Management Decision: Article Information

Management Decision
Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance

Zhining Wang, Nianxin Wang, Huigang Liang,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Zhining Wang, Nianxin Wang, Huigang Liang, (2014) "Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance",
Management Decision, Vol. 52 Issue: 2, pp.230-258, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2013-0064
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2013-0064
Downloaded on: 04 July 2018, At: 05:41 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 138 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4450 times since 2014*
Downloaded by La Trobe University At 05:41 04 July 2018 (PT)
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2011),"Intellectual capital and firm performance in Australia", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 Iss 4 pp. 505-530 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931111181706">https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931111181706</a>
(2015),"Review of empirical research on intellectual capital and firm performance", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16
Iss 3 pp. 518-565 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2015-0002">https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2015-0002</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:332610 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
MD
52,2 Knowledge sharing, intellectual
capital and firm performance
Zhining Wang
230 Department of Human Resource Management, School of Management,
China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou, China
Nianxin Wang
Department of Information Management, School of Economics and
Management, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology,
Zhenjiang, China, and
Huigang Liang
Department of Management Information Systems, College of Business,

East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to investigate the impact of knowledge sharing (KS) on firm
performance and the mediating role of intellectual capital (IC).
Design/methodology/approach – A research model was developed based on prior KS and IC
studies. A survey was administered to a sample of high technology firms in China and 228 usable
responses were collected. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the research model.
Findings – Tacit KS significantly was found to contribute to all three components of IC, namely
human, structural and relational capital, while explicit KS only has a significant influence on human
and structural capital. Human, structural and relational capital, enhance both operational and financial
performance of firms. The effect of KS on firm performance is mediated by IC. Explicit KS has a
greater effect on financial performance than operational performance, whereas tacit KS has a greater
impact on operational performance than financial performance.
Research limitations/implications – The sample of high technology firms in China might limit
the generalization of the findings. Nonetheless, this study takes its lead from and extends prior
research, thus providing a deepened understanding of the role of KS in organizational settings.
Practical implications – The paper suggests that managers can enhance firm performance by
enhancing their KS and IC. Managers can develop corresponding strategies based on the findings to
achieve their specific performance goals.
Originality/value – This is one of the first papers to examine how KS contributes to firm
performance through the mediation of IC. It will add significant value for organizations trying to
enhance their performance though KS practices.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Intellectual capital, Firm performance
Paper type Research paper
This research is partly supported by National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71101065
and 70971056), Chinese Education Ministry Foundation of Humanities and Social Sciences for
Young Scholar (Grant No. 11YJC630218 and 10YJC630242), Postdoctoral Science Foundation
Management Decision
Vol. 52 No. 2, 2014 funded project of China (Grant No. 2012M511820), the Fundamental Research Funds for the
pp. 230-258 Central Universities (Grant No. JGJ 110761), Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Grant
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
No. 1208085QG128), and Anhui Provincial Key Research Base of Humanity & Society Science
DOI 10.1108/MD-02-2013-0064 Important Foundation (Grant No. SK2012A155).
1. Introduction Knowledge
In the era of knowledge-based economies, intangible resources and competencies are sharing
crucial for firms to survive in dynamic environments (Subramaniam and Youndt,
2005a, b; Teece et al., 1997). According to the knowledge-based view (KBV),
knowledge-related resources are more likely to contribute to a firm’s attaining and
sustaining superior performance than tangible resources (Bogner and Bansal, 2007).
Since knowledge is not evenly distributed within an organization, knowledge sharing 231
(KS) among individuals, teams, and/or units is imperative for organizations to identify,
capture, create, and accumulate their knowledge to facilitate both resource structuring
and capacity building, which have been found to significantly increase firm
performance (Wang et al., 2012). However, KS is a challenge facing organizations
(O’Dell and Grayson, 1998) due to many barriers. Examples of these could be a firm’s
incentive systems being misaligned with the goal of implementing KS, or the failure of
these incentive systems to reduce people’s inherent hostility to KS (Husted and
Michailova, 2002; Husted et al., 2012).

In general, KS can be regarded as the process of interaction, communication and
coordination of knowledge or expertise (Haas and Hansen, 2007). It comprises a set of
shared understandings related to providing employees with access to relevant
information and using existing knowledge within organizations (Lin, 2007b).
Knowledge-related competence and organizational performance can be enhanced by
effective KS, because KS can make jobs easier and improve process efficiency by the
exchange of relevant information, best practices, insights, experiences, preferences,
lessons learned, as well as common and uncommon sense (Wang and Wang, 2012;
Huang and Wu, 2010).
Much research has recognized the importance of KS, investigating how
organizational, team, individual, or other factors such as culture/climate,
management support, rewards/incentives, diversity, social networks, perceived
benefits and costs, interpersonal trust and justice, beliefs of knowledge ownership,
and so on influence KS (Down, 2001; Small, 2006; Wang and Noe, 2010; Xue et al., 2011).
However, there is little empirical research in the extant literature concerning the
specific effect of KS on firm performance. While some studies have pointed out that KS
could result in reduced production costs, faster completion of new development
projects, improved decision making and coordination, innovation capability, sales
growth or revenue from new products and services (Huang et al., 2010;
Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009; Wang and Wang, 2012), the following
questions remain unanswered: Does KS influence firm performance directly? Is the
effect of KS on firm performance mediated by other variables? What is the mediation
mechanism?
The KBV suggests that knowledge is the primary source of value, and a firm’s value
creation is primarily a function of its ability to accumulate and use knowledge (Hsu and
Sabherwal, 2011; Zhou and Li, 2012). KS, the best way to effectively and efficiently
create, sustain, and transfer knowledge, will be a source of knowledge-related
competence, thus contributing to enhanced organizational performance and assets.
Consistent with this view, Hsu (2008) verified that KS practices improve organizational
performance through the development of human capital. Karagiannis et al. (2008) pointed
out that sharing and transferring knowledge could be helpful for institutionalizing
structural capital in a firm. According to Intellectual Capital (IC) theory, human capital,
MD structural capital and other knowledge assets are part of a firm’s IC, which can be
52,2 defined as the sum of all knowledge used to form the process of conducting business to
gain competitive advantages (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005a; Youndt et al., 2004).
Therefore, IC may be closely associated with or enhanced by KS, though little research
has examined their relationship. Furthermore, beyond process-oriented tasks such as
knowledge creation, sharing and utilization, IC deals with the valuation of knowledge in
232 a corporation and aims to improve organizational competitiveness and performance.
Thus, we specifically develop the argument that KS will influence firm performance both
directly and indirectly by strengthening the firm’s IC.
We tested our hypothesis with a survey of high-technology firms in China. With
independent intellectual property rights of a range of major products, high-technology
firms play a key role in the ongoing economic development of China through
knowledge-related production and innovation. As China has become more and more
integrated into the global economy, competitive pressures on Chinese firms have
intensified substantially, forcing high-technology firms to make full use of knowledge

and develop IC to survive and succeed. The complex and dynamic nature of the
transitional Chinese market makes it a rich field for exploring the relationships among
KS, IC and firm performance.
This study makes three important contributions. First, by showing that IC can be an
intermediate mechanism or conduit through which KS contributes to firm
performance, we provide an enriched theoretical explanation on the role of KS in
organizational settings. Second, by examining the influence of explicit and tacit KS on
three components of IC, namely human capital, structural capital, and relational
capital, which in turn lead to superior firm operational and financial performance, we
offer a detailed account of the effects of KS and IC. Finally, we contribute to the KBV
literature by empirically studying the relationships between KS, IC, and firm
performance. Our findings aim to complement and extend previous research in this
important area.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 puts forward the
theoretical development and hypotheses. Section 3 describes research methodology.
Data analysis and the findings are reported in section 4. Implications and limitations,
future research directions, and concluding remarks are discussed in section 5.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 Knowledge sharing (KS)
KS refers to the activity through which knowledge in various forms is transferred or
exchanged from one person, group or organization to another (McAdam et al., 2012). In
comparison with influences and changes emphasized by knowledge transfer (Argote
and Ingram, 2000), KS focuses more on the process of knowledge collection and
diffusion, and contributes to knowledge exchange, application and creation, and
ultimately, the knowledge-based capability within the organization (Wang and Wang,
2012). KS in an organization is very important for preserving its valuable heritage,
learning new techniques, solving problems, creating core competencies, initiating new
undertakings, and ultimately gaining competitive advantage (Hsu, 2008; Law and
Ngai, 2008). For this reason, previous studies have attempted to understand KS
practices from a variety of angles, such as tacit and explicit KS (Quigley et al., 2007;
Reychav and Weisberg, 2010; Wang and Wang, 2012), management practices,
technology, and business models KS (McEvily et al., 2000), formalized and informal KS Knowledge
(Taminiau et al., 2009; Zahra et al., 2007), exploratory and exploitative KS (Im and Rai, sharing
2008), solicited and voluntary KS (Teng and Song, 2011), and full and partial KS (Ford
and Staples, 2010).
Based on Polanyi’s (1966) conceptualization of knowledge, the Socialization,
Externalization, Combination, and Internalization (SECI) model explains the functions
performed by tacit and explicit KS in the knowledge creation process (Nonaka, 1994). 233
On the one hand, KS translates individual and group knowledge into organizational
knowledge via the processes of externalization and combination. On the other, KS
turns organizational knowledge into individual or group knowledge when
internalization and socialization occur. It is worth mentioning that tacit KS is the
foundation of socialization while explicit KS makes combination possible within the
organization. As regards the process of externalization and internalization, both tacit
and explicit KS play key roles in the transformation of the two types of knowledge.
As explicit knowledge is knowledge that can exist in symbolic or written form,

explicit KS comprises almost all the forms of KS that are institutionalized within
organizations. Practices of explicit KS are more common in the workplace because
explicit knowledge can be easily captured, codified and transmitted. Management
mechanisms, such as procedures, formal language, handbooks, and information
systems, will promote employees’ willingness to share their explicit knowledge
(Coakes, 2006). In contrast, as tacit knowledge cannot be expressed in verbal, symbolic
and written form, face-to-face interaction is the primary means for tacit KS. Keys to
tacit KS are the willingness and capacity of individuals to share what they know and to
use what they learn (Holste and Fields, 2010). Human experience is the foundation of
tacit KS because individuals cannot take advantage of new knowledge, unless they
have earlier social software already in place (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Difficulties
that may hinder tacit KS include coworkers’ unwillingness to share and/or use tacit
knowledge, limited awareness of the tacit knowledge an individual possesses,
difficulty in expressing tacit knowledge that is tied to mental and/or physical actions,
and deficiency of applying context-specific tacit knowledge in other contexts (Holste
and Fields, 2010).
2.2 Intellectual capital (IC)

IC is the sum of all knowledge and knowing capabilities that will be crucial for firms to
gain a sustainable competitive advantage (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Stewart and
Ruckdeschel, 1998; Teece and Teece, 2000). Originally, the concept of IC was
introduced to represent the difference between an organization’s book value and
market value (Stewart, 1994). IC has been defined in many different ways, including:
the knowledge assets that can be converted into value (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997);
the sum of a company’s hidden assets not fully captured on the balance sheet;
intellectual materials such as knowledge, information and experience that form the
company’s competitive advantage (Stewart and Ruckdeschel, 1998); and the sum of all
knowledge an organization can bring to bear on the process of conducting business to
gain a competitive advantage (Youndt et al., 2004). While there are variations on these
definitions, there is a great deal of convergence of opinion. Scholars generally agree
that as a non-monetary, non-physical resource, IC contributes to an organization’s
value creation and value extraction through the knowledge not only held by
MD individuals, but also stored within organizational databases, business processes,
52,2 systems, and relationships (Serenko and Bontis, 2004; Sullivan, 1999; Thrylo and
Kornukh, 2011; Youndt et al., 2004; Zharinova, 2011). Like other concepts in the
knowledge-based literature, IC has suffered from the dilemma of being theoretically
interesting, but extremely hard to identify.
Previous studies have proposed different frameworks that help us better
234 conceptualize IC as well as making it easier to operationalize. Spender (1996), for
example, combined two dimensions of explicit/tacit and individual/social knowledge to
create a matrix of four different elements of an organization’s IC. Edvinsson and
Malone (1997) expounded their view of IC as being made up of two primary
components: human capital and structural capital, which can be sub-divided into two
categories: organizational capital and customer capital. Sveiby (1998) proposed a
family tree to divide the IC into individual competence, internal structure, and external
structure. Johannessen et al. (2005) categorized IC as human capital, structure capital,
network capital and system capital. Drawing upon all of the existing discussions, we
find that the most widely accepted framework of IC has three major components:
human capital, structural capital, and relational capital (Chen, 2008; Chu et al., 2006;
Herremans et al., 2011; Hsu and Fang, 2009; Namvar et al., 2010; Sharabati et al., 2010;
Shih et al., 2010; Vergauwen et al., 2007).
Human capital, which is embedded in employees, is the sum of employees’
competence, knowledge, skills, innovativeness, attitude, commitment, wisdom, and
experience. It represent the individual knowledge stock of an organization to reach
certain targets (Bontis et al., 2007; Cabello-Medina et al., 2011; Campbell et al., 2012;
Nick and Alexander, 2007; Ruzzier et al., 2007). Structural capital refers to the valuable
intangible assets that employees cannot take away when getting off work or leaving
the organization (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997). Structural capital is embedded in
organizations and is best described as the valuable strategic assets of organizational
capabilities, organizational culture, routines, procedures, information systems,
hardware, software, databases, company images, patents, copyrights, trademarks,
and so on (Aramburu and Saenz, 2011; Karagiannis et al., 2008; Zangoueinezhad and
Moshabaki, 2009). Relational capital refers to the knowledge and learning capabilities
that exist in relationships between an organization and its external stakeholders
(Bontis, 1998; Cegarra-Navarro and Sanchez-Polo, 2008a, 2008b; Dewhurst and
Navarro, 2004; Kale et al., 2000). It is critical to organizations because it helps to create
organizational value by connecting internal intellectual resources with external
stakeholders (Carmeli and Azeroual, 2009; Collins and Hitt, 2006; De Clercq and
Sapienza, 2006; Kong and Farrell, 2010).
2.3 Research hypotheses

This paper aims to investigate how KS contributes to firm performance through the
mediating effect of IC. We develop a research model that shows the relationships
among the constructs to be studied (see Figure 1).
2.3.1 KS and IC. According to the KBV, knowledge is the key resource that
constitutes organizational capability or knowledge-based capital. However, if
knowledge stays isolated within certain individuals or units, it is difficult for a firm
to make full use of existing knowledge and accumulate or develop its IC. Therefore,
knowledge sharing is important in utilizing knowledge to develop IC (Hsu and
Knowledge
sharing
235
Figure 1.
Research model
Sabherwal, 2012). As KS involves the transfer or dissemination of knowledge from one

person or group to another (Hsu, 2008; Karagiannis et al., 2008), it is a critical aspect of
the leveraging, transmission and creation of knowledge, and a fundamental process for
enterprise knowledge management (Small, 2006). KS is likely to increases the scope of
the knowledge being integrated by different kinds of specialized knowledge, and
facilitates a knowledge-based capability that is inimitable for competitors (Grant,
1996).
Explicit KS can directly increase codified knowledge and skills of the receiver and
the knowledge provider can also deepen the understanding of their own knowledge
through feedback and discussion (Ipe, 2003). Interaction and personal contact involved
in explicit KS may well promote the effectiveness of learning, change staff’s knowledge
structure, and lead to improved individual performance (Chao et al., 2011; Huysman
and de Wit, 2004). Thus, arrangements that support knowledge sharing among
employees will help to develop organizational human capital (Hsu, 2008; Spender and
Marr, 2006):
H1a. Explicit KS is positively associated with human capital.
In the course of explicit KS, job-related knowledge, both technical and non-technical,
will be deposited in the organization as a result of information exchange, discussion
and engineering development for the sake of problem solving (Karagiannis et al., 2008).
In collaborative decision-making environments, better design and utilization of
management structures can be achieved by a certain degree of information and
knowledge sharing (Yoon et al., 2011). Structural capital represents the
institutionalized knowledge about the form of organizational processes, structures,
technologies, policies and culture. It will be enhanced through the institutionalization
MD of both the individual and group knowledge that is present in the firm during the
52,2 learning process, which is always accompanied by explicit KS (de Pablos, 2004):
H1b. Explicit KS is positively associated with structural capital.
When people work together for a common goal in groups and organizations, explicit
KS practices will help them establish either structural ties characterized by closeness
236 and frequent interactions or relational ties that exhibit relational aspects such as trust
and trustworthiness (Carmeli and Azeroual, 2009). As individuals in the same
organization usually have complementary specialties and task assignments, the
sharing of information and resources and collaboration will improve their job
performance and personal relationships (Hu, 2009). Through the flow of useful
information, high-quality relational capital is likely to result from the exchange of
knowledge and learning from one party to the other:
H1c. Explicit KS is positively associated with relational capital.
As tacit knowledge is embedded in action, contextualized in practice and subjected to

actors’ interpretations, it can hardly be codified, identified, retrieved and shared with
others (Peet, 2012). In the ‘place of knowledge making’, tacit KS takes place through the
connections of individuals, groups, and units, amplifies the knowledge of ‘knowing
more than we can tell’ possessed by the employees, and leads to organizational
knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009).
Through the exchange of tacit knowledge, team members could gain and use hands-on
skills, idiosyncratic experiences and special methods to perform better with a cognitive
innovation style (Bloodgood and Chilton, 2012). Therefore, tacit KS could actually
improve common sense, tactile experiences, social skills, intuition, emotions, and
unarticulated mental models of the involved stakeholders, which all add to the pool of a
firm’s human capital:
H2a. Tacit KS is positively associated with human capital.
In the day-to-day activities within organizations, signs of tacit knowledge such as
intuition, feelings, insights and personal abilities can be detected (Joia and Lemos,
2010). When people work toward the same goal, performance improvement can be
achieved through the sharing of individual experience, reflection, and talent (Bueno
et al., 2010). Some tacit KS is formal, resulting from training events, or conferences,
while others are more informal, resulting from interdepartmental task forces, informal
social networks and employee interactions (Holste and Fields, 2010). The result of tacit
KS not only changes the way individuals think and behave, but also adds new content
to existing routines, procedures, cultures, and learning systems, or even rebuilds the
infrastructure of an existing establishment:
H2b. Tacit KS is positively associated with structural capital.
When tacit knowledge, which is the main source of core competitive advantage, is
shared for special reasons, the receiver will greatly appreciate the valuable subjective,
context-specific insights, intuitions, or hunches transferred from the providers. With
the development and implementation of collaborative programs, the interactional
dynamics involved in tacit KS helps to enhance mutual understanding, trust and
cohesion (Yang and Lai, 2012). Previous research has found that once tacit KS occurs,
both parties involved would not only avoid making demands that can seriously Knowledge
damage common interests, but also promote their relationships through activities such sharing
as pursuing the same preference, sharing private experience, and expressing goodwill
and showing concerns (Hsu and Wang, 2012; Kong and Farrell, 2010; Wu et al., 2008):
H2c. Tacit KS is positively associated with relational capital.
2.3.2 IC and firm performance. IC, the sum of knowledge-related resources, represents 237
the wealth of ideas, abilities, infrastructures and relations that determine the
competitiveness of an organization (Sharabati et al., 2010). Human, structural and
relational capital, conceptualized as three components of IC, offer a powerful approach
to differentiating organizational financial and non-financial performance (Hsu and
Sabherwal, 2011; Hsu and Fang, 2009; Phusavat et al., 2011; Shih et al., 2007, 2010;
Youndt et al., 2004). Therefore, an increasing number of companies in America and
Europe publicize their IC reports to stakeholders for the benefits of confirming their
position as leaders in their fields.

As organizations need individuals who are knowledgeable, with excellent
problem-solving skills and the ability to make effective decisions, human capital is
considered to be the underlying strategic resource for sustainable competitive
advantage in today’s fast-paced, rapidly changing environment (Bontis et al., 2007;
Campbell et al., 2012; Mengistae, 2006). Given that a firm’s products and services are
always provided by its personnel, it is clear that a firm’s ability to produce new
products, improve operational and managerial efficiency, or heighten the level of
productivity and quality is closely linked to its human capital (Cabello-Medina et al.,
2011). Human capital is the most important aspect of IC, and firms that have realized
its importance and invested in their employees tend to enjoy better operational
performance (Seleim et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2011):
H3a. Human capital is positively associated with firm operational performance.
Human capital might also lead to improved financial outcomes of the business (Ling
and Jaw, 2006). Companies could maximize their ROI with high-yield investments in
human capital (Le Blanc et al., 1998). CEOs with international assignment experience, a
special type of human capital, are found to be able to create value for their firms and
themselves, especially when such human capital is bundled together with other
organizational resources and capabilities (Carpenter et al., 2001). In an investigation of
the relationship between being a ‘great place to work’ and firm performance, (Fulmer
et al., 2006) found that companies in the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America
list tended to enjoy not only positive workforce attitudes, but also better financial
performance than companies in the broader market, and in some cases, over the
comparison group made up of their peers:
H3b. Human capital is positively associated with firm financial performance.
Structural capital, sometimes used interchangeably with organizational capital,
includes all non-human reserves of knowledge in a firm employed to achieve better
performance (Bontis, 1998; Martinez-Torres, 2006; Youndt et al., 2004). With the
accumulation of structural capital, firms strengthen work procedures/processes to
improve production and service efficiency, facilitate communication and technical
exchange, and optimize problem solving to lower costs and improve quality (de Pablos,
MD 2004; Zangoueinezhad and Moshabaki, 2009). Consequently, firms incorporating
52,2 structural capital in their overall business strategies will not only creatively improve
the way they gather, produce and transmit knowledge, but also gain a better position
to generate higher quality, lower costs, and deeper insight leading to improved
operational performance (Aramburu and Saenz, 2011; Zangoueinezhad and
Moshabaki, 2009):
238 H4a. Structural capital is positively associated with firm operational performance.
If an organization has poor procedures and systems to deploy necessary resources and
track its actions, the organization will find it difficult to achieve its performance goals.
Conversely, an organization that provides strong structural support to its core business
by nurturing an innovation culture, developing organizational commitment of
sufficient resources, and engaging top-level management will excel in financial
performance (De Brentani and Kleinschmidt, 2004). Moreover, structural capital
propels organizations’ value creation activities, which have a positive effect on their
performance. Phusavat et al. (2011), for example, found that structural capital
positively and significantly affects a manufacturing firm’s financial performance,
(i.e. return on equity, return on assets, revenue growth and employee productivity):
H4b. Structural capital is positively associated with firm financial performance.
Organizations emphasizing strategic relationships almost inevitably focus on the
relationship with their stakeholders (Hsu and Wang, 2012). With the support of
relational capital, staff can be enabled to pinpoint new issues for further attention,
exploit the cognitive arsenal within the network, and define better ways for the uptake
and implementation of tasks. By building relational capital with customers or partners,
firms may find new and improved ways to do business by learning from others’
advanced experiences and becoming more innovative (Cousins et al., 2006; Dewhurst
and Navarro, 2004). Therefore, a firm could increase the level of quality improvement,
cost reduction, responsiveness, productivity and asset management through the new
insights derived from its strong relational capital:
H5a. Relational capital is positively associated with firm operational performance.
Recent research has suggested that relational capital may reduce transaction costs,
enhance cooperation, enable entrepreneurship and the creation of start-up companies,
and strengthen supplier relations, regional production networks and inter-firm
learning (Moran, 2005; Thuy and Quang, 2005; Zhang and Fung, 2006). De Clercq and
Sapienza (2006), for example, found venture capitalists’ perception of portfolio
performance would be amplified by the positive effect generated from relational
capital. Germain et al. (2011) confirmed that, in hospitals, engaging in relational
exchanges with suppliers was associated with better financial performance when
responsiveness was high. Zhang and Fung (2006) showed that the flow of social capital
is a significant determinant of an enterprise’s financial performance:
H5b. Relational capital is positively associated with firm financial performance.
2.3.3 KS and firm performance. According to KBV, knowledge, both explicit and tacit,
constitutes the primary resource for firms to gain and sustain a competitive advantage
(Felin and Hesterly, 2007; Reus et al., 2009). While most explicit knowledge and certain
tacit knowledge can be retained by an organization for value creation and value Knowledge
extraction, it is knowledge sharing or integration that combines scattered knowledge to
enhance innovation, creativity, and ultimately achieve performance gains (Gao et al.,
sharing
2009). Many current knowledge sharing practices, such as training and development
programs, IT systems, reports and official documents, and cross-function teams, are
good examples of knowledge integration in that they combine knowledge across a
broad spectrum to enhance the quality of products and services, increase 239
responsiveness to customer needs, strengthen innovation capability, and improve
firm performance (Wang and Wang, 2012).
Organizational learning occurs when firms expand or renew their knowledge stocks
over time by investing in explicit KS, such as training, acquiring external technologies,
and hiring external experts. Explicit KS stimulates flows of new knowledge and guides
future actions. This increases the distribution of knowledge across organizational
members, facilitates the emergence of common meanings, and enables existing
capabilities to be synthesized and reconfigured. Therefore, explicit KS has significant

influences on employees’ values, organizational engagement and management norms,
which are central to enabling superior operational performance. As suggested by van
den Hooff and De Ridder (2004), explicit KS processes, with the flow of new
information and codified knowledge, would contribute to organizational efficiency and
effectiveness:
H6a. Explicit KS is positively associated with firm operational performance.
Exchange of explicit knowledge within a firm can bring disparate knowledge sources
together and turn this into a driving force for financial performance. An increased level
of explicit KS helps to take advantage of the existing formal knowledge and expertise
in integrated problem solving, which can result in improved products and processes
(Lawson et al., 2009). Lee (2001), for example, found that once successful explicit KS
takes place directly in outsourcing projects, firms’ financial outcomes would be
enhanced. Carr and Kaynak (2007) suggested that information sharing within a firm
and between firms was necessary for helping organization members identify critical
issues, and eventually led to product quality improvement and financial performance.
Wang and Wang (2012), confirmed that explicit KS practices facilitated innovation and
financial performance:
H6b. Explicit KS is positively associated with firm financial performance.
As tacit knowledge is an essential part of experiential knowledge acquired by
individuals during the course of (holistic) working, tacit KS contains person-, situation-
or context-oriented interactions. This practice stimulates organization members,
groups and units to exchange their own experience or knowledge and think together, to
a certain extent. Therefore, tacit KS can be the backbone of organizational learning and
bring enormous benefits to an organization (Akbar, 2003; Down, 2001; Matthew and
Sternberg, 2009; van Woerkom and Sanders, 2010). These benefits include lower costs,
improved delivery, fewer quality problems, early insights into new technologies, and
on-time product launches (Hsu, 2008; Sher and Lee, 2004). Law (2008), for example,
found that tacit KS led to the improvement of business processes, product and service
offerings of a firm, and better operational performance:
H7a. Tacit KS is positively associated with firm operational performance.
MD The value-creating capability that resides in the sharing of know-how or tacit
52,2 knowledge of the engineers, managers and marketing staff creates a sustainable
competitive advantage (Harold, 2008). Du et al. (2007) explored the relationship
between knowledge sharing and firm performance based on a survey and found that
different dimensions of knowledge sharing play a host of roles in affecting
performance. A firm’s financial performance tends to increase when the firm improves
240 its tacit KS, especially when it is related to outsourcing, sales, cost reduction, quality
assurance, R&D, and customer management:
H7b.Tacit KS is positively associated with firm financial performance.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Data collection
We adopted a survey method to test the hypotheses. Although the survey approach has
some disadvantages, such as providing only a snapshot of the situation at a certain point
in time, it has advantages relative to case studies and other qualitative methods.
Specifically, surveys allow for precise measurement of theoretical constructs, quick data
collection, rigorous data analysis using advanced, statistical techniques, and quantitative
identification of complex relationships (Gable, 1994). Case studies are more appropriate
when the boundaries of the focal phenomena are not well defined, and the relationships
between constructs cannot be quantitatively evaluated. Since in this study, the
boundaries of the KS phenomenon are relatively well defined and the relationships
between constructs are statistically testable, a survey method is fully justified.
A random sample was drawn from high-technology firms in the Jiangsu province (one
of the most developed provinces in China). Our sampling choice was based on three
considerations. First, KS in high-technology firms plays a crucial role in facilitating IC
development because knowledge resources and assets are fundamental in this highly
competitive business sector. Second, it is important to develop knowledge-related
production and innovation to stay competitive in the transitional economy in China. This
forces high-technology firms to pay more attention to KS and IC so as to attain
competitive advantages. Third, these selected firms seriously encourage KS and believe
that it could improve operational or financial performance, thus offering an appropriate
setting for examining the relationship between KS and performance.
Following the key informant approach, which suggests that top managers represent
the best source for firm-level information, we directed our questionnaires (each
company received one questionnaire) to the CEO/general manager or senior manager.
A total of 691 firms were approached via mail or email. Some firms did not respond,
and some firms’ data were discarded because of incomplete questionnaires. Finally, 263
completed surveys were collected. After removing the obviously invalid responses
(e.g. selecting the same answer for all questions), 228 were retained for analysis,
showing an effective response rate of 32.9 percent.
We compared the responding firms with the non-responding firms in terms of industry
type. The Chi-squared test was insignificant. We also checked the possibility of
non-response bias by comparing the characteristics of the earliest 57 respondents (25
percent) and the last 57 respondents of the final sample. The t-test for company size and
the chi-squared test for the industry type of the company are all statistically insignificant,
suggesting that there are no significant differences between the two groups. Hence,
non-response bias is not a serious concern (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).
3.2 Measurement Knowledge
All measurement items were reused or adapted from existing scales in the literature to sharing
ensure reliability and content validity of latent variables. The explicit KS measurement
was adapted from Liebowitz and Chen (2001), and Wang and Wang (2012). The tacit
KS measurement was adapted from Holste and Fields (2010), Lin (2007a), and Wang
and Wang (2012). The human capital measurement was adapted from Bontis (1998),
Chen et al. (2009), Hsu and Fang (2009), and Youndt et al. (2004). The structural capital 241
measurement was based on Bontis (1998), Hsu and Fang (2009), and Wu et al. (2008).
The relational capital measurement was derived from Bontis (1998), Hsu and Fang
(2009), and Longo and Mura (2011). The operational performance measurement was
adapted from Bowersox et al. (2000). The financial performance measurement was
based on Bowersox et al. (2000), Inman et al. (2011), and Vaccaro et al. (2010). The
detailed measurement items are shown in the Appendix.
Because the questionnaire was initially written in English, we performed a
translation of the original instrument into Chinese. Some modifications were made to
align the scales with the Chinese context. An expert panel of two professors, six CEOs
and senior business managers examined the face validity of the measurement items.
After a pilot and several revisions, the final questionnaire was developed for data
collection. A seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally
agree) was used throughout the questionnaire.
3.3 Control variable

To account for differences among firms, firm size was included in our research model
as a control variable. We selected this variable because of its potential impact on firm
performance, as suggested by Ravichandran and Lertwongsatien (2005). Firm size
implies greater pricing and bargaining power, and the prevalence of operation and
management routines, all of which can influence firm performance. In this study, firm
size was measured by the natural log of the number of employees.
3.4 Common method bias test

To test the common method bias, we use Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff et al.,
2003) and a fully saturated causal model (Williams et al., 2003). A principal factor
analysis of the measurement items yielded seven factors with eigenvalues greater than
1, accounting for 75.4 percent of the total variance, with the first factor accounting for
33.7 percent of the variance. Since a single factor did not emerge, and one general factor
did not account for most of the variance, common method bias was considered unlikely
to be a serious problem. A fully saturated model also showed that common method
bias was not present because item loadings were generally found to be statistically
insignificant with unrelated constructs.
4. Results
4.1 Measurement model
We first performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by employing structural
equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate the overall measurement model. Convergent
validity and discriminant validity were assessed. Convergent validity is the degree to
which items that are supposed to measure a single construct agree with each other. We
tested convergent validity by assessing factor loadings, which should be significant
MD and exceed 0.6, composite reliabilities, which should exceed 0.8, and the average
52,2 variance extracted (AVE), which should be more than 0.5 for all constructs (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). In our model, all of the factor loadings are greater than 0.6 and
significant at the 0.01 level. Factor loadings range from 0.69 to 0.91. Composite
reliabilities (CR) range from 0.89 to 0.94. AVE ranges from 0.62 to 0.73. The results
show that our model meets the convergent validity criteria. We evaluated the internal
242 reliability of scales by using Cronbach’s alpha (C-a). This statistic ranges from 0.89 to
0.95, which are all higher than 0.7. Table I shows the means, SD, factor loading, AVE,
CR and C-a of every construct.
Discriminant validity is the degree to which items that are supposed to measure a
specific construct do not predict conceptually unrelated constructs (Kline, 2010). We
used Fornell and Larcker’s approach (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) to assess discriminant
validity. In this approach, the AVE for each construct should be higher than the
squared correlation between the same construct and any other construct. Table II
indicates that the measurement model has satisfactory discriminant validity.

In Table II, the diagonal elements in italics denote the AVE and the off-diagonal
elements are the squared correlations between constructs. It is obvious that each
diagonal element is higher than its respective off-diagonal elements. Therefore, all
constructs in the measurement model were judged as having adequate discriminant
validity.
We assessed the measurement model fit by evaluating:
.
absolute fit measures, including observed normed x2 (x2/df), goodness-of-fit
index (GFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA);
.
incremental fit measures, including normed fit index (NFI), adjusted
goodness-of-fit (AGFI) and comparative fit index (CFI); and
.
parsimonious fit measures, including parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI)
and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI).
As shown in Table III, all fit indices met satisfactory levels. Therefore, we conclude
that the model fits the data well and is thus suitable for testing the research
hypotheses.
4.2 Structural model

Table IV and Figure 2 show the results of hypothesis testing of the structural
relationship among the latent variables. The first three hypotheses concern the
relationships between explicit KS and three components of intellectual capital. The
effects of explicit KS on human and structural capital are 0.257 and 0.266 ( p , 0.05),
supporting H1a and H1b. However, the effect of explicit KS on relational capital is not
significant ðb ¼ 0:093; p . 0.10). Thus, H1c is not supported. The effects of tacit KS on
human, structural and relational capital are 0.228, 0.321 and 0.319, which are
statistically significant ( p , 0.05). Thus, H2a, H2b and H2c are supported.
According to Table IV and Figure 2, the effects of human capital on operational and
financial performance are 0.200 and 0.203 which are statistically significant ( p , 0.05).
Thus, H3a and H3b are supported. Structural capital had significant effects on both
operational and financial performance ðb ¼ 0:292; p , 0.05; b ¼ 0:144; p , 0.05).
Therefore, H4a and H4b are supported. Relational capital has significant effects on
Knowledge
Constructs Mean SD Items Loading AVE CR C-a
sharing
Explicit knowledge sharing (ES) 3.91 0.78 es1 0.90 0.73 0.94 0.94
es2 0.87
es3 0.89
es4 0.75
es5 0.87 243
es6 0.83
Tacit knowledge sharing (TS) 3.85 0.74 ts1 0.78 0.69 0.94 0.94
ts2 0.88
ts3 0.76
ts4 0.85
ts5 0.87
ts6 0.77
ts7 0.88
Human capital (HC) 3.87 0.60 hc1 0.84 0.62 0.89 0.89
hc2 0.84
hc3 0.69
hc4 0.80
hc5 0.74
Structural capital (SC) 3.80 0.75 sc1 0.87 0.71 0.94 0.95
sc2 0.84
sc3 0.87
sc4 0.84
sc5 0.78
sc6 0.84
sc7 0.87
Relational capital (RC) 3.82 0.76 rc1 0.84 0.71 0.93 0.92
rc2 0.91
rc3 0.78
rc4 0.88
rc5 0.81
Operational performance (OP) 3.92 0.76 op1 0.76 0.63 0.89 0.89
op2 0.83
op3 0.89
op4 0.73
op5 0.75
Financial performance (FP) 3.83 0.73 fp1 0.88 0.73 0.94 0.94
fp2 0.86
fp3 0.86
fp4 0.73 Table I.
fp5 0.90 Results of CFA and
fp6 0.88 internal reliability testing
both operational performance ðb ¼ 0:114; p , 0.10) and financial performance

(b ¼ 0.199, p , 0.05), providing support for H5a and H5b.
The effect of explicit KS on operational performance is non-significant ðb ¼ 0:058;
p . 0.10), failing to support H6a. The effect of explicit KS on financial performance
has a value of 0.214 and is statistically significant ( p , 0.10), providing support for
MD H6b. Contrary to H7a, tacit KS has no direct effect on operational performance because
the path coefficient is only 0.014 and not significant ( p . 0.10). Finally, H7b is
52,2 supported because the path coefficient between KS and financial performance is
statistically significant ðb ¼ 9:189; p , 0.05).
4.3 Additional analysis

244 To reveal the mediating role of IC components, indirect effects and total effects were
calculated (Table V). As Table V shows, the three components of IC do indeed mediate
the effects of KS on operational performance and financial performance. Our results
suggest that the effect of explicit KS on operational performance is fully mediated by
the IC components, whereas its effect on financial performance is partially mediated. In
contrast, the effect of tacit KS on operational performance is partially mediated,
whereas its effect on financial performance is fully mediated. In addition, explicit KS
seems to have a weaker total effect on operational performance than financial
performance ðb ¼ 0:194 vs b ¼ 0:308Þ; and tacit KS seems to have a stronger effect on
operational performance than financial performance ðb ¼ 0:385 vs b ¼ 0:241Þ:
5. Discussion
This study has three key findings. First, tacit KS will significantly contribute to all
three components of IC, namely human, structural and relational capital, while explicit
KS only has a significant influence on human and structural capital. Second, human,
Constructs EKS TKS HC SC RC FP OP
EKS 0.73
TKS 0.18 0.69
HC 0.12 0.11 0.62
SC 0.15 0.17 0.05 0.71
Table II. RC 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.71
Correlations between FP 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.63
constructs OP 0.13 0.20 0.13 0.20 0.10 0.11 0.73
Fit index Scores Recommended cut-off value
Absolute fit measures

x2/df 1.146 # 2a; # 5b
GFI 0.851 $0.90a; $0.80b
RMSEA 0.025 ,0.08a; ,0.1b
Incremental fit measures
NFI 0.895 $ 0.90a
AGFI 0.830 $0.90a; $0.80b
CFI 0.985 $ 0.90a
Parsimonious fit measures
PGFI 0.749 The higher, the better
Table III. PNFI 0.827 The higher, the better
Overall fit indices of the
CFA model Notes: Acceptability: aacceptable; bmarginal
Knowledge
Hypothesis Estimate p Remarks
sharing
H1a EKS ! HC 0.257 * * , 0.001 Supported
H1b EKS ! SC 0.266 * * , 0.001 Supported
H1c EKS ! RC 0.093 0.219 Not supported
H2a TKS ! HC 0.228 * * 0.003 Supported
H2b TKS ! SC 0.321 * * , 0.001 Supported 245
H2c TKS ! RC 0.319 * * , 0.001 Supported
H3a HC ! FP 0.199 * * 0.004 Supported
H3b HC ! OP 0.197 * * 0.004 Supported
H4a SC ! FP 0.135 * * 0.055 Supported
H4b SC ! OP 0.290 * * , 0.001 Supported
H5a RC ! FP 0.193 * * 0.004 Supported
H5b RC ! OP 0.114 * 0.081 Supported
H6a EKS ! FP 0.203 * * 0.006 Supported
H6b EKS ! OP 0.056 0.446 Not supported
H7a IKS ! FP 0.091 0.007 Supported

H7b EKS ! OP 0. 211 * * 0.241 Not supported
Firm scale ! OP 2 0.036 0.533 –
Firm scale ! FP 0.012 0.836 – Table IV.
Standardized path
Note: *Significant at the 0.10 level (two-tailed), * *significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed) coefficients
Figure 2.
Research model and
results of hypothesis test
MD
Predictor/dependent HC SC RC OP FP
52,2
Direct effects
EKS 0.257 0.266 0.093 0.056 0.203
TKS 0.228 0.321 0.319 0.211 0.091
HC 0.197 0.199
246 SC 0.290 0.135
RC 0.114 0.193
Indirect effects
EKS 0.138 0.118
TKS 0.151 0.146
Table V. Total effects
Direct, indirect, and total EKS 0.194 0.308
effects analysis TKS 0.385 0.241
structural and relational capital will play key roles in enhancing both operational and
financial performance of firms. Finally, the effect of explicit KS on operational
performance is completely mediated by human and structural capital whereas the link
between explicit KS and financial performance is partially mediated. The effect of tacit
KS on financial performance is completely mediated by IC while the link between tacit
KS and operational performance is partially mediated.
5.1 Theoretical contributions

The main finding from our study is uncovering how KS contributes to firm performance
through the mediation of IC. To date, few studies have examined the mechanism that
underlies the relationship between KS and firm performance. To fill this gap, we put
forward a theoretical model and confirmed that KS not only has a direct relationship
with performance, but also indirectly influences firm performance by strengthening IC.
The results of our study provide some novel insights into the KBV processes by
demonstrating the business value of two kinds of KS and three components of IC.
The positive relationship between KS and IC is a new finding in the field of
knowledge management and IC research. Our study suggests that both explicit and
tacit KS bring about benefits to organizations by creating opportunities to enhance
components of IC. Explicit KS will enhance human and structural capital through the
exchange of official documents and reports, training and development programs, IT
systems, and other such actions. These findings are partly consistent with previous
research (Hsu, 2008; Karagiannis et al., 2008). However, explicit KS does not
significantly improve relational capital, implying that it takes more than sharing of
codified knowledge and formal documents for a firm to establish and maintain good
relationships with internal and external stakeholders.
Although the empirical relationships between IC and firm performance have been
examined, very little research considers the specific effects that human, structural and
relational capital have on different types of firm performance in one integrated model.
Consistent with previous studies (Bontis et al., 2007; Ling and Jaw, 2006; Skaggs and
Youndt, 2004), our findings regarding the effect of human capital suggest that work
experience, professional skills, creative ideas and knowledge possessed by a firm’s
staff will enhance both operational and financial performance of the firm. In regard to
structural capital, we found that a company’s infrastructure, such as operations Knowledge
procedures, response speed, information systems, culture and atmosphere bring both sharing
operational and financial benefits. This result is somewhat consistent with the findings
of Zangoueinezhad and Moshabaki (2009). We also observed that relational capital
contributes to both kinds of performance, confirming that it is critical for organizations
to develop good relationships with employees and partners.
Previous research on the KS-performance relationship has been focused on the 247
individual level and team (group) level. Recently, attention has been drawn to the
implication of KS on performance at the organization level (Law and Ngai, 2008; Wang
and Wang, 2012). An important contribution of our study is that it explains how the
two kinds of KS influence firm performance differently. Our results show that explicit
KS in the work environment will increase the return on investment, assets, sales,
profitability, and growth of a company with respect to its key competitors, validating
the findings of previous research (Wang and Wang, 2012). Tacit KS is found to have a
direct effect on a firm’s operational performance, such as customer satisfaction, quality

development, cost management, speed of response, and productivity. These results
indicate that explicit KS is more important or relevant to value creation activities such
as outsourcing and sales, while tacit KS has a greater effect on issues related to quality
of products and services or management procedures, which are often represented by a
firm’s non-financial or operational performance.
5.2 Practical implications

For management practitioners who are concerned with the value of KS, our study
presents several intriguing insights. First, the mediating role of IC suggests that firms
should do more than merely structure appropriate KS activities. They have to clearly
understand the effects of KS and IC on firm performance. As different components of
IC have a variety of effects on firm performance, managers should work together to
build mechanisms to ensure that IC are channeled properly so as to attain desired
performance levels. Specifically, more attention should be paid to knowledge
embedded in organizational systems, such as routines, procedures, and other structural
capital, in conditions where the level of operational results needs to be raised. When the
priority is on improving financial performance, managers should make more effort to
increase the knowledge and experience of their staff for developing human capital.
Second, firms should be cautious with KS. With the development of information
technology (IT), sharing knowledge will speed up the process of IC development and
accumulation, which in turn increases firm performance. However, IT is a double-edged
sword and could become a threat to firms if it is misused to leak personal information,
business secrets, or intellectual property data (Liang and Xue, 2009). Thus, managers
should take measures to regulate KS at different levels of their organization, especially in
the digital world. In order to avoid privacy and security concerns, firms must realize that
the benefits of KS come with a lot of risks that need to be carefully managed to avoid
unnecessary losses. It is advisable for firms to establish KS policies to categorize
knowledge and clearly define the scope and boundaries of knowledge sharing activities.
Third, if confidential knowledge is not involved, stimulating both explicit and tacit
KS is beneficial. To facilitate explicit KS, managers should establish the necessary
organizational structures and processes that encourage the exchange of job-related and
codified knowledge. Since tacit KS is more difficult to monitor, managers can rely on
MD team climate and social influences to help knowledge workers internalize the value of
52,2 KS and subsequently adopt new behaviors (Liang et al., 2010). To foster tacit KS,
managers may consider designing work based on teams, rewarding individuals based
on collective performance, and arranging informal activities, such as dining together
and traveling together as a department, to increase the willingness and enthusiasm of
individuals to collaborate with each other and to use what they have learned.
248 Finally, because high-technology firms in China have realized the importance of
knowledge-related resources and competence for survival and development in the
highly competitive, complex and dynamic environment, the lack of measurement tools
for KS and IC could hinder their KS and IC development initiatives. The KS and IC
scales developed in this paper are theory-driven and adapted for the situation of
Chinese high-tech enterprises. Chinese high-tech firms could employ these scales to
evaluate their current KS practices and identify inadequacies.
5.3 Limitations and future research opportunities

This study has several limitations that call for further research in the matter. First, this
study employed a cross-sectional research design. Although our results are consistent
with theoretical reasoning, the cross-sectional design prevented us from inferring
causality from the hypothesized relationships. Future research might address this issue
by using longitudinal designs or experimental methods to draw causal inferences.
Second, this study is based on self-reported assessments, which may be vulnerable
to common method bias (CMB). While the Harman one-factor test and fully saturated
causal model do not indicate that CMB is a significant problem, this concern may not
be completely ruled out. Future research may benefit from using objective measures for
firm performance, which can be independently verified.
Third, this study selected high-technology firms in China as the sample. These
firms are characterized by knowledge-intensive tasks and intellectual property-based
competition. Therefore, the relationships among KS, IC, and firm performance might be
stronger in these firms than firms in general. Future research can investigate firms in
different industries and contexts to confirm or extend our findings.
Finally, this study makes a unique contribution to the current body of knowledge by
examining the relationships among KS, IC and firm performance. However, it does not
consider the roles played by context factors, such as organizational cultures, routines,
knowledge creation, accumulation and other knowledge management processes or
strategies, and environmental uncertainty. Future studies might gain insights by
exploring the effects of these contextual factors.
References
Akbar, H. (2003), “Knowledge levels and their transformation: towards the integration of
knowledge creation and individual learning”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40
No. 8, pp. 1997-2021.
Aramburu, N. and Saenz, J. (2011), “Structural capital, innovation capability, and size effect:
an empirical study”, Journal of Management & Organization, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 307-325.
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in
firms”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-169.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, pp. 396-402.
Bloodgood, J.M. and Chilton, M.A. (2012), “Performance implications of matching adaption and Knowledge
innovation cognitive style with explicit and tacit knowledge resources”, Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 106-117. sharing
Bogner, W.C. and Bansal, P. (2007), “Knowledge management as the basis of sustained high
performance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 165-188.
Bontis, N. (1998), “Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models”,
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-76. 249
Bontis, N., Seleim, A. and Ashour, A. (2007), “Human capital and organizational performance:
a study of Egyptian software companies”, Management Decision, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 789-801.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J., Stank, T.P. and Keller, S.B. (2000), “How supply chain competency
leads to business success”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 70-78.
Bueno, E., Aragon, J.A., Salmador, M.P. and Garcia, V.J. (2010), “Tangible slack versus intangible
resources: the influence of technology slack and tacit knowledge on the capability of
organisational learning to generate innovation and performance”, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 314-337.

Cabello-Medina, C., Lopez-Cabrales, A. and Valle-Cabrera, R. (2011), “Leveraging the innovative
performance of human capital through HRM and social capital in Spanish firms”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 807-828.
Campbell, B.A., Coff, R. and Kryscynski, D. (2012), “Rethinking sustained competitive advantage
from human capital”, The Academy of Management Review (AMR), Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 376-395.
Carmeli, A. and Azeroual, B. (2009), “How relational capital and knowledge combination
capability enhance the performance of work units in a high technology industry”, Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 85-103.
Carpenter, M.A., Sanders, G. and Gregersen, H.B. (2001), “Bundling human capital with
organizational context: the impact of international assignment experience on multinational
firm performance and CEO pay”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3,
pp. 493-511.
Carr, A.S. and Kaynak, H. (2007), “Communication methods, information sharing, supplier
development and performance – an empirical study of their relationships”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 Nos 3-4, pp. 346-370.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Sanchez-Polo, M.T. (2008a), “Defining the knowledge that an
organisation requires to create customer capital from a customer perspective”,
Service Industries Journal, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1125-1140.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Sanchez-Polo, M.T. (2008b), “Linking the individual forgetting context
with customer capital from a seller’s perspective”, Journal of the Operational Research
Society, Vol. 59 No. 12, pp. 1614-1623.
Chao, C.Y., Hwu, S.L. and Chang, C.C. (2011), “Supporting interaction among participants of
online learning using the knowledge sharing concept”, Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 311-319.
Chen, C.J., Shih, H.A. and Yang, S.Y. (2009), “The role of intellectual capital in knowledge
transfer”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 402-411.
Chen, Y.S. (2008), “The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitive advantages of
firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 271-286.
Chu, P.Y., Lin, Y.L., Hsiung, H.H. and Liu, T.Y. (2006), “Intellectual capital: an empirical study of
ITRI”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 73 No. 7, pp. 886-902.
MD Coakes, E. (2006), “Storing and sharing knowledge: supporting the management of knowledge
made explicit in transnational organisations”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 6,
52,2 pp. 579-593.
Collins, J.D. and Hitt, M.A. (2006), “Leveraging tacit knowledge in alliances: the importance of
using relational capabilities to build and leverage relational capital”, Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 147-167.
250 Cousins, P.D., Handfield, R.B., Lawson, B. and Petersen, K.J. (2006), “Creating supply chain
relational capital: the impact of formal and informal socialization processes”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 851-863.
De Brentani, U. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2004), “Corporate culture and commitment: impact on
performance of international new product development programs”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 309-333.
De Clercq, D. and Sapienza, H.J. (2006), “Effects of relational capital and commitment on venture
capitalists’ perception of portfolio company performance”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 326-347.

de Pablos, P.O. (2004), “Measuring and reporting structural capital: lessons from European
learning firms”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 629-647.
Dewhurst, F.W. and Navarro, J.G.C. (2004), “External communities of practice and relational
capital”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 Nos 4/5, pp. 322-331.
Down, S. (2001), “Knowledge sharing review – the use of history in business and management,
and some implications for management learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 393-410.
Du, R., Ai, S.Z. and Ren, Y.Q. (2007), “Relationship between knowledge sharing and performance:
a survey in Xi’an, China”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 38-46.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997), Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value
by Finding its Hidden Brainpower, HarperBusiness, New York, NY.
Felin, T. and Hesterly, W.S. (2007), “The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new
value creation: philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 195-218.
Ford, D. and Staples, S. (2010), “Are full and partial knowledge sharing the same?”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 394-409.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fulmer, I.S., Gerhart, B. and Scott, K.S. (2006), “Are the 100 best better? An empirical
investigation of the relationship between being a “great place to work” and firm
performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 965-993.
Gable, G.G. (1994), “Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in
information systems”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 112-126.
Gao, W., He, X. and Wang, H. (2009), “The impact of knowledge integration on firm
performance”, Journal of International Technology and Information Management, Vol. 18
No. 2, p. 239.
Germain, R., Davis-Sramek, B., Lonial, S.C. and Raju, P. (2011), “The impact of relational supplier
exchange on financial performance: a study of the hospital sector”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 240-253.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 109-122.
Haas, M.R. and Hansen, M.T. (2007), “Different knowledge, different benefits: toward a Knowledge
productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 1133-1153. sharing
Harold, H. (2008), “The effect of tacit knowledge on firm performance”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 148.
Herremans, I.M., Isaac, R.G., Kline, T.J.B. and Nazari, J.A. (2011), “Intellectual capital and
uncertainty of knowledge: control by design of the management system”, Journal of 251
Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 4, pp. 627-640.
Holste, J.S. and Fields, D. (2010), “Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 128-140.
Hsu, I.C. (2008), “Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor for improving
organizational performance through human capital: a preliminary test”, Expert Systems
with Applications, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1316-1326.
Hsu, I.C. and Sabherwal, R. (2011), “From intellectual capital to firm performance: the mediating
role of knowledge management capabilities”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 626-642.
Hsu, I.C. and Sabherwal, R. (2012), “Relationship between intellectual capital and knowledge
management: an empirical investigation”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 489-524.
Hsu, L.C. and Wang, C.H. (2012), “Clarifying the effect of intellectual capital on performance: the
mediating role of dynamic capability”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 179-205.
Hsu, Y.H. and Fang, W.C. (2009), “Intellectual capital and new product development
performance: the mediating role of organizational learning capability”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 664-677.
Hu, M.L.M. (2009), “Knowledge sharing and innovative service behavior relationship: guanxi as
mediator”, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 977-992.
Huang, T.T., Chen, L. and Stewart, R.A. (2010), “The moderating effect of knowledge sharing on
the relationship between manufacturing activities and business performance”, Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 285-306.
Huang, Y.C. and Wu, Y.C.J. (2010), “Intellectual capital and knowledge productivity: the Taiwan
biotech industry”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 580-599.
Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2002), “Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 60-73.
Husted, K., Michailova, S., Minbaeva, D.B. and Pedersen, T. (2012), “Knowledge-sharing hostility
and governance mechanisms: an empirical test”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 754-773.
Huysman, M. and de Wit, D. (2004), “Practices of managing knowledge sharing: towards a
second wave of knowledge management”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 81-92.
Im, G.Y. and Rai, A. (2008), “Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational
relationships”, Management Science, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 1281-1296.
Inman, R.A., Sale, R.S., Green, K.W. Jr and Whitten, D. (2011), “Agile manufacturing: relation to
JIT, operational performance and firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 29, pp. 343-355.
Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, p. 337.
MD Johannessen, J.A., Olsen, B. and Olaisen, J. (2005), “Intellectual capital as a holistic management
philosophy: a theoretical perspective”, International Journal of Information Management,
52,2 Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 151-171.
Joia, L. and Lemos, B. (2010), “Relevant factors for tacit knowledge transfer within
organisations”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 410-427.
Kale, P., Singh, H. and Perlmutter, H. (2000), “Learning and protection of proprietary assets in
252 strategic alliances: building relational capital”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 217-237.
Karagiannis, D., Waldner, F., Stoeger, A. and Nemetz, M. (2008), “A knowledge management
approach for structural capital”, in Yamaguchi, T. (Ed.), Practical Aspects of Knowledge
Management, Conference Proceedings November 22-23, pp. 135-146.
Kline, R.B. (2010), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Kong, E. and Farrell, M. (2010), “Knowledge and learning capabilities in non-profit organisations:
a relational capital perspective”, The International Journal of Learning, Vol. 17 No. 3,

pp. 97-116.
Law, C.C.H. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2008), “An empirical study of the effects of knowledge sharing
and learning behaviors on firm performance”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 2342-2349.
Lawson, B., Petersen, K.J., Cousins, P.D. and Handfield, R.B. (2009), “Knowledge sharing in
interorganizational product development teams: the effect of formal and informal
socialization mechanisms”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 156-172.
Le Blanc, P.V., Gonzdlez, J.P. and Oxman, J.A. (1998), “Case study: maximize your compensation
rot wnit high-yield investens in human capital”, Compensation & Benefits Review, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 59-68.
Lee, J.N. (2001), “The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership
quality on IS outsourcing success”, Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 323-335.
Liang, H. (2010), “Understanding the influence of team climate on IT use”, Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 414-432.
Liebowitz, J. and Chen, Y. (2001), “Developing knowledge-sharing proficiencies”, Knowledge
Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 12-15.
Liang, H. and Xue, Y. (2009), “Avoidance of information technology threats: a theoretical
perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 71-90.
Lin, C.P. (2007a), “To share or not to share: modeling tacit knowledge sharing, its mediators and
antecedents”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 411-428.
Lin, H.F. (2007b), “Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 Nos 3-4, pp. 315-332.
Ling, Y.H. and Jaw, B.S. (2006), “The influence of international human capital on global
initiatives and financial performance”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 379-398.
Longo, M. and Mura, M. (2011), “The effect of intellectual capital on employees’ satisfaction and
retention”, Information & Management, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 278-287.
McAdam, R., Moffett, S. and Peng, J. (2012), “Knowledge sharing in Chinese service
organizations: a multi case cultural perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 129-147.
McEvily, S.K., Das, S. and McCabe, K. (2000), “Avoiding competence substitution through Knowledge
knowledge sharing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 294-311.
sharing
Martinez-Torres, M.R. (2006), “A procedure to design a structural and measurement model of
intellectual capital: an exploratory study”, Information & Management, Vol. 43 No. 5,
pp. 617-626.
Matthew, C.T. and Sternberg, R.J. (2009), “Developing experience-based (tacit) knowledge
through reflection”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 530-540. 253
Mengistae, T. (2006), “Competition and entrepreneurs’ human capital in small business longevity
and growth”, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 812-836.
Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and DeChurch, L.A. (2009), “Information sharing and team performance:
a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, p. 535.
Moran, P. (2005), “Structural vs. relational embeddedness: social capital and managerial
performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1129-1151.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, pp. 242-266.
Namvar, M., Fathian, M., Akhavan, P. and Gholamian, M.R. (2010), “Exploring the impacts of
intellectual property on intellectual capital and company performance: the case of Iranian
computer and electronic organizations”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 Nos 5-6,
pp. 676-697.
Nick, B. and Alexander, S. (2007), “The moderating role of human capital management practices
on employee capabilities”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, p. 31.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Nonaka, I. and von Krogh, G. (2009), “Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy
and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory”, Organization Science,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 635-652.
O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C.J. (1998), “If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of
internal best practices”, California Management Review, Vol. 40, pp. 154-174.
Peet, M. (2012), “Leadership transitions, tacit knowledge sharing and organizational
generativity”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 45-60.
Phusavat, K., Comepa, N., Sitko-Lutek, A. and Ooi, K.B. (2011), “Interrelationships between
intellectual capital and performance: empirical examination”, Industrial Management
& Data Systems, Vol. 111 Nos 5-6, pp. 810-829.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Polanyi, M. (1966), Human Knowledge, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Quigley, N.R., Tesluk, P.E., Locke, E.A. and Bartol, K.M. (2007), “A multilevel investigation of the
motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance”, Organization
Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Ravichandran, T. and Lertwongsatien, C. (2005), “Effect of information systems resources and
capabilities on firm performance: a resource-based perspective”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 237-276.
MD Reus, T.H., Ranft, A.L., Lamont, B.T. and Adams, G.L. (2009), “An interpretive systems view of
knowledge investments”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 382-400.
52,2 Reychav, I. and Weisberg, J. (2010), “Bridging intention and behavior of knowledge sharing”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 285-300.
Ruzzier, M., Antoncic, B., Hisrich, R.D. and Konecnik, M. (2007), “Human capital and SME
internationalization: a structural equation modeling study”, Canadian Journal of
254 Administrative Sciences-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Administration, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Seleim, A., Ashour, A. and Bontis, N. (2007), “Human capital and organizational performance:
a study of Egyptian software companies”, Management Decision, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 789-801.
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2004), “Meta review of knowledge management and intellectual
capital literature: citation impact and research productivity rankings”, Knowledge and
Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 185-198.
Sharabati, A.A.A., Jawad, S.N. and Bontis, N. (2010), “Intellectual capital and business
performance in the pharmaceutical sector of Jordan”, Management Decision, Vol. 48

Nos 1-2, pp. 105-131.
Sher, P.J. and Lee, V.C. (2004), “Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic
capabilities through knowledge management”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 8,
pp. 933-945.
Shih, C.P., Chen, W. and Morrison, M. (2007), “The impact of intellectual capital on business
performance in Taiwanese design industry”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 538-556.
Shih, C.P., Chen, W.C. and Morrison, M. (2010), “The impact of intellectual capital on business
performance in Taiwanese design industry”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Skaggs, B.C. and Youndt, M. (2004), “Strategic positioning, human capital, and performance in
service organizations: a customer interaction approach”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 85-99.
Small, C.T. (2006), “Knowledge management and knowledge sharing: a review”, Information
Knowledge Systems Management, Vol. 5, pp. 153-169.
Spender, J.C. (1996), “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62.
Spender, J.C. and Marr, B. (2006), “How a knowledge-based approach might illuminate the notion
of human capital and its measurement”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 265-271.
Stewart, T.A. (1994), “Your company’s most valuable asset: intellectual capital”, Fortune, Vol. 130
No. 7, pp. 68-74.
Stewart, T.A. and Ruckdeschel, C. (1998), “Intellectual capital: the new wealth of organizations”,
Performance Improvement, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 56-59.
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M. (2005a), “The innovation of intellectual capital on the types of
innovative capabilities”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463.
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A. (2005b), “The influence of intellectual capital on the types of
innovative capabilities”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463.
Sullivan, P.H. (1999), “Profiting from intellectual capital”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 132-143.
Sveiby, K.E. (1998), “Knowledge works: managing intellectual capital at Toshiba”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 936-938.
Taminiau, Y., Smit, W. and de Lange, A. (2009), “Innovation in management consulting firms Knowledge
through informal knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 42-55. sharing
Teece, D.J. (2000), Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic, And Policy
Dimensions, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533. 255
Teng, J.T.C. and Song, S. (2011), “An exploratory examination of knowledge-sharing behaviors:
solicited and voluntary”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 104-117.
Thrylo, A.M. and Kornukh, O.V. (2011), “Theoretical and methodical approaches to
determination of components in intellectual capital of an enterprise and their essence”,
Actual Problems of Economics, Vol. 117, pp. 168-178.
Thuy, L.X. and Quang, T. (2005), “Relational capital and performance of international joint
ventures in Vietnam”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 389-410.
Vaccaro, A., Parente, R. and Veloso, F.M. (2010), “Knowledge management tools,
inter-organizational relationships, innovation and firm performance”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 77 No. 7, pp. 1076-1089.
van den Hooff, B. and De Ridder, J.A. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 117-130.
van Woerkom, M. and Sanders, K. (2010), “The romance of learning from disagreement: the effect
of cohesiveness and disagreement on knowledge sharing behavior and individual
performance within teams”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 139-149.
Vergauwen, P., Bollen, L. and Oirbans, E. (2007), “Intellectual capital disclosure and intangible
value drivers: an empirical study”, Management Decision, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 1163-1180.
Wang, C.N., Chang, Y.L., Huang, Q.H. and Wang, C.H. (2011), “Assessment on intellectual capital
management for Taiwanese pharmaceutical industry: using GRA and MPI”, African
Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 2950-2958.
Wang, N., Liang, H., Zhong, W., Xue, Y. and Xiao, J. (2012), “Resource structuring or capability
building? An empirical study of strategic value of information technology”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 325-367.
Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010), “Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Wang, Z.N. and Wang, N.X. (2012), “Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 8899-8908.
Williams, L.J., Edwards, J.R. and Vandenberg, R.J. (2003), “Recent advances in causal modeling
methods for organizational and management research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29
No. 6, pp. 903-936.
Wu, W.Y., Chang, M.L. and Chen, C.W. (2008), “Promoting innovation through the accumulation
of intellectual capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial orientation”, R & D Management,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 265-277.
Xue, Y., Bradley, J. and Liang, H. (2011), “Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge
sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 299-312.
Yang, C.F. and Lai, C.S. (2012), “Relationship learning from organizational knowledge stores”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 421-428.
MD Yoon, S.W., Matsui, M., Yamada, T. and Nof, S.Y. (2011), “Analysis of effectiveness and benefits
of collaboration modes with information- and knowledge-sharing”, Journal of Intelligent
52,2 Manufacturing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 101-112.
Youndt, M.A., Subramaniam, M. and Snell, S.A. (2004), “Intellectual capital profiles: an examination
of investments and returns”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 335-361.
Zahra, S.A., Neubaum, D.O. and Larraneta, B. (2007), “Knowledge sharing and technological
256 capabilities: the moderating role of family involvement”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 60 No. 10, pp. 1070-1079.
Zangoueinezhad, A. and Moshabaki, A. (2009), “The role of structural capital on competitive
intelligence”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 Nos 1-2, pp. 262-280.
Zhang, Q. and Fung, H.G. (2006), “China’s social capital and financial performance of private
enterprises”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 198-207.
Zharinova, A.G. (2011), “Concept of intellectual capital commercialization management”, Actual
Problems of Economics, Vol. 121, pp. 17-29.

Zhou, K.Z. and Li, C.B. (2012), “How knowledge affects radical innovation: knowledge base,
market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 1090-1102.
Appendix. Measurement items

Explicit KS
1. Employees in my organization frequently share existing reports and official documents
with members of my organization.
2. Employees in my organization frequently share reports and official documents that they
prepare by themselves with members of my organization.
3. Employees in my organization frequently collect reports and official documents from
others in their work.
4. Employees in my organization are frequently encouraged by knowledge sharing mechanisms.
5. Employees in my organization are frequently offered a variety of training and
development programs.
6. Employees in my organization are facilitated by IT systems invested for knowledge
sharing.
Tacit KS
1. Employees in my organization frequently share knowledge based on their experience.
2. Employees in my organization frequently collect knowledge from others based on their
experience.
3. Employees in my organization frequently share knowledge of know-where or know-whom
with others.
4. Employees in my organization frequently collect knowledge of know-where or
know-whom with others.
5. Employees in my organization frequently share knowledge based on their expertise.
6. Employees in my organization frequently collect knowledge from others based on their
expertise.
7. Employees in my organization will share lessons from past failures when they feel that it
is necessary.
Human capital Knowledge
(1) Employees hold suitable work experience for accomplishing their job successfully in our sharing
company.
(2) Employees of our company have excellent professional skills in their particular jobs and
functions.
(3) The company provides well-designed training programs.
(4) The employees of our company often develop new ideas and knowledge.
257
(5) Employees are creative in our company.
Structural capital
1. The overall operations procedure of our company is very efficient.
2. Our company responds to changes very quickly.
3. Our company has an easily accessible information system.

4. Systems and procedures of our company support innovation.
5. Our company’s culture and atmosphere are flexible and comfortable.
6. Our company emphasizes new market development investment.
7. There is supportive among different departments in our company.
Relational capital
1. Our company discovers and solves problems through intimate communication and
effective collaboration.
2. Our company maintains appropriate interactions with its stakeholders.
3. Our company maintains long-term relationships with customers.
4. Our company has many excellent suppliers.
5. Our company has stable and good relationships with the strategic partners.
Operational performance
1. Customer satisfaction of our company is better than that of key competitors.
2. Quality development of our company is better than that of key competitors.
3. Cost management of our company is better than that of key competitors.
4. Responsiveness of our company is better than that of key competitors.
5. Productivity of our company is better than that of key competitors.
Financial performance
1. Return on investment of our company is better than that of key competitors.
2. Return on assets of our company is better than that of key competitors.
3. Return on sales of our company is better than that of key competitors.
4. Average profitability of our company is better than that of key competitors.
5. Profit growth of our company is better than that of key competitors
6. Sales growth of our company is better than that of key competitors.
MD About the authors
Zhining Wang is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource Management in the China
52,2 University of Mining and Technology. His current research interests include knowledge
management, human resource management and strategic management of information
technology. He gained his PhD from Southeast University of China in 2009. His research has
been appeared in such journals as Expert Systems with Applications, Journal of Intelligence,
Application of Statistics and Management, Science and Technology Progress and Policy, Economic
258 Management, Reform, Human Resource Development of China, Journal of Southeast University,
Journal of China University of Mining and Technology. He has already authored one book.
Zhining Wang is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: wzncumt@126.com
Nianxin Wang is an Associate Professor of Management Information Systems in the College
of Economics and Management at Jiangsu University of Science and Technology. He gained his
PhD from Southeast University of China in 2009. His research has been accepted by or appeared
in such journals as Communications of the Association for Information Systems, China Journal of
Information System, Journal of Management Science, Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management, Journal of Southeast University (English Edition), Computer
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Shipbuilding of China, and Ship Engineering. His current
research interests include IT business value, IT capability, business-IT alignment, and strategic
management of information technology.
Huigang Liang is an Associate Professor of Information Systems and Teer Chair in Research
in the College of Business at East Carolina University. He gained his PhD in Health-care
Information Systems from Auburn University. His research interests focus on IT issues at both
individual and organizational levels, and include IT strategy, assimilation, decision process, IT
avoidance, adoption, compliance, and health-care informatics. His research has appeared in
scholarly journals, including MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, Communications of the ACM, Decision Support Systems,
Information Systems Journal, and Journal of Strategic Information Systems. He was named one of
the fourteenth most productive IS researchers worldwide, based on publications in MIS
Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Journal of Management Information Systems, and
Journal of the Association for Information Systems (2007-2011).
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. JiaLin, Lin Jia, HallDianne, Dianne Hall, YanZhijun, Zhijun Yan, LiuJunjiang, Junjiang Liu, ByrdTerry,
Terry Byrd. The impact of relationship between IT staff and users on employee outcomes of IT users.
Information Technology & People, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Muhammad Sial, Chunmei Zheng, Nguyen Khuong, Tehmina Khan, Muhammad Usman. 2018. Does
Firm Performance Influence Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting of Chinese Listed Companies?.
Sustainability 10:7, 2217. [Crossref]
3. SardoFilipe, Filipe Sardo, SerrasqueiroZélia, Zélia Serrasqueiro. Intellectual capital, growth opportunities,
and financial performance in European firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, ahead of print. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
4. Waseem Barkat, Loo-See Beh. 2018. Influence of Intellectual Capital Dimensions on Knowledge Process
Capability and Organizational Performance. Asian Journal of Scientific Research 11:3, 308-318. [Crossref]
5. FarooqRayees, Rayees Farooq. 2018. A conceptual model of knowledge sharing. International Journal of
Innovation Science 10:2, 238-260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. MehralianGholamhossein, Gholamhossein Mehralian, NazariJamal A., Jamal A. Nazari,
GhasemzadehPeivand, Peivand Ghasemzadeh. 2018. The effects of knowledge creation process on
organizational performance using the BSC approach: the mediating role of intellectual capital. Journal of
Knowledge Management 22:4, 802-823. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. JoshiMahesh, Mahesh Joshi, KansalMonika, Monika Kansal, SharmaSharad, Sharad Sharma. 2018.
Awareness of intellectual capital among bank executives in India: a survey. International Journal of
Accounting & Information Management 26:2, 291-310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Nguyen Phong Nguyen, Liem Viet Ngo, Tania Bucic, Nguyen Dong Phong. 2018. Cross-functional
knowledge sharing, coordination and firm performance: The role of cross-functional competition.
Industrial Marketing Management 71, 123-134. [Crossref]
9. Ibarra CisnerosManuel Alejandro, Manuel Alejandro Ibarra Cisneros, Hernandez-PerlinesFelipe, Felipe
Hernandez-Perlines. Intellectual capital and Organization performance in the manufacturing sector of
Mexico. Management Decision, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. CabriloSlaðana, Slaðana Cabrilo, DahmsSven, Sven Dahms. 2018. How strategic knowledge management
drives intellectual capital to superior innovation and market performance. Journal of Knowledge
Management 22:3, 621-648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. AsiaeiKaveh, Kaveh Asiaei, JusohRuzita, Ruzita Jusoh, BontisNick, Nick Bontis. 2018. Intellectual capital
and performance measurement systems in Iran. Journal of Intellectual Capital 19:2, 294-320. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
12. PedroEugénia, Eugénia Pedro, LeitãoJoão, João Leitão, AlvesHelena, Helena Alves. 2018. Intellectual
capital and performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital 19:2, 407-452. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Guodong Ni, Qingbin Cui, Linhua Sang, Wenshun Wang, Dongchun Xia. 2018. Knowledge-Sharing
Culture, Project-Team Interaction, and Knowledge-Sharing Performance among Project Members.
Journal of Management in Engineering 34:2, 04017065. [Crossref]
14. Sangjae Lee, Byong Seon Kim, Youngmin Kim, Wanki Kim, Wonbin Ahn. 2018. The framework for
factors affecting technology transfer for suppliers and buyers of technology in Korea. Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management 30:2, 172-185. [Crossref]
15. Anna Bykova, Carlos Maria Jardon. 2018. The mediation role of companies’ dynamic capabilities for
business performance excellence: insights from foreign direct investments. The case of transitional
partnership. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 16:1, 144-159. [Crossref]
16. Isabel D. W. Rechberg. Internalised Values and Fairness Perception: Ethics in Knowledge Management
249-272. [Crossref]
17. SardoFilipe, Filipe Sardo, SerrasqueiroZélia, Zélia Serrasqueiro. 2017. A European empirical study of
the relationship between firms’ intellectual capital, financial performance and market value. Journal of
Intellectual Capital 18:4, 771-788. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Yu-Xiang Yen, Shiu-Wan Hung. 2017. Why do buyers share knowledge with suppliers in new product
development? current and alternative supplier antecedents. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 24:4,
283-296. [Crossref]
19. Viktor Prokop, Jan Stejskal. The influence of information sharing and collaboration on the extent of
innovation activities 87-92. [Crossref]
20. Ricardo Rodrigues Barbosa, Christine Conceição Gonçalves. 2017. Comportamentos e valores
informacionais em uma empresa do setor de transporte aéreo brasileiro. Perspectivas em Ciência da

Informação 22:3, 56-74. [Crossref]
21. HosseiniS. Mahdi, S. Mahdi Hosseini, AkhavanPeyman, Peyman Akhavan. 2017. A model for project
team formation in complex engineering projects under uncertainty. Kybernetes 46:7, 1131-1157.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. LinHsiu-Fen, Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2017. Antecedents and consequences of electronic supply chain management
diffusion. The International Journal of Logistics Management 28:2, 699-718. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Emna Gara Bach Ouerdian, Nizar Mansour, Abdallah Al-Zahrani, Amal Chaari. 2017. Promoting
knowledge sharing in Tunisian KIFs through HRM Practices. The mediating role of human capital and
learning climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 29, 1-39. [Crossref]
24. RamadanBushra Meaad, Bushra Meaad Ramadan, DahiyatSamer Eid, Samer Eid Dahiyat, BontisNick,
Nick Bontis, Al-dalahmehMahmoud Ali, Mahmoud Ali Al-dalahmeh. 2017. Intellectual capital,
knowledge management and social capital within the ICT sector in Jordan. Journal of Intellectual Capital
18:2, 437-462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Stanko Škec, Philip Cash, Mario Štorga. 2017. A dynamic approach to real-time performance
measurement in design projects. Journal of Engineering Design 28:4, 255-286. [Crossref]
26. Carla Curado, Mírian Oliveira, Antonio Carlos Gastaud Maçada, Felipe Nodari. 2017. Teams’ innovation:
getting there through knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice 15:1, 45-53. [Crossref]
27. Ying Hu, Ying Li, Xing Du. Thinking in Interdisciplinary Design Teams Based on Workshop 60-70.
[Crossref]
28. Bader Yousef Obeidat, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah, Noor Osama Aqqad, Abdel Hakeem Oqlah M.
Akhoershiedah, Mahmoud Maqableh. 2017. The Effect of Intellectual Capital on Organizational
Performance: The Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing. Communications and Network 09:01, 1-27.
[Crossref]
29. Taksina C. Ittipornwong. 2017. Journalism as Potential Approach for Climate Change. International
Journal of Culture and History (EJournal) 3:4, 231-235. [Crossref]
30. Cheewanan Arijitsatien, Vichita Vathanophas Ractham. 2017. The Effects of Knowledge Creation Process
upon the Organizational Performance: A Study of Thai Banking Industry. International Journal of Culture
and History (EJournal) 3:4, 236-242. [Crossref]
31. Al-MusaliMahfoudh Abdulkarem, Mahfoudh Abdulkarem Al-Musali, Ku IsmailKu Nor Izah, Ku Nor
Izah Ku Ismail. 2016. Cross-country comparison of intellectual capital performance and its impact on
financial performance of commercial banks in GCC countries. International Journal of Islamic and Middle
Eastern Finance and Management 9:4, 512-531. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. DedahanovAlisher Tohirovich, Alisher Tohirovich Dedahanov, LeeDo Hyung, Do Hyung Lee,
RheeJaehoon, Jaehoon Rhee, YoonJunghyun, Junghyun Yoon. 2016. Entrepreneur’s paternalistic
leadership style and creativity. Management Decision 54:9, 2310-2324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. HusseinAlShaima Taleb Taleb, AlShaima Taleb Taleb Hussein, SinghSanjay Kumar, Sanjay Kumar
Singh, FaroukSherine, Sherine Farouk, SohalAmrik S., Amrik S. Sohal. 2016. Knowledge sharing
enablers, processes and firm innovation capability. Journal of Workplace Learning 28:8, 484-495.
34. SedighiMohammadbashir, Mohammadbashir Sedighi, van SplunterSander, Sander van Splunter,
BrazierFrances, Frances Brazier, van BeersCees, Cees van Beers, LukoschStephan, Stephan Lukosch. 2016.
Exploration of multi-layered knowledge sharing participation: the roles of perceived benefits and costs.
Journal of Knowledge Management 20:6, 1247-1267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. SharifkhaniMaryam, Maryam Sharifkhani, Khazaei PoolJavad, Javad Khazaei Pool, AsianSobhan, Sobhan
Asian. 2016. The impact of leader-member exchange on knowledge sharing and performance. Journal of
Science and Technology Policy Management 7:3, 289-305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Zhining Wang, Pratyush Nidhi Sharma, Jinwei Cao. 2016. From knowledge sharing to firm performance:
A predictive model comparison. Journal of Business Research 69:10, 4650-4658. [Crossref]
37. WangZhining, Zhining Wang, WangNianxin, Nianxin Wang, CaoJinwei, Jinwei Cao, YeXinfeng, Xinfeng
Ye. 2016. The impact of intellectual capital – knowledge management strategy fit on firm performance.
Management Decision 54:8, 1861-1885. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. AkhavanPeyman, Peyman Akhavan, KhosravianFarnoosh, Farnoosh Khosravian. 2016. Case study of a
structural model to explore the effects of knowledge sharing on intellectual capital. VINE Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems 46:3, 338-352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Elisabeth Albertini. 2016. An inductive typology of the interrelations between different components of
intellectual capital. Management Decision 54:4, 887-901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. MaroufLaila, Laila Marouf. 2016. The role of knowledge sharing culture in business performance. VINE
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 46:2, 154-174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. VătămănescuElena-Mădălina, Elena-Mădălina Vătămănescu, AndreiAndreia Gabriela, Andreia Gabriela
Andrei, DumitriuDiana-Luiza, Diana-Luiza Dumitriu, LeovaridisCristina, Cristina Leovaridis. 2016.
Harnessing network-based intellectual capital in online academic networks. From the organizational
policies and practices towards competitiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:3, 594-619.
42. Regiane Piontkewicz, Maria do Carmo D. Freitas, Avanilde Kemczinski, Claudia Duran San Martin.
Management of intellectual capital in a system of management accounting information 180-187.
[Crossref]
43. Felipe Nodari, Mirian Oliveira, Antonio Carlos Gastaud Maçada. 2016. Organizational performance
through the donation and collection of interorganizational knowledge. VINE Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems 46:1, 85-103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Juan Pablo Torres, Camilo Drago, Claudio Aqueveque. 2015. Knowledge inflows effects on middle
managers’ ambidexterity and performance. Management Decision 53:10, 2303-2320. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
45. Sayyed Mohsen Allameh, Javad Khazaei Pool, Akbar Jaberi, Farzaneh Mazloomi Soveini. 2014.
Developing a model for examining the effect of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing on organizational
performance based on EFQM approach. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 5:3,
265-280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Marko Kesti, Jaana Leinonen, Antti Syväjärvi. A Multidisciplinary Critical Approach to Measure and
Analyze Human Capital Productivity 1-22. [Crossref]
47. Wioleta Kucharska. Tacit Knowledge Sharing and Value Creation in the Network Economy 293-316.
[Crossref]
48. Serdar Yener, Aykut Arslan. Relationship Between the Motivational Language of School Administrators
and Tacit Knowledge Sharing of Teachers 387-417. [Crossref]

Management Decision: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Decision: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Decision

Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Department of Management Information Systems, College of Business,

Michailova, 2002; Husted et al., 2012).

intensified substantially, forcing high-technology firms to make full use of knowledge

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

As explicit knowledge is knowledge that can exist in symbolic or written form,

2.2 Intellectual capital (IC)

2.3 Research hypotheses

Sabherwal, 2012). As KS involves the transfer or dissemination of knowledge from one

As tacit knowledge is embedded in action, contextualized in practice and subjected to

position as leaders in their fields.

capabilities to be synthesized and reconfigured. Therefore, explicit KS has significant

3.3 Control variable

3.4 Common method bias test

indicates that the measurement model has satisfactory discriminant validity.

4.2 Structural model

both operational performance ðb ¼ 0:114; p , 0.10) and financial performance

4.3 Additional analysis

operational performance than financial performance ðb ¼ 0:385 vs b ¼ 0:241Þ:

Constructs EKS TKS HC SC RC FP OP

Fit index Scores Recommended cut-off value

Absolute fit measures

H7a IKS ! FP 0.091 0.007 Supported

5.1 Theoretical contributions

direct effect on a firm’s operational performance, such as customer satisfaction, quality

5.2 Practical implications

5.3 Limitations and future research opportunities

Technology Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 314-337.

Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 326-347.

role of knowledge management capabilities”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering

a relational capital perspective”, The International Journal of Learning, Vol. 17 No. 3,

performance in the pharmaceutical sector of Jordan”, Management Decision, Vol. 48

Problems of Economics, Vol. 121, pp. 17-29.

Appendix. Measurement items

3. Our company has an easily accessible information system.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Innovation Science 10:2, 238-260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

informacionais em uma empresa do setor de transporte aéreo brasileiro. Perspectivas em Ciência da

You might also like