provides a possible mechanism by which
organizational knowledge sharing practices contribute to

organizational performance. Knowledge sharing practices

improve organizational performance through the development of human capital. Activity-based measurement is
developed for organizational knowledge sharing practices.
The practices combine both technical (e.g., IT systems)
and human management systems (e.g., work teams). The
ndings support arguments in the previous literature that
organizational arrangements for employees that support
knowledge sharing will develop organizational human capital (Lepak & Snell, 1999). As human capital helps improve
organizational performance, the importance of organizational knowledge sharing practices cannot be emphasized
too highly.
Innovation strategy is an important predictor of the
implementation of organizational knowledge sharing practices. Organizational knowledge sharing supports a company in its pursuit of innovative outcomes. However, an
overarching strategy should precede knowledge sharing
practices to guide them. In particular, organizational
knowledge sharing practices, under the guide of the strategy, can help companies develop rm-specic human capital that will serve as a basis for competitive advantage. The
eect of organizational strategy on the implementation of
knowledge sharing practices has rarely been examined.
This study contributes to theory building eorts in the eld
of knowledge management research by examining such an
eect.
The values top managers hold toward knowledge are
another important predictor of the implementation of
organizational knowledge sharing practices. Organizational cultural factors have been demonstrated to be associated with organizational knowledge creation processes
(Lee & Choi, 2003). However, values underlie the events,
activities and human relationships (Alavi et al., 2005
2006; Van Maanen & Barley, 1985) that constitute organizational cultures. This study demonstrates the positive relationship between a precursor of organizational culture and
organizational knowledge sharing practices. It demonstrates the importance of leadership in its construction of
a knowledge culture within an organization to facilitate
knowledge sharing and develop human capital.
The overall model examines the enablerpracticeoutcome (Alavi et al., 20052006) or enablerprocessoutcome
(Lee & Choi, 2003) relationship that was proposed to guide
empirical research in the eld. Top management knowledge
values and innovation strategy can be said to be two enablers of organizational knowledge sharing practices. Organizational human capital is an important outcome of the
knowledge sharing practices. The examination of the overall model also serves to provide supporting evidence for
Lado and Wilsons (1994) philosophical claims. They
claimed that strategy, cultural values, and human capital
developing practices should be in place to eectively
develop organizational human capital and promote competitive advantage of an organization. The examination
of the eectiveness of organizational knowledge management/sharing practices had been insucient prior to this

I.-C. Hsu / Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326

study. This study bridges such a gap by supporting the

hypotheses that the organizational knowledge sharing
practices develop organizational human capital, which in
turn improves organizational performance.

5.2. Implications for practices

This study has practical implications. First, the relationships among organizational antecedents, organizational
knowledge sharing practices, organizational human capital
and performance may provide a guide as to how companies
should achieve competitive advantage by using knowledge
sharing practices to develop human capital. Second, companies are advised of the important antecedents that lead
to the success of knowledge sharing practices in developing
human capital. Third, the scale of organizational knowledge sharing practices oers a checklist for companies to
evaluate themselves according to the degree to which they
implement the practices necessary to develop organizational human capital.

6. Conclusions
This study has limitations. First, potential common
method variance may result from the use of self-report
data. Second, the senior manager database used for the survey may be biased. For example, only senior managers with
good company performance are condent enough to be
included in the database. However, Taiwanese business
people share a long tradition of emphasizing guanxi (positive connections) in business operations. Participating in
the association means an extension of a managers social
network and access to government funding and training.
Since the MOEA did not use company performance as a
selection criterion for those applying to join the association, many company senior managers are eager to join
the association. Thus, the selection bias may not be an
important limitation for this study.
Third, the cross-sectional data did not allow a longitudinal investigation of the conceptual framework examined in
this paper. However, this study has opened up a line of
inquiry by examining the causal links between organizational antecedents, organizational knowledge sharing practices, organizational human capital and performance. The
ndings have implications for theory and practice. Future
research is encouraged to follow this line of inquiry to
bring more insight into how organizations should enhance
their performance with well-conceived knowledge sharing
strategies and practices. Such research can broaden the
scope by investigating the relationships between knowledge
management processes, which include acquisition, sharing,
integration, and retention of knowledge, and organizational human capital (Hsu, 2005). Financial performance
measured by objective indicators should also be included
in the investigation.

1323

Appendix A. Proles of responding companies

Characteristics

Frequency Percentage

Industry type
Industry type
(main)
(sub)
Manufacturing Information and
communications
Electronics,
Mechatronics
and
optoelectronics
Metals
Transportation
vehicles and
components
Petrochemicals
and plastics
Food and drinks
Others (textile,
wood, chemicals,
medical and
mechanical
equipments, etc.)

13

5.1

25

9.8

32
12

12.5
4.7

23

9.0

16
26

6.3
10.2

14

5.5

22

8.6

25

9.8

15
32

5.9
12.5

Not reported
Total

1
256

0.4
100

Number of employees
< 100
100 to <500
500 to <1000
1000 to < 5000
>= 5000
Not reported
Total

173
43
17
12
4
7
256

67.6
16.8
6.6
4.7
1.6
2.7
100

Service

Information and
communications
vendors
Management
and nancial
services
Retailing and
wholesaling
Construction
Others (logistics,
transportation,
publication,
technical
services, etc.)

Annual sales (in USD)

<100 000
100 000 to < 500 000
500 000 to <1 million
1 to <100 million
100 to < 500 million
>= 500 million

8
3.1
21
8.2
25
9.8
148
57.8
12
4.7
4
1.6
(Continued on next page)

1324

I.-C. Hsu / Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326

Appendix A (continued)
Characteristics

Frequency Percentage

Not reported
Total

38
256

14.8
100

Capital (in USD)

<100 000
100 000 to < 500 000
500 000 to <1 million
1 to <100 million
100 to < 500 million
>= 500 million
Not reported
Total

20
79
39
86
7
2
23
256

7.8
30.9
15.2
33.6
2.7
0.8
9.0
100

Note: The exchange rate between USD and New Taiwan

Dollars is about 1:34.
Appendix B. Survey items
Top management knowledge values:
1. Top management emphasizes knowledge sharing within
the company.
2. Top management believes that its support is key to
employee knowledge sharing.
3. Top management sees through the establishment of
knowledge sharing mechanisms in the company.
4. Top management regards knowledge sharing policies
and practices as contributing to company performance.
5. Top management regards knowledge sharing policies
and practices as helpful for the company to earn prots.
6. Top management regards rm-specic knowledge as a
source of competitive advantage.
Innovation strategy:
1. The company sees innovation as the key to perpetual
survival.
2. The company keeps launching new products or services.
3. The company is one step ahead of its major competitors
in introducing its products or services to the market.
4. If the company is one step ahead of its major competitors in introducing its products or services to the market, usually these products or services make good
prots.
5. The company pursues its own successful business model.
6. The company has higher R& D expenses as a percentage
of sales than its competitors.
Organizational knowledge sharing practices:
1. The company uses senior personnel to mentor junior
employees.
2. The company groups employees in work teams.
3. The company analyzes its past failure and disseminates
the lessons learned among its employees.

4. The company invests in IT systems that facilitate knowledge sharing.

5. The company develops knowledge sharing mechanisms.
6. The company oers incentives to encourage knowledge
sharing.
7. The company oers a variety of training and development programs.
Organizational human capital
1. The companys employees identify themselves with company values and vision.
2. The companys employees exert their best eorts to
achieve organizational goals and objectives.
3. The companys employees are better than those of competitors at innovation and R&D.
4. The companys employees are better than those of competitors at reducing the companys operating costs.
5. The companys employees are better than those of competitors at responding to customer demands.
6. The companys employees outperform those of
competitors.
Perceived performance:
1. The company has higher long-run protability than its
competitors.
2. The company has higher growth prospect in sales than
its competitors.
3. The companys employees have higher job satisfaction
than those of competitors.
4. The companys employees have higher productivity than
those of competitors.
5. The company has better goodwill than its competitors.
6. The company has better quality products or services
than its competitors.
References
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (20052006). An empirical
examination of the inuence of organizational culture on knowledge
management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems,
22(3), 191224.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and
knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research
issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107136.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling
in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423.
Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: creating, retaining, and
transferring, knowledge. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Bae, J., Chen, S.-j., Wan, T. W. D., Lawler, J. J., & Walumbwa, F. O.
(2003). Human resource strategy and rm performance in pacic rim
countries. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
14(8), 13081332.
Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in
Korea: impact on rm performance in an emerging economy. Academy
of Management Journal, 43(3), 502517.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management, 17, 99120.

I.-C. Hsu / Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Building competitive advantage
through people. Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 3441.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Organizational knowledge
management: a contingency perspective. Journal of Management
Information System, 18(1), 2355.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.
Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard
Business Review, 78(3), 133141.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John
Wiley.
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas.
Organization Studies, 23(5), 687710.
Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation,
rm innovation capability, and rm performance. Industrial Marketing
Management, 31, 515524.
Chiou, J.-S. (2004). The antecedents of consumers loyalty to internet
service providers. Information and Management, 41(6), 685695.
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investigation of KM styles and
their eect on corporate performance. Information and Management,
40, 403417.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building your companys vision.
Harvard Business Review(SeptemberOctober), 6577.
Connolly, T., & Thorn, B. K. (1990). Discretionary databases: theory,
data and implications. In J. Fulk & C. Steineld (Eds.), Organizations
and communication technology (pp. 219233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers:
the usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization
Science, 7(2), 119135.
Currie, G., & Kerrin, M. (2003). Human resource management and
knowledge management: enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 10271045.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful
knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2),
4357.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: how
organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
De Saa-Perez, P., & Garca-Falcon, J. M. (2002). A resource-based view of
human resource management and organizational capabilities development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1),
123140.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource
management practices on perceptions of organizational performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949969.
Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding knowledge management. Long
Range Planning, 30(3), 374384.
Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: realizing your
companys true value by nding its hidden brainpower. New York:
Harper Business.
Elias, J., & Scarbrough, H. (2004). Evaluating human capital: an
exploratory study of management practice. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(4), 2140.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V.
J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in
organizations: a test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 578589.
Flamholtz, E. G., & Lacey, J. M. (1981). Personnel management, human
capital theory, and human resource accounting. Los Angeles, CA:
Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D.
Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150167). Ann Arbor,
MI: Institute for Social Research.

1325

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business

Review, 71(4), 7891.
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage:
implications for strategy formulation. California Management
Review(Summer), 114135.
Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001). General perspectives on
knowledge management: fostering a research agenda. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 18(1), 521.
Gupta, A. J., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge managements social
dimension: lessons from Nucor steel. Sloan Management Review, 42(1),
7180.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1993). Strategy as stretch and leverage.
Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 7584.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (2005). Strategic intent. Harvard Business
Review, 83(7/8), 148161.
Hauschild, S., Licht, T., & Stein, W. (2001). Creating a knowledge culture.
The McKinsey Quarterly, 1(6), 7481.
Hitt, M. A. (2000). The new frontier: transformation of management for
the new millennium. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 716.
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2000). An investigation of factors that
inuence the management of knowledge in organizations. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 9(0), 235261.
Hsu, I-C. (2005). Developing a model of knowledge management from a
human capital perspective preliminary thoughts. Paper Presented at
the 2005 Academy of Management Meeting, Aug. 5-10. Honolulu,
Hawaii, U.S.
Hsu, I.-C. (2006). Enhancing employee tendencies to share knowledge
case studies of nine companies in Taiwan. International Journal of
Information Management, 26(4), 326338.
Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and ghting knowledgesharing hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31(1), 6073.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing
knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113143.
Khandwalla, P. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Hartcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Knott, A. M. (2004). Persistent heterogeneity and sustainable innovation.
Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 687705.
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource systems and
sustained competitive advantage: a competency-based perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 699727.
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes,
and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical
examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1),
179228.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture:
toward a theory of human capital allocation and development.
Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 3148.
Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the rm.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 93107.
Liebowitz, J. (1999). Key ingredients to the success of an organizations
knowledge management strategy. Knowledge and Process Management,
6(1), 3740.
Liebowitz, J. (2002). Facilitating innovation through knowledge sharing: a
look at the us naval surface warfare center carderock division.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(5), 16.
Liebowitz, J. (20032004). A knowledge management strategy for Jason
organization. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44(2), 15.
Liebowitz, J. (2004). Bridging the knowledge and skills gap: tapping
federal retirees. Public Personnel Management, 33(4), 421448.
Liebowitz, J., & Chen, Y. (2001). Developing knowledge-sharing prociencies: building a supportive culture for knowledge-sharing. Knowledge Management Review, 3(6), 1215.
Malhotra, Y. (2004). Why knowledge management systems fail: enablers
and constraints of knowledge management in human enterprises. In C.

1326

I.-C. Hsu / Expert Systems with Applications 35 (2008) 13161326

W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook on knowledge management 1: knowledge

matters (pp. 577599). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge sharing hostility in
Russian rms. California Management Review, 45(3), 5977.
Miller, D. (1988). Relating porters business strategies to environments
and structure: analysis and performance implications. Academy of
Management Journal, 31(2), 280308.
Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and
the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23,
242266.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning by interaction: absorptive capacity,
cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and
Governance, 4(12), 6992.
ODell, C., & Grayson, C. J. Jr., (1999). Knowledge transfer: discover
your value propositions. Strategy & Leadership, 27(2), 1015.
Parnes, H. S. (1984). People power. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a
resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179191.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive advantage: techniques for analyzing
industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1996). Leveraging intellect.
Academy of Management Executive, 10(3), 726.
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J.
(2000). Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United
States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting t on the basis of the
dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(5), 643658.
Roos, J., Roos, G., Edvinsson, L., & Dragonetti, N. C. (1998). Intellectual
capital: navigating in the new business landscape. New York: New York
University Press.
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of notion: knowledge management in
practice. California Management Review, 40(3), 8089.
Sabherwal, R., & Bercerra-Fernandez, I. (2003). An empirical study of the
eect of knowledge management processes at individual, group and
organizational levels. Decision Sciences, 24(2), 225260.
Scarbrough, H., & Carter, C. (2000). Investigating knowledge management.
London: CIPD.
Snell, S. A., & Dean, J. W. Jr., (1992). Integrated manufacturing and
human resource management: a human capital perspective. Academy
of Management Journal, 35(3), 467504.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The inuence of intellectual

capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450463.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the
transfer of best practice within the rm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, 2743.
Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of rms: an
introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 537556.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities
and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18,
509533.
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?
Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973993.
Ulrich, D., & Lake, D. (1991). Organizational capability: creating
competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1),
7792.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1985). Cultural organization: fragments
of a theory. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louise, C. C. Lundberg,
& J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 3154). Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: why people
participate and help others in electronic communities of practice.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(2/3), 155173.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should i share? examining social
capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice.
MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 3557.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice:
the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139
145.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource based view of the rm. Strategic
Management Journal, 5, 171180.
Widen-Wul, G., & Soumi, R. (2007). Utilization of information
resources for business success: the knowledge sharing model. Information Resources Management Journal, 20(1), 4667.
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human
resources and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based
perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
5(2), 301326.
Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W., Jr., & Lepak, D. P. (1996).
Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and rm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949969.
Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, M., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Intellectual
capital proles: an examination of investments and returns. Journal of
Management Studies, 41(2), 335361.