Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of intellectual capital on organizational performance—Knowledge management as moderator

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to explain the global performance of firms from an intellectual capital perspective. Samples were selected from a list of the top 1,000 Taiwanese companies using a type of purposive sampling. The selection criteria required sample companies to be located in Taiwan and to compete globally. This study collected 146 valid questionnaires from 146 companies. The results confirm that intellectual capital is positively associated with a firm’s global performance. The results also confirm a moderating effect of knowledge management strategy on the relationship between intellectual capital and global performance. These results imply that a combination of the right type of knowledge management strategy with the right form of intellectual capital will enhance a firm’s performance, although neither the technology-centered nor the people-centered approach should be overused.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afiouni, F. 2007. Human resource management and knowledge management: A road map toward improving organizational performance. Journal of American Academy of Business, 11(2): 124–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anantatmula, V. S., & Kanungo, S. 2010. Modeling enablers for successful KM implementation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1): 100–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antal, A. B. 1993. Odysseus’ legacy to management development: Mentoring. European Management Journal, 11(4): 448–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banutu-Gomez, M. B., & Banutu-Gomez, S. M. T. 2007. Leadership and organizational change in a competitive environment. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 2(2): 69–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 2000. Transnational management: Text, cases, and readings in cross-border management. New York: McGraw-Hill International Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. 2001. The HR scorecard. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berardo, R. 2009. Processing complexity in networks: A study of informal collaboration and its effect on organizational success. Policy Studies Journal, 37(3): 521–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Fry, N. 1998. Subsidiary initiatives to develop new markets. Sloan Management Review, 39(3): 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., & Jonsson, S. 1998. Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3): 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bontis, N. 1998. Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2): 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bose, S., & Oh, K. B. 2004. Measuring strategic value-drivers for managing intellectual capital. The Learning Organization, 11(4/5): 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozbura, F. T. 2004. Measurement and application of intellectual capital in Turkey. The Learning Organization, 11(4/5): 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooking, A. 1996. Intellectual capital. London: International Thomson Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooking, A. 1997. Management of intellectual capital. Long Range Planning, 30(3): 364–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, G. D., Dess, G. G., & Janney, J. J. 2007. Knowledge management in technology-focused firms in emerging economies: Caveats on capabilities, networks, and real options. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(2): 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural hole: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M. A., Sanders, W. G., & Gregersen, H. B. 2001. Bundling human capital with organizational context: The impact of international assignment experience on multinational organizational performance and CEO pay. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3): 493–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chau, P. Y. K., & Lai, V. S. K. 2003. An empirical investigation of the determinants of user acceptance of internet banking. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 13(2): 123–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. M., & Lin, K. J. 2003. The measurement of human capital and its effects on the analysis of financial statements. International Journal of Management, 20(4): 470–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. 1998. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuganesan, S. 2005. Intellectual capital-in-action and value creation: A case study of knowledge transformations in and innovation project. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(3): 357–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuganesan, S. 2006. Reporting organizational performance in managing human resources: Intellectual capital or stakeholder perspectives?. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 10(3): 164–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. 1995. Simplicity as a strategy-making process: The effects of stage of organizational development and environment on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1386–1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. 1997. Entrepreneurial strategy making and organizational performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9): 677–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Stefano, P. J., & Kalbaugh, G. E. 1999. Intellectual capital. Rough Notes, 142(7): 94–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, D. 1998. Knowledge–based enterprises: An overview. South African Journal of Library and Information Science, 66(3): 90–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. 1997. Intellectual capital: Realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden roots. New York: Harper Collin Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emory, C. W., & Cooper, D. R. 1991. Business research methods, 4th ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gates, B. 1999. Business: The speed of thought. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloet, M., & Berrell, M. 2003. The dual paradigm nature of knowledge management: Implications of achieving quality outcomes in human resource management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1): 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gloet, M., & Terziovski, M. 2001. Exploring the relationship between knowledge management practices and innovation performance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th International and 5th National Conference on Quality and Innovation, Melbourne Business School, Australia.

  • Gloet, M., & Terziovski, M. 2004. Exploring the relationship between knowledge management practices and innovation performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(5): 402–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. 2001. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1): 185–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., & Preiss, K. 1995. Agile competitors and virtual organizations: Strategies for enriching the customer. New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., & Petty, R. 2000. Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3): 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49: 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. 1999. What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?. Harvard Business Review, 77(2): 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. 1994. A mid-range theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance. Journal of Management, 20(2): 297–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. 1998. Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4): 22–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Housel, T. J., & Nelson, S. K. 2005. Knowledge valuation analysis: Applications for organizational intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(4): 544–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaw, B. S., Ling, Y. H., & Chang, W. C. 2001. Relationships among human capital, industrial environment, and organizational performance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Third Asia Pacific Management Conference. National Chun Kung University, Taiwan.

  • Jih, W. K., Helms, M. M., & Mayo, D. T. 2005. Effects of knowledge management on electronic commerce: An exploratory study on Taiwan. Journal of Global Information Management, 13(4): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juma, N. A. 2005. The relationship between intellectual capital and new venture performance: An empirical investigation of the moderating role of the environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Arlington, Texas.

  • Kaiser, H. F. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1): 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavida, V., & Sivakoumar, N. 2010. The relevance of intellectual capital in the Indian information technology industry. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(4): 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N. 1986. Foundations of behavioral research, 3rd ed. Fort Worth, TX: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D. Y., & Kumar, V. 2009. A framework for prioritization of intellectual capital indicators in R&D. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(2): 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. 2000. Managing global strategic work, transnational management: Text, cases, and readings in cross-border management. New York: McGraw-Hill International Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, D. J. 1999. Performance measures for increasing intellectual capital. Strategy and Leadership, 27(12): 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D. F., & Hodgetts, R. M. 1992. Entrepreneurship: A contemporary approach, 3rd ed. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling, Y. H., & Jaw, B. S. 2006. The influence of international human capital on global initiatives and financial performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(3): 379–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr, B., Schiuma, G., & Neely, A. 2004. The dynamics of value creation: Mapping your intellectual performance drivers. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2): 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavridis, D. G. 2005. Intellectual capital performance determinants and globalization status of Greek listed firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(1): 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElyea, B. E. 2002. Knowledge management, intellectual capital, and learning organizations: A triad of future management integration. Academic Research Library, 26(1/2): 59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. 2005. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11): 1033–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H. T., & Bukh, P. N. 2005. Dealing with the knowledge economy: Intellectual capital versus balanced scorecard. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(1): 8–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. 1990. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4): 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, A., Roos, G., & Vickers-Willis, T. 2007. Evaluating an Australian public policy organization’s innovation capacity. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(4): 532–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dell, C., & Grayson, Jr., C. J. 1998. If only we knew what we know: The transfer of internal knowledge and best practice. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ojeda-Gomez, J., Simpson, M., Koh, S. C. L., & Padmore, J. 2007. Achieving competitive advantage in the Mexican footwear industry. Benchmarking, 14(3): 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okes, D. 2005. Corral your organization’s knowledge. Quality Progress, 38(10): 25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pai, D. C. 2005. Knowledge strategies in Taiwan’s IC design firms. Journal of American Academy of Business, 7(2): 73–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pang, N. S. K. 1996. School values and teachers’ feelings: A LISREL model. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(2): 64–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, A., Cross, R., & Walsh, D. 2001. Improving collaboration with social network analysis. Knowledge Management Review, 4(2): 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, J. R., & de Pablos, P. O. 2003. Knowledge management and organizational competitiveness: A framework for human capital analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3): 82–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrott, B. E. 2007. A strategic risk approach to knowledge management. Business Horizons, 50(6): 523–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponelis, S., & Fairer-Wessels, F. W. 1998. Knowledge management: A literature overview. South African Journal of Library and Information Science, 66(1): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rastogi, P. N. 2003. The nature and role of IC: Rethinking the process of value creation and sustained enterprise growth. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2): 227–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, K. K., Lubatkin, M., & Srinivasan, N. 2006. Proposing and testing an intellectual capital-based view of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4): 867–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos, G., Bainbridge, A., & Jocobsen, K. 2001. Intellectual capital analysis as a strategic tool. Strategy & Leadership, 29(4): 21–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos, J., Roos, G., Edvinsson, L., & Dragonetti, N. C. 1998. Intellectual capital: Navigating in the new business landscape. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saleh, N. M., Hassan, M. S., Jaffar, R., & Shukor, Z. A. 2010. Intellectual capital disclosure quality: Lessons from selected Scandinavian countries. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(4): 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiuma, G., & Lerro, A. 2008. Intellectual capital and company’s performance improvement. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(2): 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seleim, A., Ashour, A., & Bontis, N. 2004. Intellectual capital in Egyptian software firms. The Learning Organization, 11(4/5): 332–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Hardie, T. 2007. Organizational size and knowledge flow: A proposed theoretical link. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4): 610–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, K. H., Chang, C. J., & Lin, B. S. 2010. Assessing knowledge creation and intellectual capital in banking industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1): 74–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, D. J. 2008. Accounting for intangibles—a critical review of policy recommendations. Accounting and Business Research, 38(3): 191–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, M., Droge, C., Hanvanich, S., & Calantone, R. 2005. Marketing and technology resource complementarity: An analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3): 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, J. W. 2003. Firm’s knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system: Empirical evidence from the flat panel industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(3): 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahle, P., & Hong, J. 2002. Dynamic intellectual capital in global rapidly changing industries. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2): 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. A. 1997. Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. 2005. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3): 450–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K. E. 1997. The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge-based assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ting, I. W. K., & Lean, H. H. 2009. Intellectual capital performance of financial institutions in Malaysia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(4): 588–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tovstiga, G., & Tulugurova, E. 2007. Intellectual capital practices and performance in Russian enterprises. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4): 695–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vokurka, R. J., & Fliedner, G. 1998. The journal toward agility. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 98(4): 165–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. Y. P., & Ling, Y. L. 2005. The relationship between global integration mechanisms and global competencies: The perspectives of knowledge management. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of Comparative Management, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC, December.

  • Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. 1989. Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact?. Applied Psychology Journal, 74(3): 462–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S. H., Lin, L. Y., & Hsu, M. Y. 2007. Intellectual capital, dynamic capabilities and innovative performance of organizations. International Journal of Technology Management, 39(3/4): 279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, W. Y., Chang, M. L., & Chen, C. W. 2008. Promoting innovation through the accumulation of intellectual capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial orientation. R&D Management, 38(3): 265–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, W. Y., Chiang, C. Y., & Jiang, J. S. 2002. Interrelationships between TMT management styles and organizational innovation. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 102(3): 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, M., & Snell, S. A. 2004. Intellectual capital profiles: An examination of investment and return. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2): 335–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, I-Shou University, No. 1, Section 1, Hsueh-Cheng Road, Ta-Hsu Hsiang, Kaohsiung County, 840, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Ya-Hui Ling

Authors
  1. Ya-Hui Ling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ya-Hui Ling.

Appendix

Appendix

The question items of intellectual capital, knowledge management strategy, and global performance

Intellectual Capital

  1. 1.

    Human capital (α = .845)

    1. 1.

      Our top management teams are able to integrate and lead a culturally diverse work force.

    2. 2.

      Our top management teams are willing to empower employees all over the world.

    3. 3.

      Our top management teams are able to cope with pressures or hardships efficiently.

    4. 4.

      Our top management teams are able to deal with global emergency situations quickly and efficiently.

    5. 5.

      Our top management teams take initiatives to absorb worldwide information.

    6. 6.

      Our top management teams are able to identify and take advantage of global business opportunities.

  2. 2.

    Relational capital (α = .861)

    1. 1.

      My organization offers good customer service to our international customers.

    2. 2.

      My organization significantly values the relationships with our international customers and business partners.

    3. 3.

      My organization develops new business through networks with our international customers or business partners.

    4. 4.

      My organization has internal mechanisms to forecast the demand of international customers with accuracy.

  3. 3.

    Structural capital (α = .975)

    1. 1.

      In my organization, lessons learned from past experiences are widely available to those who undertake similar tasks.

    2. 2.

      In my organization, information on global, economic, social, political, technological, and market trends are widely available to our international managers

    3. 3.

      In my organization, instant solutions or reference information to work-related problems are widely available to our employees all over the world.

    4. 4.

      In my organization, valuable global competitive intelligence information has been sorted and stored.

    5. 5.

      In my organization, internal search engines (e.g., knowledge maps or corporate yellow pages) are available to match those who have questions with those who have answers.

Knowledge Management Strategy

  1. 1.

    Technology-centered knowledge management strategy (α = .744)

    1. 1.

      My organization often converts corporate culture or shared values into documented materials.

    2. 2.

      My organization often converts employee knowledge or expertise into documented materials.

    3. 3.

      My organization often enhances productivity (product/service quality and quantity) by renewing equipment.

    4. 4.

      My organization encourages patent applications so that employee knowledge or expertise all over the world can be converted into company-owned assets.

  2. 2.

    People-centered knowledge management strategy (α = .552)

    1. 1.

      In my organization, most of the knowledge is embedded in employees all over the world.

    2. 2.

      In my organization, knowledge is often shared through personnel interactions, such as mentoring or rotations.

    3. 3.

      My organization often acquires knowledge through strategic alliances, technology cooperation, mergers, acquisitions, or technology licensing.

Global Performance

  1. 1.

    Financial performance (α = .951)

    1. 1.

      My organization enjoyed higher average operational revenues (after-tax net income) than our international competitors over the past three years.

    2. 2.

      My organization enjoyed higher average EPS (Earning Per Share) than our international competitors over the past three years.

  2. 2.

    Global agility (α = .882)

    1. 1.

      My organization responds quickly to local business opportunities.

    2. 2.

      My organization absorbs global information (from customers, suppliers, competitors or industry leaders) quickly.

    3. 3.

      Global learning capability is a source of my organization’s global competitive advantage.

    4. 4.

      My organization responds quickly and effectively to worldwide emergency situations.

    5. 5.

      My organization responds quickly and effectively to worldwide technology and market changes.

    6. 6.

      My organization is able to store global employee knowledge/expertise or operational processes.

    7. 7.

      My organization utilizes industry leaders or international competitors to learn benchmarks.

  3. 3.

    Global innovation (α = .871)

    1. 1.

      My organization invests more on R&D than its international competitors.

    2. 2.

      My organization enjoys lower costs on new product development or new technology development than its international competitors.

    3. 3.

      My organization enjoys more new technology development or new product development than its international competitors.

    4. 4.

      A large portion of my organization’s profits comes from new products or technology development.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ling, YH. The influence of intellectual capital on organizational performance—Knowledge management as moderator. Asia Pac J Manag 30, 937–964 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-011-9257-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-011-9257-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation