Applet_2023-5-10_168368003292431

Journal of Applied Psychology
© 2023 American Psychological Association

ISSN: 0021-9010 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001088
The Definition and Measurement of Human Capital Resources:

A Content and Meta-Analytic Review
Liwen Zhang1, Chad H. Van Iddekinge2, Robert E. Ployhart3, John D. Arnold4, and Samantha L. Jordan5
1
Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau
2
Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa
3
Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina
4
Robert J. Trulaske, Sr. College of Business, University of Missouri
5
G. Brint Ryan College of Business, University of North Texas
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Although human capital resources (HCR) can be important for organizational performance, researchers
have defined and measured HCR in various ways. Consequently, it is unclear whether existing measures
provide valid inferences about HCR or their relations with other constructs. We conducted this three-study
research to address these issues. In Study 1, we reviewed HCR definitions (k = 84) and found that most
definitions focus on collective knowledge, skills, and abilities. Recent definitions also tend to include other
characteristics (e.g., personality). In Study 2, a content analysis of HCR measures (k = 127) revealed that
only 23.6% of the measures focused solely on HCR and they tended to assess only one or two dimensions of
the construct (i.e., were deficient). Many measures (46.5%) assessed both HCR and other constructs
(i.e., were partially contaminated), and other measures (29.9%) assessed only non-HCR constructs
(i.e., were fully contaminated). In Study 3 (k = 94), we found that HCR measures that were less deficient
demonstrated stronger criterion-related validity for predicting unit and firm performance. Interestingly,
partially contaminated measures were somewhat more predictive than uncontaminated measures (ρ = .35
vs. .25, respectively), mainly because they assessed both HCR and other constructs that are related to
performance. Both types of measures demonstrated stronger validity than fully contaminated measures.
Overall, findings suggest that extant HCR measures often are deficient and/or contaminated. We discuss
implications, as well as offer guidance for measuring HCR in future research.
Keywords: human capital resources, strategic human resources, firm performance, content analysis,
meta-analysis
Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001088.supp
The acquisition, development, and retention of a firm’s human However, research on HCR intersects diverse areas such as eco-
capital resources (HCR) is of considerable interest to researchers and nomics, psychology, and sociology, which has resulted in various
organizations. According to resource-based theory (Barney, 1991), definitions of the construct. For example, some researchers have
valuable and rare HCR can help organizations achieve competitive defined HCR as an individual-level construct (Becker, 2002;
advantage (e.g., Huselid, 1995; Nyberg et al., 2014; Ployhart & Coleman, 1989; Dimov & Shepherd, 2005; Edvinsson & Malone,
Moliterno, 2011). Research has found support for the importance of 1997), whereas others have defined it as a firm-level construct (e.g.,
HCR. For example, a meta-analysis by Crook et al. (2011) showed Batt, 2002; Kor & Leblebici, 2005; Pennings et al., 1998). HCR
that human capital-related variables were positively related to firm definitions also vary in terms of the constructs or dimensions to which
performance. Similarly, Jiang et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis found they refer. For example, some definitions refer to knowledge and skills
that HCR (as well as employee motivation) mediated the relation- (e.g., Tapsell, 1998; Youndt & Snell, 2004), some to health or
ship between high-performance work practices (HPWPs) and orga- attitudes (e.g., Goode, 1959; Ramezan, 2011), some to education
nizational performance. and experience (e.g., Bontis, 1998; Sirmon & Hitt, 2009), and some to
HPWPs (e.g., Haynes et al., 2015). More recently, Ployhart and
Moliterno (2011, pp. 127–128) proposed that HCR is a “unit-level
resource that is created from the emergence of individuals’ knowl-
edge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs).” Ployhart et
al. (2014) further clarified that KSAOs are only considered HCR if
Liwen Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2910-4263 they are relevant to outcomes the unit or firm values.
Liwen Zhang acknowledges research funding from UNSW Sydney. An
Despite this clarification, inconsistencies in how researchers con-
earlier version of this article was presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management, Seattle, Washington, United States.
ceptualize HCR persist. For instance, research continues to rely on
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Liwen early studies (e.g., Becker, 1964) that considered HCR as an
Zhang, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, Building individual-level construct, or do not specify the level at which
E22 Room 2059, Avenida, Universidade, Taipa, Macau 999078, China. HCR reside. Further, research continues to define HCR in terms of
Email: LiwenZhang@um.edu.mo constructs other than KSAOs, such as attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction),
1
2 ZHANG, VAN IDDEKINGE, PLOYHART, ARNOLD, AND JORDAN
behavior (e.g., cooperating with others), or operational outcomes (e.g., Study 1: A Systematic Review of HCR Definitions
labor expenses). Inconsistencies also exist regarding how researchers
have operationalized the HCR construct. For example, researchers Following approaches adopted in other literatures in which vari-
have measured HCR using diverse variables such as education, job or ability exists regarding the definition of a construct (e.g., work–life
organizational tenure, HPWPs, labor expenses, and employee satis- balance, Casper et al., 2018), we started by conducting a systematic
faction. Further, although most studies now measure HCR at the review of how scholars have defined HCR. In doing so, we focused
collective level, some research focuses on entire firms, some on on (a) the level at which definitions indicate HCR reside and (b) the
particular units within a firm, and some do not specify the collective constructs—and the dimensions of those constructs—to which de-
of interest. There also exists variation in the source of the HCR finitions refer. Regarding level of analysis, early research (e.g.,
information, such as executives, department managers, or employees Becker, 1964; Coleman, 1989; Schultz, 1981) focused on how
themselves. individual human capital relates to individual outcomes. Other
The wide variance in how researchers define and operationalize definitions did not specify the level at which HCR reside (e.g.,
HCR is problematic for several reasons. First, without a clear Goode, 1959; Lepak & Snell, 2002). More recent frameworks
understanding of the construct, it is impossible to accurately mea- emphasize collective HCR constructs at the unit and firm levels
sure it. This can lead to potential contamination or deficiency in (e.g., Wright & McMahan, 2011) in a manner consistent with
HCR measures. A measure is contaminated when it includes content resource-based theory (Barney, 1991). Ployhart and Moliterno
that is irrelevant to the construct domain (Messick, 1995). For (2011) further clarified how HCR may emerge based on how
example, variables such as HPWPs and average level of education individual employees combine and coordinate their KSAOs. For
or tenure within a unit or firm are potential antecedents of HCR instance, knowledge and skills among individual salespersons may
rather than HCR. Further, constructs such as employee satisfaction combine to create a higher level resource of unit sales HCR. HCR
and organizational commitment are attitudes rather than HCR also may emerge from similarities and differences of work styles,
(Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011). A measure is deficient when it fails interests, or values among employees within the unit/firm (Morgeson
to assess aspects of the construct domain (Messick, 1995). For & Hofmann, 1999; Oh et al., 2015). As an example, the attraction-
instance, an HCR measure that assesses only collective knowledge selection-attrition model (Schneider, 1987) proposes that organiza-
may be deficient because it omits other HCR dimensions that tions attract, select, and retain individuals with similar personality
contribute to unit or firm performance (e.g., abilities and skills). traits, resulting in greater organizational homogeneity of employee
Second, the lack of a clear understanding of the HCR construct and personality.
its measurement can, in turn, obscure conclusions about relations Thus, the first goal of Study 1 is to examine what HCR definitions
between HCR and other constructs. For example, primary and meta- indicate regarding the level at which the construct resides. Under-
analytic research findings based on contaminated or deficient mea- standing this issue is important as it provides a conceptual basis to
sures will undermine the validity of inferences regarding the effects develop theoretical models involving how HCR relate to other
of HCR on outcomes such as unit and firm performance. constructs. It also has implications for research design in terms
We conducted the present research to address these key issues in of measures and samples.
understanding what HCR entail and how to measure the construct.
In Study 1, we review extant HCR definitions to determine the level Research Question 1: What level(s) are included in HCR
to which they refer (e.g., individual vs. firm levels) and the con- definitions?
structs and dimensions the definitions suggest underlie HCR. We
also examine whether and how definitions differ from Ployhart and In terms of the constructs that underlie HCR, human capital
Moliterno’s (2011) definition upon which many recent studies build. theory (Becker, 1964) originated in economics and focused on
Understanding these issues is critical as it provides a basis to assess investments in education, work experience, and training. Conse-
the validity of extant measures of the construct. quently, definitions building on human capital theory tend to define
In Study 2, we build upon Study 1 by conducting a content HCR in terms of factors such as education and experience (e.g.,
analysis of measures researchers have used to assess HCR. In doing Sirmon & Hitt, 2009; Snell & Dean, 1992). Other definitions
so, we evaluate the extent to which the measures assess HCR and/or referred to concepts such as genes and health (e.g., Bontis, 1998;
other constructs (i.e., addressing potential contamination), as well as Kor & Leblebici, 2005). Ployhart and Moliterno (2011) clarified that
identify what HCR dimensions current measures do and do not HCR originate from relatively stable individual characteristics that
assess (i.e., addressing potential deficiency). Assessing whether range from “can do” KSAOs such as cognitive ability, job knowl-
extant HCR measures capture the construct is vital to understand edge, and skills to “will do” KSAOs such as personality, interests,
the validity of inferences that can be drawn from prior research, as and values. Although subsequent studies often draw upon Ployhart
well as to design future studies on this theoretically and practically and Moliterno, there remains variability in the constructs thought
important resource. to underlie HCR. For example, in addition to constructs such
In Study 3, we use meta-analysis to further examine the validity as intelligence and personality, HCR research also includes more
of the HCR measures identified in Study 2.1 Specifically, we malleable characteristics such as affect and behavior (e.g., Bontis,
examine whether and how contamination and deficiency affect 1998). Other recent HCR definitions refer to variables such
inferences regarding the criterion-related validity of HCR mea- as employee attitudes (e.g., Bhattacharya et al., 2014), behavior
sures for predicting unit and firm performance. These results shed
light on the extent to which using contaminated or deficient 1
Validity refers to the inferences made based on scores obtained from
measures influences conclusions about the value of HCR for measures (e.g., Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
organizational effectiveness. However, for simplicity, we often refer to “the validity of measures.”
DEFINING AND MEASURING HUMAN CAPITAL RESOURCES 3
(Ramezan, 2011), or understanding of the work environment (e.g., published articles and books that provided HCR definitions. Second,
Frank & Obloj, 2014). we included articles in which the authors defined human capital or
Given such variability in definitions, the second goal of Study 1 is HCR in their own way or by citing prior definitions. We excluded
to determine whether consensus exists regarding the constructs and articles in which authors mentioned or measured HCR but did not
dimensions that underlie HCR. Understanding exactly what HCR define the construct (e.g., Park et al., 2003; Zhao & Chadwick,
entail is vital not only for understanding the construct, but also for 2014). Third, we included studies that concerned HCR of employees
providing a basis for how to measure the construct. within units or firms. In contrast, we excluded studies that focused
on HCR of key individuals, such as chief executive officers (e.g.,
Research Question 2: What constructs and dimensions are Datta & Iskandar-Datta, 2014) and entrepreneurs (e.g., Baptista et
included in HCR definitions? al., 2014). Although some studies considered the characteristics of
such individuals as representing HCR (e.g., because they can
Finally, we explore whether and how HCR definitions have contribute disproportionately to firm outcomes), their HCR may
evolved over time. Specifically, we examine whether there is grow- be different from the HCR that emerge from employees. Using these
ing consensus in conceptualizing HCR as a collective (unit- or firm- criteria, we located 166 definitions that met all our inclusion criteria.
level) construct as opposed to an individual-level one. Further, we

consider whether there is growing consensus in conceptualizing
Data Coding Procedures
HCR as emerging from individual KSAOs as opposed to other types
of individual characteristics. To assess changes in definitions over Table 1 presents the aspects of each HCR definition we coded,
time, we use the HCR theory and definition provided by Ployhart and how we coded each aspect, and relevant examples. First, we coded
Moliterno (2011) as a baseline and point of comparison.2 whether the definition was original, was an existing definition, or was
adapted from a prior definition. For articles in which the authors
Research Question 3: Do more recent HCR definitions con- defined HCR without citing prior definitions or studies, we coded the
ceptualize HCR (a) at the collective level and (b) as emerging definition as original. For articles in which the authors provided
from individual KSAOs? citations for their HCR definition, we reviewed the cited articles and
compared the definition to the definition provided in the cited articles.
Method We coded the definition as original if (a) the coded definition was not
the same or like the cited definition, or (b) the cited articles did not
Transparency and Openness define HCR.
The design and analyses of all three studies (i.e., coding and Next, we coded two aspects of each original HCR definition. First,
analysis of previously published definitions, measures, and correla- we coded the level of analysis at which HCR reside, including
tional data) were not preregistered. However, we describe our data definitions that referred to individual employees, units, and/or firms.
collection and exclusions for all three studies, and we adhered to the We also coded definitions that did not specify the level. Second, we
Journal of Applied Psychology methodological checklist. In addi- coded the constructs and dimensions each definition mentioned using
tion, all data and analysis codes are provided in the appendices. definitions from prior research. The constructs included KSAOs
Study 3 data were analyzed using a program from Schmidt and (Ployhart et al., 2014), education (Ng & Feldman, 2013), work
Le (2004) and SPSS (Version 27). experience (Quińones et al., 1995), HPWPs (Posthuma et al.,
2013), and other constructs (e.g., productivity, cooperation between
employee). We also coded several constructs that are thought to
Literature Search reflect combinations of several KSAOs as representing HCR. These
We began by reviewing prior reviews of the HCR literature (e.g., constructs include capabilities (Farh et al., 2012; Gully et al., 2002),
Crook et al., 2011; Ployhart et al., 2014). Next, we searched for competencies (Bartram, 2005), creativity (Zhou, 2003), emotional
articles in which HCR were defined by conducting keyword intelligence (Joseph et al., 2015), and expertise (Haerem & Rau,
searches in several electronic databases, including ABI Inform, 2007; Hinds et al., 2001).
Business Source Premier, PsycInfo, and JSTOR. We searched The first author and one coauthor independently coded every
using key words (e.g., human capital, HCR, resources-based the- primary study. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC,A,1;
ory). We also searched articles that are in-press in journals that McGraw & Wong, 1996) for ratings of whether the definition was
publish HCR-related research, including Academy of Management original was .99. The ICC for the level at which HCR reside was
Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Human Resources Man- .95. Moreover, ICCs for the constructs the HCR definitions
agement, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, mentioned ranged between .95 and 1.00 (M = .98). In the few
Organizational Science, Personnel Psychology, and Strategic Man- instances in which the initial codes were different, the coders
agement Journal. Finally, we searched programs of the annual were able to reach agreement after discussion.
conferences of the Academy of Management, Strategic Manage- In addition, we used Casper et al.’s (2018) method to examine the
ment Society, and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy- extent to which HCR definitions align with Ployhart and Moliterno’s
chology between 2009 and 2021. (2011) definition. Their article is the first we know of to develop
a definition of HCR that integrates psychological and strategic
Inclusion Criteria management perspectives. It was also the first article that fully
We used the following criteria to determine whether the articles 2

We thank the action editor and an anonymous reviewer for this
we found would be included in this review. First, we included suggestion.
Table 1
Key Features of HCR Definitions Coded (Study 1)
Feature/categories Example characteristics Example HCR definition

a
HCR level
1. Individual level “Human capital simply refers to individual
employees’ knowledge, skills, and expertise”
(Youndt & Snell, 2004, p. 338).
2. Collective level
a. Unit level “Human capital is defined as the unit-level
aggregate of individual knowledge, skills, and
abilities (KSAs)” (Ployhart et al., 2009,
p. 996).
b. Firm level “Human capital is the sum of the individual
knowledge, skills, and abilities of the

organizational human resources” (Alpkan

et al., 2010, p. 733).
c. Not specified “Human capital—the stock of knowledge, skills,
and abilities (KSAs) of its workforce”
(Collins et al., 2001, p. 4).
3. Level unspecified “Human capital is that people possess skills,
experience, and knowledge that have
economic value to firms” (Snell & Dean,
1992, p. 468).
Constructs and dimensions
1. Knowledge: “The declarative or procedural Knowledge of administration, computers and “Human capital refers to the knowledge,
information necessary for performing a task electronics, or geography information, ideas, skills, and health of
and the foundation on which skills are individuals” (Becker, 2002, p. 3).
developed” (Ployhart et al., 2014, p. 376).
2. Skills: “The individual’s level of Basic skills (e.g., writing), technical skills (e.g., Human capital represents “the employees’
proficiency and capabilities to perform programming), and social skills (e.g., service knowledge, skills, and capabilities”
specific tasks and can be improved with orientation) (Vidal-Salazar et al., 2012, p. 2685).
experience” (Ployhart et al., 2014, p. 376).
3. Abilities: “A more enduring capability that Cognitive abilities (e.g., verbal ability), “Human capital is defined as the unit-level
is applicable to a range of job-related psychomotor abilities (e.g., manual dexterity), aggregate of individual knowledge, skills, and
tasks” (Ployhart et al., 2014, p. 376). and physical abilities (e.g., physical strength) abilities” (Ployhart et al., 2009, p. 996).
4. Other characteristics: “Personality traits “A unit-level resource that is created from the
and related dispositional attributes that emergence of individuals’ knowledge, skills,
affect the individual’s performance across a abilities and other characteristics” (Ployhart
broad range of tasks” (Ployhart et al., 2014, & Moliterno, 2011, p. 127).
p. 376).
a. Personality: 1) Traits that direct and The Big Five factors (e.g., conscientiousness),
maintain consistency in behavior (Costa the Dark Triad (e.g., narcissism), integrity,
& McCrae, 1996) and 2) traits that and core self-evaluations
reflect combinations of multiple
personality traits.
b. Vocational interests: Preferences for Enterprising, realistic, and social interests
certain types of work activities and
environments (e.g., Holland, 1973;
Sackett et al., 2017).
c. Work values: Needs important to Ability utilization, autonomy, and variety
employees’ work satisfaction (Lofquist
& Dawis, 1978).
5. Compound KSAOs: Constructs that reflect Creativity, capabilities, competencies, expertise, “Human capital can be defined as a combination
multiple KSAOs. and emotional intelligence of employee’s competence, attitude, and
creativity” (Chen et al., 2004, p. 203).
6. Education: Academic degrees an individual Level of education, years of education “Human capital attributes (including education,
has obtained (Ng & Feldman, 2009). experience, and skills) … of top managers
that affect firm outcomes” (Hitt et al., 2001,
p. 14).
7. Work experience: “Events that are Job tenure, organizational tenure, and industrial “Knowledge, experience and professional skills
experienced by an individual that relate to tenure and abilities of the employees” (Onofrei et al.,
the performance of some job” (Quińones 2019, p. 408).
et al., 1995, p. 890).
8. HPWPs: Human resources management Selection, training, performance appraisal “Human capital resources include training,
practices that help enhance employee experience, judgment, intelligence,
competencies, commitment, and relationships, and insights of individual
performance (Combs et al., 2006; managers and workers in a firm” (Barney,
Posthuma et al., 2013). 1991, p. 101).
(table continues)
Table 1 (continued)
Feature/categories Example characteristics Example HCR definition

9. Other constructs: Any other constructs not Attitudes, genes “Human capital has also been defined on an
listed above. individual level as the combination of these
four factors: your genetic inheritance, your
education, your experience, and your
attitudes about life and business” (Bontis,
1998, p. 65).
Note. HPWPs = high-performance work practices; HCR = human capital resource. We bolded words that match the relevant feature/category noted
in the first column.
a
We coded “level not specified” for articles that did not explicitly state the level of the HCR construct.
developed the multilevel nature of HCR emergence. Thus, Ployhart specified that HCR reside at the collective level, 29.8% at the
and Moliterno’s HCR definition provides a reasonable temporal individual level, and 22.6% did not specify the level. Among the
baseline to assess other definitions. First, we coded (a) whether 40 definitions that referred to the collective, 42.5% specified firm
each definition refers to the collective level, the individual level, or level, 12.5% specified unit level, and 45.0% did not distinguish unit
did not specify a particular level and (b) whether the definition versus firm levels (e.g., definitions referred to “employees” or the
includes each HCR dimension (i.e., knowledge, skills, abilities, and “workforce”). Thus, the answer to Research Question 1 is that the
other characteristics). Second, we computed the difference between collective level was the most common level mentioned in HCR
each definition and Ployhart and Moliterno’s definition for both level definitions. Yet, there is not strong consensus as many definitions
of analysis and dimensions (0 = the two definitions are the same and refer to the individual level or do not specify the level at which HCR
1 = the two definitions are different). Third, for each comparison, we reside.
calculated four difference (D) scores: (a) an overall D score, which
represents the extent to which each definition differs from Ployhart HCR Constructs
and Moliterno’s definition in terms of both level of analysis and
constructs and dimensions mentioned; (b) a level score, which Research Question 2 focused on the constructs HCR definitions
represents whether the definition specified that HCR reside at the mentioned. Knowledge (81.0%), skills (77.4%), and abilities (46.4%)
collective level; (c) a deficiency score, which represents the extent to were the most frequently mentioned dimensions. In contrast, only
which the definition referred to KSAOs or constructs that represent 3.6% of definitions mentioned other characteristics such as personal-
constellations of KSAOs (e.g., competencies, creativity); and (d) a ity. In addition, 29.6% of definitions referred to concepts that reflect
contamination score, which represents the extent to which the combinations of KSAOs, such as competencies, capabilities, and
definition included constructs that are not HCR. D scores for each expertise. In terms of constructs other than HCR, 14.3% of definitions
definition range from 0 (no differences between definitions) to 1 (no mentioned work experience. In addition, a few definitions referred to
similarities between definitions). Table 2 presents several Example D other potential antecedents of HCR, including education and HPWPs,
score calculations. Last, we correlated the D scores with the year each or to constructs such as relationships, attitudes, and health. Thus, the
primary study was published. answer to Research Question 2 is that most HCR definitions focus on
knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Results
Changes in HCR Definitions Over Time
Of the 166 HCR definitions we reviewed, 84 were original and 82
were the same or adapted from prior definitions. Table 3 presents the Research Question 3 focused on whether HCR definitions have
original definitions that were cited more than once and the number of become more consistent over time. To do so, we examined the extent
times each one has been used or adapted by subsequent studies (see to which HCR definitions have converged with Ployhart and
Supplemental Table 1, for all the original definitions). The fact that Moliterno’s (2011) definition by emphasizing (a) collective levels
over half of the articles used their own definition suggests the field and (b) emergence from individual KSAOs. The mean overall
lacks a shared understanding of what HCR entail. Interestingly, D score was .18 (SD = .11), suggesting that extant HCR definitions
although Becker (1964) may be the most cited study in the human differ slightly from Ployhart and Moliterno. Specifically, the mean
capital literature, researchers have not frequently cited this study contamination and deficiency D scores were .05 (SD = .10) and .40
when defining HCR. This may be because Becker did not provide a (SD = .24), respectively. This suggests that measures generally are
precise definition of HCR. Despite being published more recently, somewhat contaminated by including irrelevant constructs and
the HCR definitions from Ployhart et al. (2014) and Ployhart and deficient by mentioning only some HCR dimensions. Moreover,
Moliterno (2011) were most frequently cited (19 and 16 times, the mean D for level scores was .41 (SD = .43), which indicates that
respectively). measures often specify that HCR reside at levels other than the
collective level or do not specify the level.
HCR Level Next, we correlated the D scores with year of publication. First,
the r between overall D scores and publication year was −.36 ( p <
Research Question 1 focused on the level at which HCR reside. .01), suggesting that HCR definitions have become more consistent
Table 4 presents frequencies for levels and constructs mentioned in (i.e., less different) with Ployhart and Moliterno’s (2011) definition.
the 84 unique definitions. Among the 84 unique definitions, 47.6% Specifically, more recent definitions tend to define HCR as a
collective construct (r = −.34, p < .01), and they have become less
Note. HCR = human capital resources. The elements we coded as HCR or non-HCR are in bold. There were five HCR elements, including knowledge, skills, abilities, other characteristics (KSAOs),
and compound KSAOs (e.g., competencies, creativity). All other constructs (e.g., education, work experience) were considered as non-HCR elements. See Table 1 for definitions of HCR and non-HCR
Contamination
constructs and Table 4 for the list of non-HCR constructs we identified from extant HCR definitions. Higher D scores indicate greater divergence from Ployhart and Moliterno’s (2011) definition (0 =
contaminated by inclusion of non-HCR constructs (r = −.25, p =
.36
.00
.09
.00
.02). For example, many concepts mentioned in earlier definitions
do not appear in more recent definitions, including attitudes, health,
relationships, and information. In contrast, HCR definitions have not
become less deficient over time (r = −.18, p = .10). For example,
Deficiency
definitions often mention knowledge, skills, and abilities but disre-

D scores
.60
.20
.20
1.00
gard other characteristics (e.g., personality).

Thus, the answer to Research Question 3 is that more recent
definitions tend to specify that HCR reside at the collective level and
emerge from individual knowledge, skills, and abilities. However,
Level
1.00
.50
.00
.00
although some more recent definitions include other characteristics
such as personality, this aspect of the construct is underrepresented
in HCR definitions.
Overall
.58
.21
.11
.05
Discussion
Unspecified
In Study 1, we coded 166 HCR definitions to understand how

Individual
Collective
Collective
Level
researchers have defined the construct. Approximately half of

studies used their own definition of HCR. This suggests the field
has lacked a shared understanding of what HCR entail. However, the
field is beginning to coalesce around definitions from Ployhart and
Moliterno (2011) and Ployhart et al. (2014). Recent definitions also
Non-HCR: attitudes, education, genes, and
tend to specify that HCR consist of knowledge, skills, and abilities,

HCR: knowledge, skills, and abilities (3)
HCR: knowledge, skills, and abilities (3)
and some definitions now acknowledge other characteristics (e.g.,

personality) as being part of the HCR construct domain. When
interpreting these findings, it is important to recognize that the
psychological characteristics underlying HCR lie on a continuum
Elements
that ranges from “stable” to “malleable” (Wright et al., 2014), and

Non-HCR: experience (1)
work experience (4)
KSAOs are nearer to the stable end of that continuum (Sackett et al.,
HCR: knowledge (1)
Non-HCR: none (0)
Non-HCR: none (0)
2017). In contrast, variables such as attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction,

organizational commitment) and emotions (e.g., positive and nega-
HCR: none (0)
tive affect) are not KSAOs because they are “highly variable, more
situationally specific, and situationally induced” (Ployhart et al.,
2014, p. 376). Additionally, recent frameworks and definitions are
fairly clear that knowledge, skills, and abilities contribute to HCR.
In contrast, there is less clarity regarding other characteristics, which
largely has been used as a “catch all” term for other individual
individual level as the combination of these
your education, 3. your experience, and 4.

four factors: 1. your genetic inheritance, 2.
Human capital is “the collective knowledge,

“Human capital refers to knowledge that is
differences that can affect performance. Thus, to provide greater

Example D Score Calculations for HCR Definitions (Study 1)
your attitudes about life and business”
experience and professional skills and

“Human capital has been defined on an
construct clarity for future research, we delineate the types of other

abilities of the employees” (p. 408).
skills, and abilities that reside with

Human capital refers to “knowledge,
characteristics (i.e., “O’s”) from which collective HCR emerge.

embodied in people” (p. 108).
Researchers generally have discussed three main categories of

other characteristics: personality traits, vocational interests, and work
Definition
values (e.g., Chernyshenko et al., 2011; Murphy, 2012; Peterson

employees” (p. 2122).
et al., 2001). Personality traits reflect relatively stable dispositions

that direct and maintain consistency in behavior. Most research has
focused on the Five-Factor Model (or Big Five) of personality (e.g.,
no difference; 1 = completely different).
Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goldberg, 1990) and/or subdimensions of

(p. 65).
the Big Five (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1996; Dudley et al., 2006).
However, research also has identified personality traits that are related
to, yet partially distinct from, the Big Five, including locus of control
(Rotter, 1966) and the “Dark Triad” traits of narcissism, psychopathy,
Vomberg et al. (2015)
and Machiavellianism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). In addition,

Onofrei et al. (2019)
researchers have identified several motivational traits (Sackett

et al., 2017), including achievement motivation (Hermans, 1970),
Study
Bontis (1998)
general self-efficacy (Judge et al., 1998), goal orientation (Dweck,

Coff (2002)
Table 2
1986), personal initiative (Frese et al., 2007), and proactive person-

ality (Crant, 1995). Moreover, several constructs are thought to reflect
combinations of multiple personality traits. These “compound” traits
Table 3
Unique HCR Definitions Cited More Than Once (Study 1)
Source k Definition
Ployhart et al. (2014) 19 “… individual or unit-level capacities based on individual KSAOs that are accessible for unit-relevant purposes”
(p. 374).
Ployhart and Moliterno (2011) 16 “… a unit-level resource that is created from the emergence of individuals’ knowledge, skills, abilities and other
characteristics (KSAOs)” (pp. 127–28).
Hitt et al. (2001) 10 “… attributes (including education, experience, and skills) … of top managers affect firm outcomes” (p. 14).
Coff (2002) 3 “… knowledge that is embodied in people” (p. 108).
Edvinsson and Malone (1997) 3 “… the combined knowledge, skill, innovativeness, and ability of the company’s individual employees to meet
the task at hand. It also includes the company’s values, culture, and philosophy. Human capital can not be
owned by the company” (p. 11).
Pennings et al. (1998) 3 “The human capital of a firm is defined as the knowledge and skills of its professionals that can be used to
produce professional services” (p. 426).

“Human capital resources include the training, experience, judgment, intelligence, relationships, and insight of
Barney (1991) 2
individual managers and workers in a firm” (p. 101).
Becker (2002) 2 “… the knowledge, information, ideas, skills, and health of individuals” (p. 3).
Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) 2 “… the knowledge, skills, and abilities residing with and utilized by individuals” (p. 451).
Youndt and Snell (2004) 2 “… individual employee’s knowledge, skills, and expertise” (p. 338).
Note. HCR = human capital resources; k = number of times each definition was used in the articles reviewed, excluding the source of the definition. See
Supplemental Materials for a complete set of definitions identified in Study 1.
include integrity (which reflects agreeableness, conscientiousness, Vocational interests represent enduring individual differences
and neuroticism; Ones, 1993) and core self-evaluations (which in preferences for certain types of work activities and environ-
reflects general self-efficacy, locus of control, neuroticism, and ments (Sackett et al., 2017). Most research has focused on
self-esteem; Erez & Judge, 2001). Holland’s (1973) model, which includes six broad interests:
realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conven-
Table 4 tional interests. Work values refer to needs that are important
Frequencies of Levels and Constructs in HCR Definitions (Study 1) to employees’ work satisfaction. For example, the theory of
work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) includes values
Definitional element k % such as opportunities for achievement (e.g., ability utilization),
favorable working conditions (e.g., variety), and opportunities
Level of analysis
Individual 25 29.8 for independence (e.g., autonomy). Interests and values are some-
Collective what unique among other characteristics in that they often serve as
Unit 5 6.0 the basis for assessing fit between employees’ interests and values
Firm 17 20.2 and those the job or organization supports (e.g., Kristof-Brown
Not specified 18 21.4
Level unspecified 19 22.6 et al., 2005).
Constructs Finally, there are constructs that are thought to include multiple
Knowledge 68 81.0 KSAOs, which we refer to as compound KSAOs. They include
Skills 65 77.4 capabilities, competencies, creativity, emotional intelligence, and
Abilities 39 46.4
12 14.3
expertise. Capabilities often are linked to different individual
Experience
Capabilities 6 7.1 characteristics, such as abilities (Farh et al., 2012; Parker, 1998)
Competencies 6 7.1 and personality traits (e.g., self-efficacy, Gully et al., 2002).
Expertise 6 7.1 Competencies are characteristics that contribute to role perfor-
Knowhow 6 7.1 mance and organizational success (Campion et al., 2011). They are
Attitudes 5 6.0
Education 5 6.0 broader than individual KSAOs and include constructs such as
Creativity 4 4.8 leadership and adaptability (Bartram, 2005). Creativity reflects
Health 3 3.6 KSAOs that contribute to the generation of novel ideas concerning
Other characteristics 3 3.6 work procedures and processes (e.g., Zhou, 2003). Emotional
Relationships 2 2.4
Behaviors 2 2.4
intelligence involves ability to monitor one’s own and others’
Genes 2 2.4 feelings and emotions, as well as knowledge about the self and
HPWPs 2 2.4 about others (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Last,
Information 2 2.4 expertise involves problem-related cognitive processing (Haerem
Judgment 2 2.4 & Rau, 2007) and reflects individuals’ tacit knowledge in a domain
Othera 13 15.5
(Hinds et al., 2001).
Note. HCR = human capital resources; k = number of unique definitions Thus, Study 1 demonstrates that there is some convergence
that mention each level or construct (total k = 84). % = percentage of around a common definition of the collective HCR construct that
definitions that mention each level or construct.
a
Other represents constructs that were mentioned in only one definition,
emerges from individual KSAOs, with recognition that “other
including company values, number of employees, and employee characteristics” are more recent and still evolving. In Study 2, we
understanding of work environment. attempt to extend these findings to HCR measures.
Study 2: Content Validity of HCR Measures of the construct domain (e.g., skills or personality). Thus, we explore
the sources of HCR information and potential implications for the
Study 2 examines the extent to which HCR measures reflect the validity of inferences based on those sources.
construct domain. We also examine the sources of HCR information
(e.g., subjective ratings vs. objective data), which has received very
Research Question 6: What sources are used to measure HCR?
little attention in the HCR literature.
Content Validity of HCR Measures Method
Content validity is a critical aspect of construct validity (Messick, Literature Search

1995) and is established by demonstrating that the content of a We included the primary studies from Study 1 that measured HCR.
measure is relevant to (i.e., not contaminated) and representative Next, we reviewed the HCR measures included in prior reviews of the
(i.e., not deficient) of the construct domain of interest (Haynes et al., HCR literature (i.e., Crook et al., 2011; Jiang et al., 2012; Newbert,
1995; Lawshe, 1975). Measures that assess variance outside of the 2007; Nyberg et al., 2014). In addition, we conducted a new literature
construct and/or omit some part of the construct reduce the validity search following the same procedure as described in Study 1, but this
of inferences that can be made about the target construct (Haynes time we used a new set of key terms (i.e., human capital and HCR;
et al., 1995). resources-based theory; firm, human, or unit resources; knowledge,
Although Study 1 revealed that researchers recently have shown skills, or abilities; personality; vocational interests; and work values).
more agreement on the level and nature of HCR, the content of Doing so allowed us to locate both primary studies that claimed to
extant HCR measures appears to vary across measures. For instance, measure HCR and studies that measured HCR but did not label the
prior research used variables other than KSAOs to capture HCR, measures as HCR. We also used each HCR measure we found (e.g.,
such as education (e.g., Choudhury & Mishra, 2010), work experi- Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005) to locate other studies that used the
ence (e.g., Collins et al., 2001), and performance (e.g., Wang et al., same or similar measures. This enabled us to identify studies that did
2015b). Even in studies that focus on HCR, some elements of the not use key terms listed above but measured HCR.
construct (e.g., skills) are captured more often than others (e.g.,
personality).
Assessing the content validity of HCR measures is important to Inclusion Criteria
understand the extent to which past research has focused on and We used the following criteria to determine whether to include the
comprehensively measured the construct. Content validity is also articles we reviewed in the content analysis. First, we included
important for understanding relations between HCR and other studies in which the authors specified they measured human capital
constructs. For example, if HCR measures capture constructs that or HCR, as well as studies that measured HCR but did not label the
are irrelevant to HCR, that could over- or underestimate the measures as HCR. Second, we included studies that measured HCR
importance of HCR to organizations. Finally, assessing content at the unit- or firm-level of analysis because the results of Study 1
validity could help future research select measures that most effec- suggest most contemporary research emphasizes HCR at these
tively capture HCR and avoid contaminated and deficient measures. collective levels. Thus, we excluded studies that assessed individual
To this end, we examine two key questions: rather than collective KSAOs (e.g., Lin & Huang, 2005). We also
excluded research on team-level KSAOs (e.g., team knowledge,
Research Question 4: To what extent are HCR measures Gardner et al., 2011), because teams are below the unit- or firm-
contaminated? level. However, we included studies of top management teams,
Research Question 5: To what extent are HCR measures which often are treated as a firm-level resource (e.g., Kor, 2006).
deficient? In total, 219 measures from 202 articles met our inclusion criteria.
Of these, 162 were journal articles, 24 were dissertations and theses,
10 were conference papers and research reports, four were working
Source of HCR Measures papers, and two were book chapters. Item information was unavail-
We also explore the source of the HCR assessments. Some studies able or insufficient to code eight measures, leaving 211 measures
have used subjective measures that ask people who are knowledge- for the analyses.
able about a unit or firm (e.g., executives and managers) to evaluate
HCR within the unit or firm (e.g., Bornay-Barrachina et al., 2017). In Data Coding Procedures
contrast, other studies have used measures based on more objective
data, such as cognitive ability or personality tests (e.g., Ployhart Following content validity methods described by Clark and
et al., 2009). Understanding the sources of HCR information is Watson (1995) and Haynes et al. (1995), we used the definitions
important because measures from different sources are prone to from Study 1 (see Table 1) to assess the construct(s) each individual
different types of biases and errors that can threaten validity (Cook, item captured. An example knowledge item is “Our marketing and
1995; Ford et al., 1986; Gravina & Siers, 2011; Stewart & salespeople have a very good knowledge of customers’ needs”
Nandkeolyar, 2007). For instance, executive ratings of their firm’s (Peñalba-Aguirrezabalaga et al., 2020, p. 964). An example skills
HCR may be prone to general impressions, whereas employee item is “our workers have multiple technological skills” (Jin et al.,
ratings of their own HCR may be prone to self-serving biases 2010, p. 962). An example ability item assesses the ability of a
(Fernandes & Randall, 1992). Objective HCR measures (e.g., job firm’s employees compared to other companies in the same industry
knowledge tests) can be deficient if they fail to assess certain aspects (Mahsud et al., 2011). An example other characteristics item is one
that asked employees to indicate whether they are affiliative (i.e.,
Contamination
Note. HCR = human capital resources. The elements we coded as HCR or non-HCR are bolded. There were five HCR elements, including knowledge, skills, abilities, other characteristics (KSAOs),
and compound KSAOs (e.g., competencies, creativity). All other constructs (e.g., education, work experience) are considered as non-HCR elements. See Table 1 for definitions of HCR and non-HCR
agreeableness, Schneider & Bartram, 2017).
constructs and Table 6 for the list of non-HCR constructs we identified from extant HCR measures. Higher D scores indicate greater divergence from Ployhart and Moliterno’s (2011) definition.
.00
.38
.13
As in Study 1, we also considered constructs that reflect multiple
KSAOs as representing HCR, including capabilities, competencies,
creativity, emotional intelligence, and expertise. An example capa-
bilities item is “The extent to which the human capital of research and
development department is competitive in terms of their job capabil-
D scores
ity” (Kim et al., 2016, p. 1584). An example competency item is “The
Deficiency
human resources management department is able to exhibit leader-
.60
.60
.60
ship for the human resources function and the whole corporation”
(Ngo et al., 2014, p. 913). An example creativity item is “Our
employees are very creative and innovative” (Choudhury, 2010,
p. 79). An example emotional intelligence item is “My manager
Overall
has a good understanding of his/her own emotions” (Wilderom et al.,
.23
.46
.31
2015, p. 832). Finally, an example expertise item is “Frontline
employees in this branch are experts in their particular jobs and
functions” (Aryee et al., 2016, p. 489). For items that did not assess
HCR, we coded the construct each item appeared to assess using the
definitions in Table 1. We also coded whether the HCR measure was
Non-HCR: education, HPWPs, and work

objective or subjective. In addition, for subjective measures, we
Non-HCR: unclear construct that can be

coded the source of the ratings (e.g., executives vs. employees).
The first author and two coauthors coded 10 studies together,
either HCR or non-HCR (1)

discussed the coding form and process, and made some adjustments.
HCR: other characteristics (1)

After that, the two coauthors coded the rest of the studies and the first
Elements
author reviewed and finalized the codes. We assessed interrater
HCR: knowledge (1)

agreement (ICC,A,1) regarding whether individual items within
Non-HCR: none (0)

each measure assessed HCR or another construct, and the mean
experience (3)
HCR: skills (1)

ICC across measures was .93. The ICC for source of HCR informa-
tion was .92. Instances of disagreement were resolved by discussion.
The final codes for each primary study can be found in Supplemental
Table 2.
Finally, we examined whether HCR measures have become more
aligned with Ployhart and Moliterno’s (2011) definition using the
same approach we used in Study 1. Specifically, we coded the
• Our employees are widely considered the best in

• Our project personnel undergo requisite training
elements each HCR measure assesses, calculated the difference
• Our project personnel are certified on business
• Our employees have relevant business process
between each measure and Ployhart and Moliterno’s definition, and

• Our project personnel have sound domain
calculated D scores representing deficiency, contamination, and a

• Our employees have bachelor’s degrees
combination thereof. As before, larger D scores indicate greater

process outsourcing-related processes
dissimilarity between the measure and the construct definition (see

• Our employees are highly skilled
Example D Score Calculations for HCR Measures (Study 2)
Table 5 for several Example D score calculations).

Measure
NEO Personality Inventory
outsourcing experience
Results
Among the 211 HCR measures we coded, 127 measures were
unique and only 15 measures were used more than once. Youndt
our industry
et al.’s (2004) five-item scale was by far the most prevalent HCR
knowledge
measure, which was used in 50 studies. An additional 12 studies

used some version of Bontis (1998) five-item scale, and six studies
used a four-item version of Youndt et al.’s scale (i.e., the item “Our
employees develop new ideas and knowledge” was removed). All
other HCR measures were used in three or fewer studies. Thus,
mirroring what we found in Study 1 with regard to HCR definitions,
Lahiri and Kedia (2009)
measures of HCR are highly study specific.

Teo et al. (2014)
Oh et al. (2015)
Study
Contamination of HCR Measures

Table 5
Table 6 presents the content validity results based on the 127 unique
HCR measures we coded. Research Question 4 asked to what extent
HCR measures are contaminated. We identified three categories of
Table 6
Results of Content Validity Analysis of HCR Measures (Study 2)
Fully Partially Partially and

contaminated contaminated Uncontaminated uncontaminated
Content of measures k % k % k % k %
HCR dimensions
Knowledge 16 27.1 14 46.7 30 33.7
Skills 44 74.6 9 30.0 53 59.6
Abilities 18 30.5 4 13.3 22 24.7
Other characteristics 1 1.7 6 20.0 7 7.9
Compound KSAOs
Competencies 21 35.6 9 30.0 30 33.7
Expertise 20 33.9 6 20.0 26 29.2
Capabilities 3 5.1 1 3.3 4 4.5

Creativity 19 32.2 0 0.0 19 21.3

Other 6 10.2 2 6.7 8 9.0
Number of HCR dimensions
One 28 47.5 15 50.0 43 48.3
Two 18 30.5 9 30.0 27 30.3
Three 5 8.5 0 0.0 5 5.6
Four 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Compound KSAOs only 8 13.6 6 20.0 14 15.7
Non-HCR constructs
Work experience 13 34.2 18 30.5 18 20.2
Education 15 39.5 17 28.8 17 19.1
HPWPs 4 10.5 16 27.1 16 18.0
Work activities 2 5.3 16 27.1 16 18.0
Performance 6 15.8 10 16.9 10 11.2
Uniqueness 0 0.0 5 8.5 5 5.6
Other types of resources 5 13.2 4 6.8 4 4.5
Other constructs 5 13.2 8 13.6 8 9.0
Unclear 14 36.8 21 35.6 21 23.6
Total 38 29.9 59 46.5 30 23.6 89 70.1
Note. Total k = 127 unique measures. HCR = human capital resources; HPWPs = high-performance work practices;
Unclear = unclear constructs that may or may not be relevant to KSAOs; KSAOs = knowledge, skills, abilities, other
characteristics. Because some measures capture more than one HCR dimension or construct, the numbers of studies for
HCR dimensions or non-HCR constructs do not add up to the total number of studies for the corresponding category.
measures. The first category included 59 of the 127 measures (46.5%) (e.g., years of postsecondary education, Kehoe & Collins, 2017; the
that were partially contaminated in that they assessed both HCR and percentage of employees at each level of education, Torre et al.,
one or more non-HCR constructs. For instance, Lopez (2003) 2018), or HPWPs (e.g., training practices, Torre et al., 2020;
assessed employee adaptability and collaborative skills (which are compensation and benefits practices, Bhattacharya et al., 2014).
HCR), but also training practices (which are HPWPs). Further, the Second, six measures assessed performance, which is a potential
measure in Jin et al. (2010) captured knowledge, skills, and compe- outcome of HCR. Example measures that focus on outcomes include
tencies (which are HCR), but also job experience (which is an winning percentage (e.g., Crocker & Eckardt, 2014), turnover (e.g.,
antecedent or proxy for HCR). This category also includes some Munir et al., 2019), and perceived profits (e.g., Smriti & Das, 2017).
measures that assess HCR and constructs we could not clearly Third, five measures assessed other types of resources, such as
identify. For example, the measure in Berraies (2019) captured financial resources (e.g., labor expenses, Beierlein et al., 2011) and
abilities, skills, creativity, and expertise (which are HCR), but also social capital resources (e.g., cooperation between employees,
unclear items such as “Our employees are considered the best in the Kianto et al., 2010). Although these other types of resources are
industry” (which may be HCR or another construct such as perfor- important to organizations, they are not the same as HCR. Fourth,
mance). Further, Carmeli (2004) assessed knowledge, skills, and two measures assessed knowledge and information sharing (e.g.,
competencies (which are HCR), but also unclear items such as Alexander, 2018), which are work activities rather than HCR.
“Employees go home the same way they arrived in the morning.” The third and the smallest category comprised 30 uncontaminated
The next largest category included 38 fully contaminated mea- measures (23.6%) that focused only on HCR. For instance,
sures (29.9%) that assessed only constructs other than HCR. There Ferguson and Reio (2010) assessed employees’ overall knowledge,
appeared to be four main types of measures in this category. First, skills, abilities, and creativity, and Sung and Choi (2018) assessed
24 of the 40 measures assessed constructs often treated as proxies of employees’ abilities in multiple areas (e.g., research and develop-
HCR but theoretically are antecedents, including work experience ment) compared with employees of competitors.
(e.g., the number of years working in the job or the organization; Thus, the answer to Research Question 4 is that less than 24% of
Chowdhury et al., 2014; Gerhart & Milkovich, 1990), education measures the original authors referred to as HCR focus solely on the
construct. Instead, most measures include or focus on other con- 2.30 (SD = .67), which equates to a rating of poor on our scale.
structs, such as antecedents or outcomes of HCR or other resources A rating of poor indicated that on average, HCR measures tend to
altogether (e.g., physical resources). As such, most HCR measures assess only one HCR dimension, include about two items per
are contaminated by other constructs. dimension assessed, and capture only one specific aspect of the
HCR dimension(s) assessed. The mean rating was slightly higher for
Deficiency of HCR Measures uncontaminated measures (M = 2.66, SD = .53), yet was still quite
low. This suggests that even when measures focused only on HCR,
Research Question 5 asked to what extent HCR measures are the depth and breadth of the assessments generally were quite poor.
deficient. To answer this question, we coded the HCR dimensions Finally, we examined whether HCR measures have become more
assessed in the 59 partially contaminated and 30 uncontaminated aligned with Ployhart and Moliterno’s (2011) definition. The mean
measures (i.e., 89 total measures). We excluded the 38 fully contam- overall D score was .36 (SD = .15), which suggests that in general,
inated measures because they also are fully deficient (i.e., they do not HCR measures are not well aligned with Ployhart and Moliterno
assess any HCR dimensions). Compound KSAOs were the most (recall that 0 indicates no differences). In particular, the mean
assessed (73.0% of measures), with competencies (33.7%), expertise contamination and deficiency D scores were .18 (SD = .19) and
(29.2%), and creativity (21.3%) being the most frequently assessed .68 (SD = .25), respectively. This suggests that most of the disagree-
compound attributes. Of the specific HCR dimensions, skills were the ment is because HCR measures fail to assess all the dimensions the
most frequently assessed (59.6%), followed by knowledge (33.7%) construct domain includes. We also correlated the D scores with
and abilities (24.7%). Of the 7.9% of measures that assessed other publication year and found that HCR measures have not become
characteristics, all focused on the Big Five traits.3 more consistent with this definition (r = −.11, p = .23). Specifically,
We also examined the number of HCR dimensions these mea- more recent HCR measures are not less contaminated with non-HCR
sures assessed, which could range from 0 (no dimensions) to 5 (i.e., constructs (r = −.01, p = .94), nor have they become significantly
knowledge, skills, abilities, other characteristics, and compound less deficient (r = −.16, p = .08; although the effect size for
KSAOs). On average, partially contaminated measures assessed 2.15 deficiency suggests it has been decreasing over time).
dimensions (SD = .98) and uncontaminated measures assessed 1.70
dimensions (SD = .65; see Table 6). Excluding compound KSAOs,
the two types of measures assessed an average of 1.34 (SD = .82)
and 1.10 (SD = .71) specific HCR dimensions, respectively. Thus, HCR Source
although partially contaminated measures are contaminated by other Research Question 6 addressed the sources of HCR assessments.
constructs, they tend to assess slightly more HCR dimensions than To answer this question, we examined the source of the HCR
uncontaminated measures. information in each of the 211 measures. We excluded two measures
Thus, the answer to Research Question 5 is that all HCR measures from one study that did not specify the source (Wetter, 2009). Results
were deficient to some extent because they omit one or more aspects revealed five main sources. First, 144 measures (68.9%) asked
of the HCR construct domain. However, these results do not fully company leaders to assess HCR. Among these measures, 56 asked
address the comprehensiveness of the HCR measures. For example, a executives to assess HCR (e.g., Donate et al., 2016), 60 asked unit or
measure may assess multiple HCR dimensions but only include one department managers to evaluate HCR (e.g., Bornay-Barrachina
item for each dimension. Further, some measures may include et al., 2017), 18 measures asked both executives and mid-level
multiple items for a particular HCR dimension, but the items are managers to assess HCR (e.g., Cabrilo & Dahms, 2020), and 10
general or do not assess particular aspects of the dimension. For did not specify the level of managers from whom they collected HCR
instance, the item “our employees are highly skilled” does not refer to information (e.g., Ferguson & Reio, 2010). Second, 18 measures
the specific skills a particular job may require (e.g., oral communi-
(8.6%) asked employees to assess their own HCR. For example,
cation skills, typing skills).
Chuang and Liao (2010) asked employees to assess their customer
Therefore, we conducted three additional sets of analyses. First, we
knowledge, and Yoo (2020) used employee self-reports of their
coded the number of HCR items and dimensions partially contami-
cultural competency. Third, 11 measures (5.3%) asked both leaders
nated and uncontaminated measures include. Next, we calculated the
and employees to assess HCR. For instance, Buenechea-Elberdin
number of items per dimension by dividing the number of HCR items
et al. (2018) asked managers and employees to assess employees’
in each measure by the number of HCR dimensions the measure
HCR. Fourth, six measures (2.9%) did not specify whether partici-
assessed. For instance, Lahiri and Kedia’s (2009) five-item measure
pants were managers or employees. For instance, Chegus (2018)
included one HCR item (i.e., “Our project personnel have sound
asked MBA students to assess HCR of the firm for which they
domain knowledge”), which assessed one dimension (i.e., knowl-
worked. Fifth, 30 measures (14.4%) used archival data to measure
edge). Thus, the number of items per dimension for this measure is
HCR. Harris et al. (2019) used college basketball recruiting data, and
one. We then correlated the number of items per dimension with the
number of dimensions they assess. The resulting r of −.21 ( p = .04) Ployhart et al. (2009) used scores on selection tests. Thus, the answer
suggests that measures less deficient in dimensions (i.e., more to Research Question 6 is that about 85% of measures assess HCR
dimensions) tended to be more deficient in the extent to which based on subjective evaluations.
they assess those dimensions (i.e., fewer items), and vice versa.
3
Second, we coded the overall quality of each measure using a We coded HCR measures as including other characteristics if they
assessed any of the other characteristic categories (i.e., personality, interests,
scale in which 1 = very poor and 5 = very good (see rating scale in and values). For example, an HCR measure was considered including other
Appendix A). Two of the authors rated each measure, and the characteristics (i.e., not deficient) if it assessed personality but not interests
interrater reliability (ICC,C,1) was .93. The overall mean rating was and values.
Discussion criterion-related validity of HCR measures for predicting unit and

firm performance. Study 2 suggested that contaminated HCR
In Study 2, we examined the content validity of 127 measures
measures often focus on or include constructs that may be related
researchers have used to assess HCR. Our analysis reveals several
to HCR but that are more distal to performance. For example,
major findings. First, most measures (76.4%) were contaminated,
constructs such as education and work experience are not HCR,
such that they either did not assess any HCR dimensions or measured
but they can contribute to development of collective knowledge
HCR but also other constructs. Among the 23.6% of uncontaminated
and skills. Inclusion of constructs that are related to HCR but
measures that focused only on HCR, most captured only one or two
more distal to performance may add redundant variance or even
dimensions of the construct. Interestingly, compound KSAOs were
suppress variance in HCR that is related to performance.
more frequently measured than individual KSAOs, particularly com-
Study 2 also revealed HCR measures that assess constructs that
petencies. Among the specific HCR dimensions, collective knowl-
are weakly or unrelated to HCR and/or performance. For example,
edge and/or skills were the most frequently assessed. Relatively fewer
some measures assess employee voice (Jaw et al., 2006), which is
measures assessed abilities or other characteristics such as personality,
not HCR and its relation with organizational performance is rela-
and we did not find any measures that assessed work interests or
tively weak (e.g., Subramony, 2009). Thus, inclusion of constructs
values. Finally, even when measures captured multiple HCR dimen-

that do not relate to performance may add extraneous variance to
sions and were uncontaminated by other constructs, the depth and
HCR measures and reduce their relations with performance. This
breadth of construct assessment generally was quite poor. For exam-
leads to our first hypothesis:
ple, most measures included only one or two items per HCR dimen-
sion and often failed to capture specific aspects of the dimensions.
A key implication of these findings is that primary studies—as Hypothesis 1: HCR measures that are less contaminated will
well as the meta-analytic research that has summarized these relate more strongly to performance than measures that are
studies—in many cases are based on contaminated and/or deficient more contaminated.4
measures of HCR. For example, as part of our literature search, we
reviewed the primary studies in Crook et al. (2011) meta-analysis We also examine the effects of deficiency on criterion-related
and found that 74.5% of the human capital measures are fully validity. Given the theoretical basis for a relationship between HCR
contaminated by assessing only other constructs (e.g., education, and performance (e.g., Barney, 1991), HCR measures that assess
HPWPs) and 9.6% are partially contaminated by assessing HCR more aspects of the construct domain (i.e., are less deficient) should
along with other constructs. As a result, it is unclear how much these better predict performance than measures that assess fewer aspects
measures tell us about HCR or its impact on other variables. of the construct. This rationale is consistent with research that has
In addition, unlike HCR definitions, HCR measures have not found that the criterion-related validity of employee selection
become more consistent with Ployhart and Moliterno’s (2011) procedures tends to increase as the procedures assess more job-
definition of HCR. Specifically, more recent HCR measures have related KSAOs (e.g., Roth et al., 2011). In addition, collective
not become less contaminated nor less deficient. This suggests a lack resources that emerge from the combination of KSAOs are likely
of consensus regarding how to operationalize HCR. It also suggests more proximal to unit and firm performance than individual KSAOs
that research is not testing HCR or estimating its empirical effects in because the emergence process is more firm-specific (Ployhart et al.,
the theorized manner, because Study 1 found growing consensus 2014). Therefore, we predict the following:
around the definition of HCR.
Last, most studies measured HCR based on subjective assess- Hypothesis 2: HCR measures that are less deficient will relate
ments; very few used more objective assessments. Among subjective more strongly to performance than measures that are more
measures, executives or managers were the most common source of deficient.
HCR information. Although such measures may be superior to
employee self-reports, there still are potential concerns with relying
on manager assessments of HCR (Gerhart et al., 2000). For instance, Method
if managers are asked to evaluate the HCR of their own unit, their Primary Studies and Inclusion Criteria
ratings may be subject to biases such as social desirability (Cook,
1995). Also, some HCR dimensions (e.g., abilities) may be less We conducted a meta-analysis of primary studies from Study 2
observable or more difficult to assess, which may introduce error into that reported bivariate relations between the HCR measures and
the assessments (Roch et al., 2009). Further, when the organizations unit- or firm-level performance. We excluded studies that measured
have complex businesses or organizational structures (e.g., multiple only individual-level performance (e.g., Wang et al., 2015a) due to a
subsidiaries and locations), it may be difficult for managers to mismatch in levels between collective HCR and individual perfor-
accurately assess the HCR within the firm as a whole (Gerhart et al., mance. Example measures of unit-level performance include store
2000). Thus, the overall results of Study 2 raise serious concerns sales (Ployhart et al., 2009) and project profitability (Keller, 2004).
about the validity of inferences based on extant HCR measures. For firm-level performance, we included both financial and opera-
tional performance measures. Financial performance measures
include accounting returns (e.g., return on sales, return on assets),
Study 3: Effects of Contamination and Deficiency on the
Criterion-Related Validity of HCR Measures 4
Partially contaminated measures could have greater validity to the extent
they assess constructs that are unrelated to HCR but are related to perfor-
In Study 3, we examine whether and how the contamination mance. However, given that this study offers the first examination of these
and deficiency found in Study 2 affects inferences regarding the issues, the proposed hypothesis seems more consistent with theory.
the stock market (e.g., market to book value, stock returns), and reliability estimate of .91 from prior research (Crook et al., 2011).
growth (e.g., market share, sales growth; Richard et al., 2009). For studies that measured multiple types of HCR (e.g., abilities and
Operational performance reflects specific value chain activities personality) subjectively, but did not report the reliability for the
(Crook et al., 2011), such as human resources (e.g., turnover), overall measure, we calculated a composite reliability (Mosier,
operations (e.g., accident rates), and service (e.g., customer satis- 1943) based on the correlations and the median alphas for each
faction). In addition, we included both subjective and objective HCR based on other studies. Similarly, we used the reliability
measures of performance. Examples of subjective measures include estimate of .91 to calculate a composite reliability for studies that
executive reports of firm performance relative to competitors (e.g., used multiple measures of HCR (e.g., education) and performance
Tippins & Sohi, 2003) and senior manager perceptions of firm (e.g., return on assets and profits).
competitive advantages (e.g., Jin et al., 2010). Examples of objec- For each meta-analysis, we conducted an outlier analysis to
tive performance measures include financial information such as identify potentially influential studies. We used a modified version
return on assets (e.g., Payne et al., 2009) and Tobin’s Q (e.g., Meyer of the sample adjusted meta-analytic deviancy statistic (Beal et al.,
et al., 2014) collected from archival data, as well as manager reports 2002; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1995) available in the Meta-Analysis
of the number of new products firms developed (e.g., Bornay- Mark XIII program developed by Piers Steel. We report results with
Barrachina et al., 2012). Finally, we followed Wood’s (2008) and without any influential cases if their exclusion changed the mean
procedure to include results based on independent samples only. corrected validity estimate (ρ) by more than 20%.
In total, 94 independent samples from 92 primary studies met all Finally, we explored whether publication bias and/or small
the inclusion criteria. These studies comprised 74 journal articles, sample bias were evident in relations between HCR and perfor-
11 dissertations and theses, three conference papers and research mance. Regarding publication bias, mean ρs were .14 (k = 19) and
reports, and four working papers. .12 (k = 75) for unpublished and published studies, respectively, and
the two sets of confidence intervals overlapped (CI [.07, .22] vs.
Data Coding Procedures [.11, .13]). However, one primary study (Tse et al., 2017, N =
249,326, r = .10) emerged as an influential case and excluding it
As in Study 1, the first author and two coauthors independently increased the mean ρ for published studies from .12 to .27 (CI
coded every primary study. The intercoder reliabilities (ICC,C,1) [.23, 31]). Thus, without this study, published studies tended to have
were 1.00 for sample size, .99 for HCR measure reliability, .99 for larger criterion-related validities than unpublished studies. In addi-
performance measure reliability, and 1.00 for relations between tion, we conducted Egger et al.’s (2001) test for small sample bias
HCR and performance. We also coded several other characteristics among the primary studies. This test was not significant (z = 1.76,
of each primary study, including publication status (published vs. p = .08), which indicates that validities from smaller samples were
unpublished), study design (predictive vs. concurrent), type of and similar to validities from larger samples.
performance construct (financial vs. operational performance), and
type of performance measure (objective vs. subjective). The inter-
coder agreement coefficients (ICC,A,1) across these codes were Results
.97–1.00. The final codes for each independent sample can be found
Meta-Analytic Results
in Supplemental Table 3.
Table 7 presents meta-analytic results across all HCR measures,
as well as for each of the three categories of measures we identified
Analyses
in Study 2. The mean ρ between all HCR measures and performance
We used Schmidt and Hunter’s (2015) psychometric meta- was .12 (k = 94). However, excluding one influential primary study
analysis technique. We identified the sample size (N) and observed (Tse et al., 2017) increased the overall ρ to .23. The mean ρs for the
HCR-performance correlation (r) for each primary study. For three categories of HCR measures were .25 (k = 18) for uncontami-
studies that reported a range of sample sizes, we used the smallest nated measures, .35 (k = 57) for partially contaminated measures,
N. For primary studies that reported a single r, we used this and .11 (k = 25) for fully contaminated measures. Thus, partially
coefficient in the meta-analysis. For studies that reported rs between contaminated measures demonstrated somewhat higher criterion-
multiple variables (e.g., one HCR measure and two firm perfor- related validity than uncontaminated measures, and both measures
mance measures), we calculated a unit-weighted composite r were considerably more predictive than fully contaminated mea-
(Schmidt & Le, 2004). sures. We return to these findings in the Supplemental Analyses
Because we were interested in construct-level relationships, we below.
corrected the observed rs for measurement error using the reliability Hypothesis 1 predicted that less contaminated HCR measures
estimates reported in the primary studies. For studies that used would relate more strongly to performance than more contaminated
multiitem measures (e.g., multiple questionnaire items to measure measures. We tested this hypothesis by correlating the contamina-
HCR, multiple indices of financial performance), we used the tion D scores for each measure (described in Study 2) with the ρ
reported internal consistency reliability estimates to correct for between the measure and performance. Results revealed a sample
measurement error. For studies that did not report reliability esti- size-weighted correlation of .35 ( p < .01). This suggests that HCR
mates, we used the relevant median reliability calculated from measures that are more contaminated by other constructs better
studies that included the same construct and reported the reliability predict performance than measures that are less contaminated. Thus,
estimates. The median reliability was .86 for both subjective HCR Hypothesis 1 was not supported.
measures (k = 59) and performance measures (k = 51). For studies Hypothesis 2 predicted that less deficient HCR measures would
that used objective measures of HCR and/or performance, we used a relate more strongly to performance than more deficient measures.
Table 7
Meta-Analytic Results for Relations Between HCR Measures and Performance (Study 3)
HCR measure category k N r̄ SDr ρ SDρ Var 90% CI 80% CV
All measures 94 279,910 .11 .07 .12 .07 6.69% [.11, .13] [.03, .21]
Outlier excluded 93 30,584 .21 .18 .23 .20 8.21% [.20, .27] [−.02, .48]
Uncontaminated measures 18 3,371 .22 .13 .25 .13 28.86% [.19, .31] [.09, .41]
Partially contaminated measures 57 14,511 .30 .16 .35 .17 12.66% [.31, .39] [.13, .56]
Fully contaminated measures 25 263,437 .10 .04 .11 .04 6.83% [.09, .12] [.06, .16]
Note. HCR = human capital resources; k = number of effect sizes in each meta-analysis; N = combined sample size; r̄ = sample size-weighted mean
uncorrected correlation; SDr = standard deviation of the sample size-weighted mean uncorrected correlation; ρ = estimated corrected mean correlation;
SDρ = standard deviation of the estimated corrected mean correlation; Var = percentage of observed variance accounted for by statistical artifacts;
90% CI = lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval for ρ; 80% CV = lower and upper bounds of the 80% credibility value for ρ.
We tested this hypothesis by correlating the deficiency D scores with ρs were larger when primary studies used less deficient HCR
ρs between HCR measures and performance. The resulting sample measures (β = −.49, p = .01) and operational performance measures
size-weighted r was −.63 ( p < .001), which provides support for (β = .49, p = .01). In contrast, HCR measure contamination was
Hypothesis 2. This suggests that HCR measures that assess more unrelated to criterion-related validity when controlling for other
aspects of the construct domain also demonstrate better criterion- factors (β = .15, p = .17).
related validity.
Next, we conducted a metaregression analysis (Tipton et al.,
2019) to examine whether the effects of contamination and defi- Supplemental Analyses
ciency remained after other study characteristics were considered.
This analysis also enabled us to identify situations in which HCR- One unexpected finding was that partially contaminated measures
demonstrated somewhat stronger criterion-related validity than
performance relations may be stronger or weaker. The regression
uncontaminated measures. We conducted several additional analy-
model included the contamination and deficiency D scores for each
ses to try to shed light on this finding. First, we explored aspects on
measure along with binary variables that reflected each of the
which the two types of measures may differ, including number and
following primary study characteristics: (a) predictive versus con-
types of items and how the items were framed. Specifically, we
current study design, (b) objective versus subjective HCR measure,
calculated number of HCR dimensions, number of HCR items, and
(c) operational versus financial performance, (d) objective versus
total number of items uncontaminated and partially contaminated
subjective performance measure, and (e) different versus same
HCR measures included. We also calculated the proportion of items
source for the HCR and performance measures. The dependent
that focus on the relative level of HCR (e.g., “Whether the employ-
variable was the ρs between HCR and performance. To stay
ees’ competence of environmental protection in the firm is better
consistent with Schmidt and Hunter (2015), we used primary study
than those of its major competitors”; Chen, 2008) the two types of
sample size as the weight in the metaregression analysis. For
measures included. Next, we conducted a sample size-weighted
samples that included multiple coefficients (e.g., both operational multivariate generalized linear model analysis that included HCR
and financial performance), we randomly selected one of them, measure (uncontaminated vs. partially contaminated) as an inde-
although we always included an uncontaminated HCR measure pendent variable and number of HCR dimensions, number of HCR
when available (see Supplemental Table 3).5 items, total number of items, and proportion of items that compare
Except for study design and match between the HCR and the target unit or firm to competitors as dependent variables.6 There
performance measure source, bivariate correlations between the was a statistically significant difference in the three aspects between
predictors and HCR-performance ρs were statistically significant the two types of HCR measures, F(4, 61) = 12.48, p < .001; Wilks’s
(see Table 8). In addition to the contamination and deficiency λ = .55.
relations mentioned above, HCR-performance relations were sig- As we found in Study 2, partially contaminated measures assessed
nificantly larger (a) for subjective HCR measures than for objective more HCR dimensions than uncontaminated measures, M = 2.70
HCR measures, (b) for operational performance than for financial
performance, and (c) for subjective performance measures than for 5
Results were highly similar when we used Lipsey and Wilson’s (2001)
objective performance measures. Moreover, HCR measure type approach of weighting studies by the sampling error variance. We also ran
(subjective vs. objective) covaried with several other predictors, analyses using all available data (rather than randomly selecting one set of
which appeared to cause multicollinearity issues in the metaregres- results per study), and conclusions were the same except performance
construct was not significant ( p = .15). Further, excluding the influential
sion (e.g., high variance inflation factors). Excluding HCR type study (Tse et al., 2017) did not change any conclusions about statistical
resolved this issue, so we did not include it in the final metaregres- significance so we report results with Tse et al.
6
sion analysis. In the supplemental analysis, we focused on the uncontaminated and
The overall metaregression model significantly predicted HCR- partially contaminated measures from the metaregression analysis. We
further excluded five measures for which we could not determine the total
performance relations, F(6, 70) = 11.24, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .47. number of items or number of HCR items, as well as two uncontaminated
Two variables remained significant predictors of these relations measures that were outliers given the large number of total items (i.e., 96
when included in the same model. Specifically, HCR-performance items in Colbert et al., 2014 and 104 items in Schneider & Bartram, 2017).
Table 8
Metaregression Analysis Results for Predictors of HCR-Performance Relations (Study 3)
Sample size-weighted correlations between predictors and HCR-performance relations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Contamination D score —
2. Deficiency D score −.44** —
3. Study design −.04 −.13 —
4. Type of HCR measure −.47** .88** −.25* —
5. Performance construct .02 −.33** .61** −.62** —
6. Type of performance measure −.40** .77** .00 .77** −.43** —
7. Matched HCR and performance source .11 −.24* .81** −.50** .67** .02 —
8. HCR-performance relations .35** −.63** .00 −.65** .39** −.64** .10 —
Results of metaregression analysis

Predictor b SE β t
Constant .32 .14 2.37*

Contamination D score .31 .22 .15 1.40
Deficiency D score −.28 .10 −.49 −2.73**
Study design −.06 .06 −.16 −1.01
Performance construct .16 .06 .49 2.54*
Type of performance measure .01 .08 .02 .06
Match between HCR and performance sources −.08 .08 −.24 −1.00
Note. Ns ranged from 79 to 94 independent samples. b = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized regression
coefficient; HCR = human capital resources; SE = standard error. Study design was coded 0 = concurrent design and 1 = predictive design. Type of HCR
measure was coded 0 = subjective measure and 1 = objective measure. Performance construct was coded 0 = financial performance and 1 = operational
performance. Type of performance measure was coded 0 = subjective measure and 1 = objective measure. Match between HCR and performance sources
was coded 0 = same source and 1 = different sources.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
versus 1.67, F(1, 64) = 27.8, p < .001.7 Moreover, although partially Second, measures that assess HCR and other constructs (i.e., they
contaminated measures tended to include fewer HCR items, M = 3.57 are partially contaminated) tend to demonstrate the strongest
versus 4.00, F(1, 64) = .31, p = .58, more total number of items, M = criterion-related validity. This unexpected finding can be explained,
5.67 versus 4.00, F(1, 64) = 3.68, p = .06, and a larger proportion of in part, by the fact that partially contaminated measures tend to
items that compare the target unit or firm to competitors, M = .15 assess more HCR dimensions than measures that focus only on
versus .12, F(1, 64) = .20, p = .66, than uncontaminated measures, HCR. Partially contaminated measures also assess constructs (e.g.,
these differences were small and statistically nonsignificant. performance) that, like HCR, are theoretically and empirically
Second, we found that partially contaminated measures tended to related to organizational performance. However, because partially
assess constructs that, like HCR, are theoretically and empirically contaminated measures assess HCR and other constructs, it is more
related to performance. For example, mean ρs for partially contami- difficult to draw valid inferences from such measures. Moreover,
nated measures that included items about performance or HPWPs because each measure is contaminated by different constructs (e.g.,
were .38 (k = 12) and .46 (k = 7), respectively. work experience vs. HPWPs), it also is difficult to draw generaliz-
Taken together, these analyses suggest that although partially able inferences and, for example, could inflate variation in HCR
contaminated measures are not as content valid as uncontaminated validity across studies. Overall, the superior content validity of
measures, they may be as or more criterion valid because they uncontaminated HCR measures allows for more valid construct
(a) assess more HCR dimensions than uncontaminated measures inferences and more accurate tests of theory.
and (b) assess both HCR and other constructs that are related to Finally, in the metaregression analysis, the effects of deficiency on
performance. criterion-related validity of HCR measures remained after consider-
ing other factors, including study design factors such as whether
HCR were measured concurrently or prior to performance. This
Discussion finding attests to the robustness of the negative effects of deficiency.
Results also suggest that relations between HCR and performance are
Study 3 revealed several important insights. First, HCR measures
stronger when performance focuses on operational outcomes.
that assess more aspects of the construct domain (i.e., are less
deficient) also demonstrate better criterion-related validity. Mea-
sures that do not assess any aspects of HCR are much weaker General Discussion
predictors of unit and firm performance than are measures that assess HCR have received considerable attention during the past few
at least some aspects of HCR. This finding points to the multidi- decades, and research on the construct has yielded many important
mensional nature of HCR and suggests that failing to measure
aspects of the construct domain can underestimate the impact of 7
We did not include number of HCR dimensions in the meta regression
HCR on organizational performance. analysis due to collinearity between this variable and deficiency D scores.
insights (Nyberg & Moliterno, 2019). The field has grown from one Our review of the literature suggests that the most accepted HCR
primarily housed in economics, to one that includes strategic man- definitions are Ployhart and Moliterno (2011) and Ployhart et al.
agement, human resources management, and industrial-organizational (2014). Indeed, the two definitions together account for 56.5% of
psychology. The topic is also of great interest to practitioners. For citations of definitions that were cited more than once (25.8% and
example, business leaders believe that attracting and retaining human 30.7%, respectively; see Table 3). Further, at the collective level,
capital is one of the greatest challenges organizations will face during both definitions conceptualize HCR as unit-level resources that
the next decade (Society for Human Resource Management, 2020). emerge from individual KSAOs. However, the two definitions
Despite the clear theoretical and practical importance of HCR, are not identical, as Ployhart et al. addressed some unique issues
there has been a lack of consensus regarding the nature and not considered in Ployhart and Moliterno. For instance, Ployhart
measurement of the HCR construct. Further, the validity of infer- et al. clarified how HCR definitions should specify the nature, level,
ences drawn from extant HCR measures has received very little and types of HCR (e.g., see their Table 2). They also identified some
attention. Understanding these issues advances both theory and unique instances in which HCR may reside at the individual level.
practice. Indeed, no science can advance without clear definitions, For instance, chief executive officers and entrepreneurs can con-
and no evidence-based guidance can exist without appropriate tribute disproportionately to organizational outcomes, particularly
measures. The present study takes important steps toward better in smaller firms. As such, the characteristics of these key individuals
understanding these critical issues. may reflect HCR in some cases. Moving forward, we suggest
researchers use the Ployhart et al. definition because it builds
upon and extends the Ployhart and Moliterno definition by integrat-
Theoretical Implications
ing micro-, meso-, and macroperspectives, as well as recognizes
This study has several key implications for HCR theory and different levels, types of HCR, and performance outcomes.
research. For one, it demonstrates that prior research has defined Study 3 showed that contamination and deficiency also affect the
HCR in a rather piecemeal, study-specific, and incomplete manner. criterion-related validity of inferences drawn from extant HCR
For example, approximately half of all definitions have been used measures. Specifically, HCR measures that assess more aspects of
only in a single article and never cited again. Although the HCR the construct domain (i.e., are less deficient) are more strongly related
definition in any given study may be appropriate for the purpose of to unit and firm performance. In fact, criterion-related validities for
that study, it is impossible to build a cumulative understanding of measures that assess at least some aspects of HCR are about 1.5 times
HCR without a clear definition of the construct. This concern is larger than validities for measures that do not assess HCR at all.
particularly critical given that HCR research spans multiple dis- Although researchers routinely use proxies of HCR that are relatively
ciplines that each adopt their own assumptions. easy to assess (e.g., education, work experience, labor costs), doing
Our analysis of construct definitions in Study 1 suggests the field so can severely underestimate the effects of HCR on performance.
has started to coalesce around the definitions offered in Ployhart and The fact that collective KSAOs have stronger effects on performance
Moliterno (2011) and Ployhart et al. (2014). This is an important than collective background characteristics (e.g., education, experi-
step forward that should help integrate and synthesize future HCR ence) mirrors findings from individual-level research showing that
research across disciplines. Moreover, we delineated the specific selection procedures that assess KSAOs (e.g., structured interviews;
constructs that comprise the other characteristics dimension of HCR, McDaniel et al., 1994) tend to better predict job performance than
including personality, interests, and work values. We also identified measures that focus on KSAO antecedents, such as education
various compound KSAOs that capture multiple HCR dimensions. (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2009) and experience (e.g., Van Iddekinge
We hope these steps will help researchers better understand what et al., 2019).
“other characteristics” mean, as well as develop HCR measures that Emphasizing the measurement of HCR using collective KSAOs
better assess characteristics most relevant to unit or firm perfor- also has potentially important practical implications. Variables such
mance or other valued outcomes (e.g., retention). as educational attainment are easy to observe in a labor market.
The importance of having clear construct definitions becomes Consequently, organizations that hire only from prestigious univer-
obvious when examining the content validity of HCR measures sities put themselves at a competitive disadvantage because there is
prior research has used. The results of Study 2 reveal that more than high competition for such talent. Alternatively, organizations that
75% of HCR measures are contaminated because they assess HCR use assessments of KSAOs may create a larger talent pool and
and other constructs, or only other constructs. This suggests that experience less competition because the KSAOs are not as easily
most HCR measures are heavily composed of construct-irrelevant observable yet better predict collective performance. Thus, a more
variance (Messick, 1995). Further, 100% of the HCR measures we nuanced understanding of HCR measurement can enhance precision
reviewed are deficient because they do not capture all aspects of the in both research and practice.
construct domain (e.g., they assess only collective knowledge).
Moreover, recent measures have not become more content valid,
Improving the Measurement of HCR
even though there is a growing consensus around the definition of
HCR. We also discovered that relatively few measures assess Altogether, the present findings raise concerns about how the field
specific other characteristics, such as personality traits or vocational has been measuring HCR. The most important implication for future
interests. In addition, compound KSAOs (e.g., competencies) are research is to develop and use HCR measures that allow more valid
more frequently assessed than individual KSAOs (e.g., skills). One inferences regarding the construct and how it relates to other
implication of focusing on these broader sets of characteristics is that variables. We call for HCR research to practice the fundamentals
doing so prevents understanding how more specific KSAOs form of good measurement. To that end, we draw upon best practices in
into HCR and relate to outcomes. measure development (e.g., Hinkin, 1998; Zickar, 2020), as well as
advice for how to measure related constructs (e.g., Wright, Dunford, researchers assess unit-level HCR because asking leaders to assess
& Snell, 2001) and multilevel measurement principles (Klein et al., the HCR of the overall organization would seem difficult, particularly
2001), to provide guidance for improving the measurement of for medium to large organizations that comprise many divisions and
HCR. We further provide an example to illustrate our suggestions employees. If firm-level HCR are of interest, researchers could
(see Appendix B). measure unit-level HCR and then aggregate the data to the firm
First, researchers should start with the unit operational or strategic level. Further, researchers should endeavor to use multiple raters
outcome of interest because predictors derive their importance from (e.g., lead and assistant managers) from each unit or firm to assess
criteria (Ployhart, 2021; Wallace, 1965). For instance, broad out- (and correct for) interrater reliability (Wright, Gardner, et al., 2001).
comes are best predicted by broad predictors and narrow outcomes Eighth, select appropriate rating scales to assess HCR. As dis-
are best predicted by narrow predictors (Schmidt & Kaplan, 1971). cussed, some HCR measures ask raters to compare the HCR in their
As such, the breadth of the HCR measure should match the breadth unit or organization to the HCR in competing organizations. These
of the outcome. Most unit-level outcomes are broad and hence likely items appear appropriate when studies focus on competitive advan-
to be predicted most effectively by HCR measures that capture tage and raters have knowledge of competitors’ HCR. The example
multiple relevant KSAOs. In our example, we will use unit service we provide focuses on assessing the level of HCR within the unit.
quality as the outcome of interest. Further, given the dynamic nature of HCR, researchers should
Second, identify the job(s) that are relevant to the unit-level clarify the specific time of interest.
outcome. For instance, customer-facing positions may be the most Finally, assess the construct-related validity evidence of HCR
relevant to organizations that compete based on customer service. For measures. For instance, conduct factor analyses to assess their
outcomes that are broader or more external to the organization (e.g., underlying structure and examine correlations with measures of
market share), we suggest that researchers assess the HCR of employ- other constructs to assess convergent and discriminant evidence.
ees in jobs that are most critical to those outcomes. However, this may Because HCR is a multidimensional construct, researchers should
be infeasible if many jobs are involved. Thus, researchers might be use factor models and reliability indices appropriate for multidi-
able to use different HCR measures for a smaller number of job mensional measures.
categories (e.g., customer service, operations) that share some com- We recognize that adopting all these steps would be difficult and
mon KSAOs. Steps for identifying strategic jobs and strategic HCR even infeasible in some situations. For example, in some cases, it
can be found in Ployhart et al. (2018; also see Kaplan & Norton, 2004). may be impossible to measure all the critical KSAOs for the focal
Third, determine which HCR dimensions are most relevant to job(s). Rather than take an “all or nothing” approach, we suggest
job(s) and/or unit outcomes. For our example, we used the Occupa- researchers incorporate these practices as much as possible. Without
tional Information Network (O*NET) to identify dimensions relevant a widely accepted measure of HCR with sufficient construct valid-
to customer service roles, including knowledge (e.g., customer service ity, researchers will be forced to use measures that may be appro-
knowledge), skills (e.g., active listening skills), abilities (e.g., com- priate for the goals of their studies, even if they do not fully capture
prehension abilities), and personality (e.g., agreeableness). HCR. For these types of studies, we encourage researchers to
Fourth, determine whether to use an existing measure(s) that acknowledge the potential contamination or deficiency as a potential
assesses the relevant HCR dimensions or to develop a new measure. limitation. The present study can help frame this discussion because
For instance, scores on existing selection or training tests may be our coding structure can be used to clarify the construct validity of
used to measure HCR (e.g., Ployhart et al., 2009). However, such researchers’ HCR measures. For example, researchers could report
tests often do not measure all relevant HCR dimensions. For the specific KSAOs they measured, as well as where the measure is
instance, a posttraining test might assess knowledge but not abilities deficient in terms of KSAOs that are important to unit or firm
or personality traits. Thus, in most cases, additional measures of performance but are not assessed. Also, if HCR measures include
HCR may be needed. non-HCR constructs, it would help to report separate results for each
Fifth, whenever possible, include multiple items to assess each subset of items so clearer conclusions can be made about HCR and
HCR dimension to ensure the items capture the full construct the other constructs. Last, given the collective nature of HCR, we
domain, as well as provide reliable scores of each dimension. encourage researchers to report how scores from HCR measures
Appendix B presents the three most relevant characteristics for were aggregated to the collective level.
each dimension for customer service positions as identified by Finally, proxy measures of HCR (e.g., education, experience) are
O*NET. Each item focuses on one dimension, which avoids the frequently used because they are easy to acquire. We do not mean to
issue of “double-barreled” items that extant HCR measures often imply that the use of such proxies is always inappropriate, as doing
include. so would likely end a considerable amount of valuable research.
Sixth, clearly identify the target of the ratings, such as employees Rather, researchers need to acknowledge these are antecedents of
within a particular unit or within the firm overall (Klein et al., 2001). HCR and recognize the potential limitations (e.g., criterion-related
For instance, the instructions for the example measure in Appendix B validity will likely be underestimated). We hope the present research
clarify that customer service employees are the targets. will help researchers (a) better appreciate the potential limitations of
Seventh, if subjective ratings are used to measure HCR, then such proxies, (b) better describe such potential limitations in their
identify the most representative and informative raters. For research, and (c) strive to create or adopt better HCR measures.
instance, it may be appropriate to ask department managers to Improving measures is a process, and even small efforts to enhance
assess the HCR within their unit or to ask organizational leaders HCR measurement will clarify the constructs HCR measures assess
to evaluate the HCR within the firm. When feasible, we suggest and, in turn, help compare the effects of HCR across studies.
Limitations and Additional Directions for prevents a clear understanding of the role of HCR in organizations.
Future Research Measurement is an ongoing process guided by theory and informed
by data, and we hope these findings will stimulate future research to
We note some potential limitations of the present research, as well adopt established definitions of HCR and use those definitions as a
as some additional directions for future research. First, due to basis to develop more valid measures. Such advances will simulta-
insufficient primary studies, we were unable to examine whether neously advance science and practice.
HCR dimensions (e.g., abilities vs. other characteristics) vary in their
relationship with performance. This is unfortunate as certain types of
HCR may create more value than others (Molloy et al., 2011).
Further, interests- and work values-based HCR have received no References
research attention. We encourage future research to differentiate 1
Refers to articles in Study 1. 2Refers to articles in Study 2. 3Refers to
dimensions of HCR and explore their distinct effects on performance. articles in Study 3.
Second, although HCR is theorized as a dynamic construct that
2
can be obtained, developed, and maintained over time (Ployhart Agostini, L., & Filippini, R. (2019). Organizational and managerial chal-
et al., 2014), only a few studies have measured HCR and perfor- lenges in the path toward Industry 4.0. European Journal of Innovation
mance longitudinally (e.g., Ployhart et al., 2009). Thus, knowledge Management, 22(3), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2018-
0030
regarding this dynamic process is still very limited. Future research 2,3
Agostini, L., & Nosella, A. (2017). Enhancing radical innovation perfor-
needs to examine how HCR and outcomes change over time. Third, mance through intellectual capital components. Journal of Intellectual
the literature has suggested that HCR emerge at multiple levels and Capital, 18(4), 789–806. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2016-0103
affect performance across levels (Wright et al., 2014). However, we 2
Al Maskari, G. S. S. (2017). The impact of intellectual capital and balanced
did not come across any primary studies that measured HCR and scorecard implementation on firm performance (Unpublished doctoral
performance outcomes across different levels (e.g., unit and firm disserration). University of Bradford.
levels). Future research needs to explore how unit- versus firm-level 2
Alexander, S. (2018). A correlation between intellectual capital and
HCR contribute to performance across the two levels, and whether organizational performance in the U.S. airline industry (Unpublished
the HCR-performance relation varies across levels. doctoral disserration). University of Phoenix.
1,2,3
Fourth, primary studies that use raters to assess HCR often Alpkan, L., Bulut, C., Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., & Kilic, K. (2010).
Organizational support for intrapreneurship and its interaction with human
collect data from only one rater from each unit (e.g., the senior
capital to enhance innovative performance. Management Decision, 48,
manager) or firm (e.g., the human resources director); very few
732–755. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011043902
studies have obtained assessments from multiple respondents. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Pearson
Using only one respondent increases opportunity for errors Education.
(e.g., incapable and/or unknowledgeable respondents, complex 2
Andersén, J. (2020). Resource orchestration of firm-specific human capital
organizations with multiple locations and subsidiaries) and biases and firm performance- the role of collaborative human resource manage-
(e.g., social desirability; Gerhart et al., 2000). Further, very few ment and entrepreneurial orientation. The International Journal of Human
studies reported estimates of interrater reliability and, thus, we had to Resource Management, 32, 2091–2123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192
use estimates of internal consistency reliability to correct for mea- .2019.1579250
2,3
surement error. This could be a potential limitation because α does not Andreeva, T., & Garanina, T. (2015). Intellectual capital elements
and organizational performance of Russian manufacturing companies
account for interrater error, which is typically larger than intrarater
(Working Paper No. 6(E)-2015). Graduate School of Management,
errors (Bliese, 2000; LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Thus, the corrected
St. Petersburg State University.
relations we reported may underestimate the true relationship 2,3
Anh, P. T. T., Baughn, C. C., Hang, N. T. M., & Neupert, K. E. (2006).
between HCR and performance. Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint ven-
Finally, we did not come across any primary studies that reported tures: An empirical study in Vietnam. International Business Review,
information to assess range restriction (Schmidt & Hunter, 1977). 15(5), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2006.05.004
2,3
This is unfortunate because range restriction may be evident in some Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Seidu, E. Y. M., & Otaye, L. E. (2016).
primary studies, such as those that sample only higher performing Developing and leveraging human capital resource to promote service
firms (e.g., from the Fortune 500; Gibson et al., 2007) or that were quality: Testing a theory of performance. Journal of Management, 42(2),
unable to include units that failed to survive (e.g., Ployhart et al., 480–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471394
1
Bae, S. O., & Patterson, L. (2014). Comparison and implications of human
2011). Without this information, it is unknown whether and how
capital theory at the individual, organization, and country levels. Journal
range restriction attenuates relations between HCR and other vari-
of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 18(1), 11–28.
ables. We hope that future research can take steps to address this https://www.proquest.com/docview/1647822738?pq-origsite=gschola
potential issue. r&fromopenview=true
1
Bakhru, A. (2009). Organisational capital and competence building. In
A. Bounfour (Ed.), Organizational capital: Modelling, measuring and
Conclusions contextualising (pp. 258–267). Routledge.
Baptista, R., Karaöz, M., & Mendonça, J. (2014). The impact of human
A hallmark of good science is clear construct definitions and
capital on the early success of necessity versus opportunity-based en-
measures that produce scores that yield valid inferences regarding the trepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 831–847. https://doi.org/10
construct. No theoretical insights or practical guidance are possible .1007/s11187-013-9502-z
without such conceptual and measurement clarity. Although some 1
Baptiste, I. (2001). Educating lone wolves: Pedagogical implications of
important advances have been made in how HCR are defined, most human capital theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 51(3), 184–201. https://
HCR research has used contaminated or deficient measures, which doi.org/10.1177/074171360105100302
1 1,2
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops
Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063 measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63–76. https://doi.org/
9101700108 10.1108/00251749810204142
1 1
Baron, A., & Armstrong, M. (2007). Human capital management: Achiev- Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: A review of the models
ing added value through people. Kogan Page Publisher. used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management
2
Barrena-Martinez, J., López-Fernández, M., & Romero-Fernández, P. M. Reviews, 3(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00053
1
(2019). The link between socially responsible human resource manage- Bontis, N., & Serenko, A. (2009). A causal model of human capital
ment and intellectual capital. Corporate Social Responsibility and Envi- antecedents and consequents in the financial services industry. Journal
ronmental Management, 26(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1658 of Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/146919309
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions 10922897
1
and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), Boon, C., Eckardt, R., Lepak, D. P., & Boselie, P. (2018). Integrating
1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x strategic human capital and strategic human resource management. Inter-
Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight competencies: A criterion-centric national Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(1), 34–67. https://
approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1185–1203. doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1380063
2,3
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1185 Bornay-Barrachina, M., De la Rosa-Navarro, D., López-Cabrales, A., &
1
Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services: Human resource practices, Valle-Cabrera, R. (2012). Employment relationships and firm innovation:
quit rates, and sales growth. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 587– The double role of human capital. British Journal of Management, 23(2),
597. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069383 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00735.x
2,3
Beal, D. J., Corey, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). On the bias of Huffcutt Bornay-Barrachina, M., López-Cabrales, A., & Valle-Cabrera, R.
and Arthur’s (1995) procedure for identifying outliers in the meta-analysis (2017). How do employment relationships enhance firm innovation?
of correlations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 583–589. https:// The role of human and social capital. International Journal of Human
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.583 Resource Management, 28, 1363–1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. University of Chicago Press. 192.2016.1155166
1 2,3
Becker, G. S. (2002). The age of human capital. In E. P. Lazear (Ed.), Boso, N., Adeola, O., Danso, A., & Assadinia, S. (2019). The effect of
Education in the twenty-first century (pp. 3–8). Hoover Institution Press. export marketing capabilities on export performance: Moderating role
2
Beierlein, J. J., Gibson, S. G., & Tibbs, S. L. (2011). Intellectual human of dysfunctional competition. Industrial Marketing Management, 78,
capital dependence, family-friendly firms, and the advancement of 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.006
1,2,3
women. Journal of Business Diversity, 11(1), 66–87. http://www.na-bu Brown, A. W., Adams, J. D., & Amjad, A. A. (2007). The relationship
sinesspress.com/JBD/BeierleinJJWeb11_1_.pdf between human capital and time performance in project management: A
2,3
Bello, D. C., Radulovich, L. P., Javalgi, R. G., Scherer, R. F., & Taylor, J. path analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 77–
(2016). Performance of professional service firms from emerging markets: 89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.07.011
Role of innovative services and firm capabilities. Journal of World 2,3
Brymer, R. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2018). Pre-exit bundling, turnover of
Business, 51, 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.11.004 professionals, and firm performance. Journal of Management Studies,
1
Benke, M. (2019). Comparing motivation theories and testing SDT on a 55(1), 146–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12315
1
higher education sample. In T. J. Karlovitz (Ed.), New researches from Buchholtz, A. K., Ribbens, B. A., & Houle, I. T. (2003). The role of human
business studies (pp. 114–123). International Research Institute sro. http:// capital in postacquisition CEO departure. Academy of Management
www.irisro.org/economics2019january/index.html Journal, 46(4), 506–514. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040642
2 2
Berraies, S. (2019). The effect of enterprise social networks use on exploit- Buenechea-Elberdin, M., Kianto, A., & Sáenz, J. (2017). Intellectual capital
ative and exploratory innovations: Mediating effect of sub-dimensions of drivers of product and managerial innovation in high-tech and low-tech
intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(3), 426–452. https:// firms. R and D Management, 48(3), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/ra
doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2019-0030 dm.12271
2 2,3
Beşkese, A., & Haktanir, E. (2016). Influence of human capital and Buenechea-Elberdin, M., Sáenz, J., & Kianto, A. (2018). Knowledge
organizational capital on the organizational innovation [Conference management strategies, intellectual capital, and innovation perfor-
session]. 20th International Research/Expert Conference. mance: A comparison between high- and low-tech firms. Journal of
1,2,3
Bhattacharya, M., Doty, D. H., & Garavan, T. (2014). The organizational Knowledge Management, 22(8), 1757–1781. https://doi.org/10.1108/
context and performance implications of human capital investment vari- JKM-04-2017-0150
2
ability. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(1), 87–113. https:// Burin, A. R. G., Perez-Arostegui, M. N., & Llorens-Montes, J. (2020).
doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21182 Ambidexterity and IT competence can improve supply chain flexibility? A
2
Björnberg, A., & Lindström, F. (2018). Intellectual capital and innovation resource orchestration approach. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Man-
in startups (Unpublished bachelor’s thesis). Mid Sweden University. agement, 26(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2020.100610
1
Blair, M. M. (2011). An economic perspective on the notion of “human 1
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition.
capital.” In A. Burton-Jones & J. C. Spender (Ed.), The Oxford handbook Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674029095
of human capital (pp. 49–70). Oxford University Press. 2
Cabello-Medina, C., López-Cabrales, Á., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2011).
2,3
Blanco-Mazagatos, V., de Quevedo-puente, E., & Delgado-garcía, J. B. Leveraging the innovative performance of human capital through HRM
(2018). Human resource practices and organizational human capital in the and social capital in Spanish firms. International Journal of Human
family firm: The effect of generational stage. Journal of Business Resource Management, 22(4), 807–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958
Research, 84, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.017 5192.2011.555125
2
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement. non-independence. and Cabrilo, S., & Dahms, S. (2020). The role of multidimensional intellectual
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein capital and organizational learning practices in innovation performance.
& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in European Management Review, 17(4), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/
organizations (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass. emre.12396
1 1
Bollen, L., Vergauwen, P., & Schnieders, S. (2005). Linking intellectual Campbell, B. A., Coff, R. W., & Kryscynski, D. (2012). Rethinking
capital and intellectual property to company performance. Management sustained competitive advantage from human capital. Academy of Man-
Decision, 43(9), 1161–1185. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510626254 agement Review, 37(3), 376–395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0276
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Journal of Human Resource Management2, 28, 2738–2761. https://
Odman, R. B. (2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in com- doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1138315
2,3
petency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 225–262. https://doi.org/ Choi, M., & Yoon, H. J. (2015). Training investment and organizational
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01207.x outcomes: A moderated mediation model of employee outcomes and
2,3
Carmeli, A. (2004). Strategic human capital and the performance of public strategic orientation of the HR function. International Journal of Human
sector organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20, 375–392. Resource Management, 26, 2632–2651. https://doi.org/10.1080/095851
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2003.11.003 92.2014.1003084
2,3 2
Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2004). The relationships between intangible Choudhury, J. (2010). Performance impact of intellectual capital: A study of
organizational elements and organizational performance. Strategic Man- Indian it sector. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(9),
agement Journal, 25, 1257–1278. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.428 72–80. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n9p72
2 2
Carmona-Lavado, A., Cuevas-Rodríguez, G., Cabello-Medina, C., & Fe- Choudhury, J., & Mishra, B. B. (2010). Role of HR architeture on intellectual
driani, E. M. (2021). Does open innovation always work? The role of capital. Vision: Journal of Business Perspective, 14(1–2), 35–44. https://
complementary assets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, doi.org/10.1177/097226291001400104
2
162, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120316 Chowdhury, S., Schulz, E., Milner, M., & Van De Voort, D. (2014). Core
Casper, W. J., Vaziri, H., Wayne, J. H., DeHauw, S., & Greenhaus, J. (2018). employee based human capital and revenue productivity in small firms:
The jingle-jangle of work-nonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta- An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2473–2479.
analytic review of its meaning and measurement. Journal of Applied https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.007
2
Psychology, 103(2), 182–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000259 Chuang, C., & Liao, H. (2010). Strategic human resource management in
2
Cesaroni, F. M., Del Baldo, M., Demartini, P., & Paoloni, P. (2015). service context: Taking care of business by taking care of employees and
Entrepreneurial, renewal and trust capital of Italian firms: Insights from an customers. Personnel Psychology, 63, 153–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
empirical study. International Journal of Management, Knowledge and .1744-6570.2009.01165.x
2,3
Learning, 4(1), 69–89. http://www.issbs.si/press/ISSN/2232-5697/4_69- Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Ehrhart, K. H. (2021). Inclusion values,
89.pdf practices and intellectual capital predicting organizational outcomes.
2
Chang, C. H., & Chen, Y. S. (2012). The determinants of green intellectual Personnel Review, 50(2), 709–730. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2019-
capital. Management Decision, 50(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 0352
2,3
00251741211194886 Chung, C. C., Park, H. Y., Lee, J. Y., & Kim, K. (2015). Human capital in
2
Chang, C.-H. (2012). The effect of corporate environmental commitment multinational enterprises: Does strategic alignment matter? Journal of
on green product innovation [Conference session]. 2012 Proceedings of International Business Studies, 46(7), 806–829. https://doi.org/10.1057/ji
Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and bs.2015.15
Technology ’12, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2
Clark, K. D., & Maggitti, P. G. (2012). TMT potency and strategic decision-
2
Chegus, M. (2018). The influence of technology on organizational perfor- making in high technology firms. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7),
mance: The mediating effects of organizational learning (Unpublished 1168–1193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01060.x
master’s thesis). University of Ottawa. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in
2,3
Chen, C. J., Liu, T. C., Chu, M. A., & Hsiao, Y. C. (2014). Intellectual objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.
capital and new product development. Journal of Engineering and https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
1
Technology Management, 33, 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfo Coff, R. W. (2002). Human capital, shared expertise, and the likelihood
re.2008.03.012 of impasse in corporate acquisitions. Journal of Management, 28(1),
2
Chen, C. J., Shih, H. A., & Yang, S. Y. (2009). The role of intellectual 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00127-1
1
capital in knowledge transfer. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man- Coff, R. W., & Kryscynski, D. (2011). Drilling for micro-foundations of
agement, 56(3), 402–411. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2009.2023086 human capital-based competitive advantages. Journal of Management, 37,
1
Chen, J., Zhu, Z., & Xie, H. Y. (2004). Measuring intellectual capital: A new 1429–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310397772
2
model and empirical study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 195–212. Colakoglu, S., Yamao, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2014). Knowledge creation
https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930410513003 capability in MNC subsidiaries: Examining the roles of global and local
2,3
Chen, M. Y. C., Lam, L. W., & Zhu, J. N. Y. (2021). Should companies knowledge inflows and subsidiary knowledge stocks. International
invest in human resource development practices? The role of intellectual Business Review, 23(1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013
capital and organizational performance improvements. Personnel Review, .08.009
2,3
50(2), 460–477. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2019-0179 Colbert, A. E., Barrick, M. R., & Bradley, B. H. (2014). Personality and
2
Chen, M. Y. C., Wang, Y. S., & Sun, V. (2012). Intellectual capital and leadership composition in top management teams: Implications for orga-
organizational commitment: Evidence from cultural creative industries in nizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 351–387. https://
Taiwan. Personnel Review, 41(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/004 doi.org/10.1111/peps.12036
1
83481211212968 Coleman, J. S. (1989). Social capital in the creation of human capital.
1,2
Chen, Y. S. (2008). The positive effect of green intellectual capital on American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/
competitive advantages of firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), 271– 228943
1
286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9349-1 Collings, D. G., Mellahi, K., & Cascio, W. F. (2019). Global talent
2
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Utilize structural equation modeling management and performance in multinational enterprises: A multilevel
(SEM) to explore the influence of corporate environmental ethics: perspective. Journal of Management, 45(2), 540–566. https://doi.org/10
The mediation effect of green human capital. Quality and Quantity, .1177/0149206318757018
1,2,3
47(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9504-3 Collins, C. J., Smith, K. G., & Stevens, C. K. (2001). Human resource
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2011). Individual differ- practices, knowledge-creation capability and performance in high tech-
ences: Their measurement and validity. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook nology firms (Working Paper No. #01-02). Cornell University.
of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 117–151). American Combs, J. G., Liu, Y. M., Hall, A., David, K., & Ketchen, D. J. (2006). How
Psychological Association. much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of
2,3
Choi, J. N., Sung, S. Y., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Workforce diversity in their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59,
manufacturing companies and organizational performance. International 501–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00045.x
Cook, M. (1995). Performance appraisal and true performance. Journal of sector. Tourism Management, 82, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman
Managerial Psychology, 10, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949510 .2020.104184
2
088728 Engelman, R. M., Fracasso, E. M., Schmidt, S., & Zen, A. C. (2017).
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1996). Mood and personality in adulthood. In Intellectual capital, absorptive capacity and product innovation. Manage-
C. Magai & S. H. McFadde (Eds.), Handbook of emotion, adult development Decision, 55(3), 474–490. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2016-0315
ment, and aging (pp. 369–383). Academic Press. Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal
Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1270–1279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1270
2
80, 532–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.532 Farah, A., & Abouzeid, S. (2017). The impact of intellectual capital on
1,2
Crocker, A., & Eckardt, R. (2014). A multilevel investigation of individ- performance: Evidence from the public sector. Knowledge Management &
ual- and unit-level human capital complementarities. Journal of Manage- E-Learning: An International Journal, 9(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10
ment, 40(2), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313511862 .34105/j.kmel.2017.09.013
1
Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen, D. J. Farh, C. I., Seo, M. G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence,
(2011). Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship teamwork effectiveness, and job performance: The moderating role of job
between human capital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psy- context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 890–900. https://doi.org/
chology, 96, 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022147 10.1037/a0027377

2
Datta, S., & Iskandar-Datta, M. (2014). Upper-echelon executive human Felício, J. A., Couto, E., & Caiado, J. (2014). Human capital, social capital
capital and compensation: Generalist vs specialist skills. Strategic Man- and organizational performance. Management Decision, 52, 350–364.
agement Journal, 35(12), 1853–1866. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2267 https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2013-0260
2,3
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work Ferguson, K. L., & Reio, T. G. (2010). Human resource management
adjustment: An individual-differences model and its applications. University systems and firm performance. Journal of Management Development,
of Minnesota press. 29(5), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011039231
1
De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2010). Interrelationships between human capital, Fernandes, F., & Randall, M. (1992). The nature of social desirability
HRM and innovation in Belgian start-ups aiming at an innovation strategy. response effects in ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 183–
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1863–1883. 205. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857570
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.505088 Ford, J. K., Kraiger, K., & Schechtman, S. L. (1986). Study of race effects
1
Dimov, D. P., & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Human capital theory and venture in objective indices and subjective evaluations of performance: A meta-
capital firms: Exploring “home runs” and “strike outs.” Journal of Business analysis of performance criteria. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 1–39.
Venturing, 20, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.007 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.330
2 1,2
Donate, M. J., Peña, I., & De Pablo, J. D. S. (2016). HRM practices for Frank, D. H., & Obloj, T. (2014). Firm-specific human capital, organiza-
human and social capital development: Effects on innovation capabilities. tional incentives, and agency costs: Evidence from retail banking. Strate-
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(9), 928–953. gic Management Journal, 35(9), 1279–1301. https://doi.org/10.1002/
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1047393 smj.2148
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta- Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal
analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job per- relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-
formance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychol-
narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40–57. https://doi.org/10 ogy, 92, 1084–1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1084
2
.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40 Fu, N., Flood, P. C., Bosak, J., Rousseau, D. M., Morris, T., & O’Regan, P.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American (2017). High-performance work systems in professional service firms:
Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41 Examining the practices–resources–uses–performance linkage. Human
.10.1040 Resource Management, 56, 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21767
2 1
Eckardt, R., Crocker, A., & Tsai, C. Y. (2021). Clarifying and empirically Galunic, D. C., & Anderson, E. (2000). From security to mobility:
assessing the concept of human capital resource emergence. International Generalized investments in human capital and agent commitment. Orga-
Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(2), 279–306. https:// nization Science, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.1.1.12565
doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1800784 Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2011). The impact of
2,3
Eckardt, R., Skaggs, B. C., & Lepak, D. P. (2018). An examination of the motivation, empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate
firm-level performance impact of cluster hiring in knowledge-intensive voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commit-
firms. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 919–944. https://doi.org/ ment. Personnel Psychology, 64, 315–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
10.5465/amj.2016.0601 6570.2011.01212.x
1,2,3 2,3
Eckardt, R., Skaggs, B. C., & Youndt, M. A. (2014). Turnover and Gerhart, B., & Milkovich, G. T. (1990). Organizational differences in
knowledge loss: An examination of the differential impact of production managerial compensation and financial performance. Academy of Man-
manager and worker turnover in service and manufacturing firms. Journal of agement Journal, 33, 663–691. https://doi.org/10.2307/256286
Management Studies, 51, 1025–1057. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12096 Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (2000). Measurement error
1
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your in research on the human resources and firm performance relationship:
company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower. Harper Business. Further evidence and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 53(4), 855–872.
2
Eerikäinen, K. (2015). Modelling the simultaneous effects of intellectual https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02420.x
capital and knowledge management on the organisational performance of Gibson, C. B., Porath, C. L., Benson, G. S., & Lawler, E. E. (2007). What
Finnish companies (Unpublished master’s thesis). Lappeenranta Univer- results when firms implement practices: The differential relationship
sity of Technology. between specific practices, firm financial performance, customer service,
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Sterne, J. A. (2001). Uses and abuses of meta- and quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1467–1480. https://
analysis. Clinical Medicine, 1(6), 478–484. https://doi.org/10.7861/cli doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1467
2,3
nmedicine.1-6-478 Githaiga, P. N. (2020). Intellectual capital, income diversification and
2
Elsharnouby, T. H., & Elbanna, S. (2021). Change or perish: Examining the financial performance of commercial banks in Kenya (Unpublished
role of human capital and dynamic marketing capabilities in the hospitality doctoral dissertation). Moi University.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The 1

Haynes, K. T., Hitt, M. A., & Campbell, J. T. (2015). The dark side of
Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, leadership: Towards a mid-range theory of hubris and greed in entrepre-
59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216 neurial contexts. Journal of Management Studies, 52(4), 479–505. https://
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books. doi.org/10.1111/joms.12127
1
Goode, R. B. (1959). Adding to the stock of physical and human capital. The Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in
American Economic Review, 49(2), 147–155. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.
1816110 Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-
Gravina, N. E., & Siers, B. P. (2011). Square pegs and round holes: 3590.7.3.238
Ruminations on the relationship between performance appraisal and Hermans, H. J. (1970). A questionnaire measure of achievement motivation.
performance management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage- Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/
ment, 31, 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2011.619418 h0029675
2,3 2,3
Griffith, D. A., Yalcinkaya, G., & Calantone, R. J. (2010). Do marketing Hester, L. J. (2005). The impact of strategic human resource management
capabilities consistently mediate effects of firm intangible capital on on organizational performance: A perspective of the resource-based view
performance across institutional environments? Journal of World Busi- of the firm (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Sourtheastern
ness, 45(3), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.008 University.

2
Grobler, P. A., Wärnich, S., & Mokobane, G. (2020). Reflection on high Hinds, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The
performance work practices (HPWPs) in South African companies. effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice perfor-
University of South Africa. mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1232–1243. https://doi.org/
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta- 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1232
analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use
level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010 https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
1,2,3
.87.5.819 Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and
2
Gürlek, M. (2021). Effects of high-performance work systems (HPWSs) on moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in
intellectual capital, organizational ambidexterity and knowledge absorptive professional service firms: A resource-based perspective. Academy of
capacity: Evidence from the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Market- Management Journal, 44(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069334
1,2,3
ing and Management, 30(1), 38–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623 Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Uhlenbruck, K., & Shimizu, K. (2006). The
.2020.1774029 importance of resources in the internationalization of professional service
1
Guthrie, J. P., Flood, P. C., Liu, W., MacCurtain, S., & Armstrong, C. (2011). firms: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Academy of Management Journal,
Big hat, no cattle? The relationship between use of high-performance work 49(6), 1137–1157. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478217
systems and managerial perceptions of HR departments. International Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers.
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 1672–1685. https:// Prentice Hall.
doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.565655 2,3
Hong, Y. (2009). One size does not fit all: The relations between service
Haerem, T., & Rau, D. (2007). The influence of degree of expertise and capabilities and human resource management (Unpublished doctoral
objective task complexity on perceived task complexity and performance. dissertation). Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1320–1331. https://doi.org/10 Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic
.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1320 for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 327–334.
2
Hamadamin, H. H., & Atan, T. (2019). The impact of strategic human https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.327
1
resource management practices on competitive advantage sustainability: Hunt, S. D. (2000). A general theory of competition. Sage Publications.
The mediation of human capital development and employee commitment. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices
Sustainability, 11(20), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205782 on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy
2,3
Hanifah, H., Halim, N. A., Vafaei-Zadeh, A., & Nawaser, K. (2021). of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–672. https://doi.org/10.5465/256741
1
Effect of intellectual capital and entrepreneurial orientation on innovation Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and
performance of manufacturing SMEs: Mediating role of knowledge strategic human resources management effectiveness as determinants of
sharing. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23, 1175–1198. https://doi.org/ firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 171–188.
10.1108/JIC-06-2020-0186 https://doi.org/10.2307/257025
1 2
Haq, M. (2016). Human capital resources: A review and direction for future Hussinki, H., Kianto, A., Vanhala, M., & Ritala, P. (2019). Happy employ-
research. International Journal of Management Development, 1(4), 261– ees make happy customers: The role of intellectual capital in supporting
286. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMD.2016.10004241 sustainable value creation in organizations. In F. Matos, V. Vairinhos, P.
2,3
Harris, C. M., Mcmahan, G. C., & Wright, P. M. (2012). Talent and time Selig, & L. Edvinsson (Eds.), Intellectual capital management as a driver
together: The impact of human capital and overlapping tenure on unit of sustainability (pp. 101–117). Springer.
2,3
performance. Personnel Review, 41(4), 408–427. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Huybrechts, J. (2011). Disentangling the role of family-related factors on
00483481211229357 financial firm performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hasselt
2,3
Harris, C. M., Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (2019). The emergence University.
2
of human capital: Roles of social capital and coordination that drive Inkinen, H., Kianto, A., Vanhala, M., & Ritala, P. (2017). Structure of
unit performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 29, 162–180. intellectual capital—An international comparison. Accounting, Auditing &
https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12212 Accountability Journal, 30(5), 1160–1183. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAA
2,3
Hassan, S. F. (2016). The impact of human capital on business perfor- J-11-2015-2291
2
mance as mediated by service innovation advantage and moderated by Inkinen, H., Ritala, P., Vanhala, M., & Kianto, A. (2015). Intellectual
environment dynamism & competitiveness (Unpublished bachelor’s the- capital profiles and innovation performance [Conference session]. The
sis). Air University. XXVI International Society for Professional Innovation Management
1
Hatch, N. W., & Dyer, J. H. (2004). Human capital and learning as a source Conference Proceeding.
2
of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 25, Isaac, R. G., Herremans, I. M., & Kline, T. J. (2010). Intellectual capital
1155–1178. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.421 management enablers: A structural equation modeling analysis. Journal of
Business Ethics, 93(3), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009- Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1569–1584. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0227-5 apl0000125
2,3
Ivvonen, S. (2016). Performance of Russian SMEs during the economic 2,3
Kirwa, C. T. (2020). Intellectual capital, firm innovation and financial
crisis: The role of strategic entrepreneurship (Working paper #20-2016). performance of insurance firms in Kenya (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University. tion). University of Moi.
2
Jaw, B.-S., Wang, C. Y. P., & Chen, Y.-H. (2006). Knowledge flows and Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone
performance of multinational subsidiaries: The perspective of human in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee
capital. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
225–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500404481 86(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.3
2
Jiang, K., Chuang, C., & Chiao, Y. C. (2015). Developing collective Kor, Y. Y. (2006). Direct and interaction effects of top management team and
customer knowledge and service climate: The interaction between board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strategic Management
service-oriented high-performance work systems and service leadership. Journal, 27, 1081–1099. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.554
1,2,3
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1089–1106. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Kor, Y. Y., & Leblebici, H. (2005). How do interdependences among
apl0000005 human-capital deployment, development, and diversification strategies
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human affect firms’ financial performance? Strategic Management Journal,
resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic 26(10), 967–985. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.485

investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Jour- Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Con-
nal, 55, 1264–1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0088 sequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job,
2,3
Jin, Y., Hopkins, M. M., & Wittmer, J. L. S. (2010). Linking human capital person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel
to competitive advantages: Flexibility in a manufacturing firm’s supply Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005
chain. Human Resource Management, 49, 939–963. https://doi.org/10 .00672.x
1
.1002/hrm.20385 Kryscynski, D., Coff, R., & Campbell, B. A. (2021). Charting a path between
Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does firm-specific incentives and human capital-based competitive advantage.
self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta- Strategic Management Journal, 42(2), 386–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/
analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, smj.3226
2,3
298–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037681 Lahiri, S., & Kedia, B. L. (2009). The effects of internal resources and
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. A. (1998). The power of being positive: The partnership quality on firm performance: An examination of Indian BPO
relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Per- providers. Journal of International Management, 15(2), 209–224. https://
formance, 11, 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.1998.9668030 doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2008.09.002
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Measuring the strategic readiness of Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel
intangible assets. Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 52–63. https://hbr.org/ Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975
2004/02/measuring-the-strategic-readiness-of-intangible-assets .tb01393.x
2,3
Kehoe, R. R., & Collins, C. J. (2017). Human resource management and LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about
unit performance in knowledge-intensive work. Journal of Applied Psy- interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research
chology, 102(8), 1222–1236. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000216 Methods, 11, 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
2,3 1
Keller, R. T. (2004). A resource-based study of new product develop- Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource
ment: Predicting five-year later commercial success and speed to market. architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and
International Journal of Innovation Management, 8, 243–260. https:// human resource configurations. Journal of Management, 28(4), 517–543.
doi.org/10.1142/S1363919604001040 https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800403
2,3
Kengatharan, N. (2019). A knowledge-based theory of the firm: Nexus of 2
Lerchenmueller, M. J. (2014). Innovating in health care: The contextual
intellectual capital, productivity and firms’ performance. International specificity of capital (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Yale University.
2
Journal of Manpower, 40(6), 1056–1074. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03- Li, J. (2019). Link between work motivation and proactive service beha-
2018-0096 viors: Examining the moderating role of service-oriented leadership
2
Khan, Y., & Terziovski, M. (2014). The effects of intellectual capital on (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University.
1,2,3
performance in Australian small and medium enterprises (SMEs) [Con- Li, Y., Gong, Y., Burmeister, A., Wang, M., Alterman, V., Alonso, A., &
ference session]. Proceedings of Australia and New Zealand Academy Robinson, S. (2021). Leveraging age diversity for organizational perfor-
of Management (ANZAM), New Zealand. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500 mance: An intellectual capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
.11937/6590 106(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000497
2,3 2,3
Khanna, P., Jones, C. D., & Boivie, S. (2014). Director human capital, Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to
information processing demands, and board effectiveness. Journal of eye? Management and employee perspectives of high-performance work
Management, 40(2), 557–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313515523 systems and influence processes on service quality. Journal of Applied
2
Kianto, A., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Ritala, P. (2010). Intellectual Psychology, 94, 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013504
1
capital in service- and product-oriented companies. Journal of Intellectual Lim, L. L. K., & Dallimore, P. (2004). Intellectual capital: Management
Capital, 11(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931011064563 attitudes in service industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 181–
2
Kianto, A., Sáenz, J., & Aramburu, N. (2017). Knowledge-based human 194. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930410512996
2
resource management practices, intellectual capital and innovation. Jour- Lin, H. E., McDonough, E. F., Yang, J., & Wang, C. (2017). Aligning
nal of Business Research, 81, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres knowledge assets for exploitation, exploration, and ambidexterity: A
.2017.07.018 study of companies in high-tech parks in China. Journal of Product
2
Kianto, A., Vanhala, M., Ritala, P., & Hussinki, H. (2020). What drives the Innovation Management, 34(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpi
development of intellectual capital? A longitudinal study. In P. Ordonez de m.12337
Pablos & L. Edvinsson (Eds.), Intellectual capital in the digital economy Lin, S. C., & Huang, Y. M. (2005). The role of social capital in the
(pp. 31–44). Routledge. relationship between human capital and career mobility: Moderator or
2,3
Kim, K. Y., Patel, P. C., Atwater, L., & Smither, J. W. (2016). Multisource mediator? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/
feedback, human capital, and the financial performance of organizations. 10.1108/14691930510592799
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of
Publications. collective constructions: Implications for multilevel research and theory
Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. (1978). Values as second-order needs in the development. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 249–265. https://
theory of work adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 12–19. doi.org/10.2307/259081
https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(78)90003-9 Mosier, C. I. (1943). On the reliability of a weighted composite. Psychome-
2,3
Lopez, V. A. (2003). Intangible resources as drivers of performance: trika, 8, 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288700
Evidence from a Spanish study of manufacturing firms. Irish Journal of 2
Mubarik, M. S., Chandran, V. G. R., & Devadason, E. S. (2018). Measuring
Management, 24, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2002.11.001 human capital in small and medium manufacturing enterprises: What
2,3
Lüneborg, J. L., & Nielsen, J. F. (2003). Customer-focused technology and matters? Social Indicators Research, 137(2), 605–623. https://doi.org/10
performance in small and large banks. European Management Journal, .1007/s11205-017-1601-9
2
21, 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(03)00020-3 Mubarik, M. S., Devadason, E. S., & Govindaraju, C. (2020). Human
2
Mahmood, R., & Abdul Wahid, R. (2012). Investigating the effect of capital and export performance of small and medium enterprises in
intellectual capital on bank performance in Malaysia [Conference ses- Pakistan. International Journal of Social Economics, 47(5), 643–662.
sion]. Knowledge Management International Conference (KMICe) 2012, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-03-2019-0198
2
4–6 July 2012, Johor Bahru, Malaysia. https://repo.uum.edu.my/id/epri Mubarik, S. (2015). Human capital and performance of small and medium
nt/10853/ manufacturing enterprises: A study of Pakistan (Unpublished doctoral

2,3
Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. E. (2011). Human capital, efficiency, dissertation). University of Malaya.
and innovative adaptation as strategic determinants of firm performance. 2,3
Munir, S., Bibi, A., Siddiqui, A. F., & Butt, Q. U.-A. (2019). An
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(2), 229–246. empirical analysis of the relationship between human capital and orga-
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811400750 nizational performance in hospitality sector in Pakistan. Journal of
2
Mansour, N., Gara, E., & Gaha, C. (2014). Getting inside the black box: HR Management and Research, 6(2), 171–214. https://doi.org/10.29145/
practices and firm performance within the Tunisian financial services jmr/62/060207
industry. Personnel Review, 43(4), 490–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR- Murphy, K. R. (2012). Individual differences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The
03-2013-0052 Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 48–67).
2
Mao, H., Liu, S., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., & Gong, Y. (2021). Information Oxford University Press.
2,3
technology competency and organizational agility: Roles of absorptive Musteen, M., Ahsan, M., & Park, T. (2017). SMEs, intellectual capital,
capacity and information intensity. Information Technology and People, and offshoring of service activities: An empirical investigation. Manage-
34(1), 421–451. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2018-0560 ment International Review, 57(4), 603–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/
2
Mathew, N., Javalgi, R., Dixit, A., & Gross, A. (2021). Drivers of emerging s11575-017-0315-1
market professional service firm success: The role of internal firm 1
Namasivayam, K., & Denizci, B. (2006). Human capital in service orga-
competencies and capabilities. Management Research Review, 44(4), nizations: Identifying value drivers. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(3),
547–567. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2020-0026 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930610681465
2
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). Nazari, J. A., Herremans, I. M., Isaac, R. G., Manassian, A., & Kline, T. J. B.
The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and (2011). Organizational culture, climate and IC: An interaction analysis.
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599–616. https:// Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(2), 224–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.599 14691930610681465
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the
intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46. firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Man-
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30 agement Journal, 28, 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.573
2
Meijerink, J. G., Bondarouk, T., & Lepak, D. P. (2016). Employees as active Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). How broadly does education
consumers of HRM: Linking employees’ HRM competences with their contribute to job performance? Personnel Psychology, 62, 89–134. https://
perceptions of HRM service value. Human Resource Management, 55(2), doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01130.x
219–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21719 Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Does longer job tenure help or hinder
2,3
Menguc, B., & Barker, T. (2005). Re-examining field sales unit perfor- job performance? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 305–314. https://
mance. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 885–909. https://doi.org/10 doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.012
2
.1108/03090560510601824 Ngo, H. Y., Jiang, C. Y., & Loi, R. (2014). Linking HRM competency to
Messick, S. (1995). Validation of psychological assessment. American firm performance: An empirical investigation of Chinese firms. Personnel
Psychologist, 50, 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741 Review, 43(6), 898–914. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2013-0086
2,3 2
Meyer, C. (2012). More than just the smartest guys in the room: Nguyen, Q. V. (2016). The relationship between enterprise resource
Intellectual capital assets in knowledge-intensive firms (Unpublished planning (ERP) implementation and intellectual capital under the mod-
doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts Amherst. erating effect of organizational learning capability (Unpublished doctoral
2,3
Meyer, C. R., Skaggs, B. C., & Youndt, M. (2014). Developing and dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington.
2,3
deploying organizational capital in services vs. manufacturing. Journal Nieves, J., & Diaz-Meneses, G. (2016). Antecedents and outcomes of
of Managerial Issues, 26(4), 326–344. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4411 marketing innovation: An empirical analysis in the hotel industry.
3658 International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(8),
2
Mohamed, I. A. H., & Gimati, Y. M. E. L. (2020). Verification of the 1554–1576. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2014-0589
1
existance of human and social capital in highly technical education Nixon, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Lee, H.-U., & Jeong, E. (2004). Market reactions
institutions affiliated with NBTVE, Libya. International Journal of Engi- to announcements of corporate downsizing actions and implementation
neering Technologies and Management Research, 7(2), 111–123. https:// strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1121–1129. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.29121/ijetmr.v7.i2.2020.518 10.1002/smj.423
Molloy, J. C., Chadwick, C., Ployhart, R. E., & Golden, S. J. (2011). Making Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill
intangibles “tangible” in tests of resource-based theory: A multidisciplin- Education.
ary construct validation approach. Journal of Management, 37, 1496– Nyberg, A. J., & Moliterno, T. P. (2019). The handbook of research on
1518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310394185 strategic human capital resources. Edgar Elgar Publishing.
Nyberg, A. J., Moliterno, T. P., Hale, D., & Lepak, D. P. (2014). Resource-based Psychology, 54(2), 451–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001
perspectives on unit-level human capital: A review and integration. Journal of .tb00100.x
2
Management, 40, 316–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312458703 Pitsiladi, L. N. (2015). Variables affecting family employee remuneration in
1
O’Sullivan, A., & Sheffrin, S. (1998). Economics principles and tools. south african family businesses (Unpublished master’s thesis). Nelson
Pearson Education. Mandela Metropolitan University.
2,3
Offstein, E. H. (2004). The upper-echelon perspective of firm competitive Ployhart, R. E. (2021). Resources for what? Understanding performance in
behavior: Empirical evidence from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry the resource-based view and strategic human capital resource literatures.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Journal of Management, 47(7), 1771–1786. https://doi.org/10.1177/
State University. 01492063211003137
2 1
Oh, I.-S. S., Kim, S., & Van Iddekinge, C. H. (2015). Taking it to another Ployhart, R. E., & Moliterno, T. P. (2011). Emergence of the human capital
level: Do personality-based human capital resources matter to firm resource: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Review, 36, 127–
performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 935–947. https:// 150. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.55662569
1
doi.org/10.1037/a0039052 Ployhart, R. E., Nyberg, A. J., Reilly, G., & Maltarich, M. A. (2014).
Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests. University Human capital is dead; Long live human capital resources! Journal of
of Iowa. Management, 40, 371–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313512152

1,2,3 1,3
Onofrei, G., Fynes, B., Humphreys, P., & Wiengarten, F. (2019). The Ployhart, R. E., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & MacKenzie, W. I. (2011).
relationship between investments in lean practices and operational Acquiring and developing human capital in service context: The intercon-
performance operational intellectual capital. International Journal of nectedness of human capital resources. Academy of Management Journal,
Operations & Production Management, 39(3), 406–428. https://doi.org/ 54, 353–368. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263097
1
10.1108/IJOPM-04-2018-0201 Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Baughman, K. (2006). The structure and
2
Osman, J. (2014). An empirical investigation into the significance of function of human capital emergence: A multilevel examination of the
intellectual capital and strategic orientations on innovation capability attraction–selection–attrition model. Academy of Management Journal,
and firm performance in malaysian information and communications 49(4), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083023
technology (ICT) small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) (Unpublished doc- Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Dalzell, J. (2018). Talent without borders:
toral dissertation). RMIT University. Global talent acquisition for competitive advantage. Oxford University
2
Park, H. J., Mitsuhashi, H., Fey, C. F., & Björkman, I. (2003). The effect of Press.
1
human resource management practices on Japanese MNC subsidiary Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Ramsey, J. (2009). The consequences of
performance: A partial mediating model. The International Journal of human resource stocks and flows: A longitudinal examination of unit
Human Resource Management, 14(8), 1391–1406. https://doi.org/10.1080/ service orientation and unit effectiveness. Academy of Management
0958519032000145819 Journal, 52, 996–1015. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.44635041
2,3
Park, S. H., & Luo, Y. (2001). Guanci and organizational dynamics: Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., Masimova, M., & Campion, M. A.
Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Jour- (2013). A high performance work practices taxonomy: Integrating the
nal, 22(5), 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.167 literature and directing future research. Journal of Management, 39, 1184–
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job 1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478184
enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Quińones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship
Psychology, 83(6), 835–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835 between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-
2
Pasamar, S., Diaz-Fernandez, M., & de la Rosa-Navarro, M. D. (2019). analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48, 887–910. https://doi.org/10
Human capital: The link between leadership and organizational learning. .1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01785.x
2
European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 28(1), 25– Radulovich, L., Javalgi, R. G., & Scherer, R. F. (2018). Intangible resources
51. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-08-2017-0003 influencing the international performance of professional service SMEs in
2
Patky, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2020). Does flexibility in human resource an emerging market: Evidence from India. International Marketing
practices increase innovation? Mediating role of intellectual capital. South Review, 35(1), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-06-2016-0130
2
Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 7(2), 257–275. https:// Rahman, S. A., Khan, G. M., AlAbri, S., & Taghizadeh, S. K. (2021). The
doi.org/10.1177/2322093720934243 role of intellectual capital on entrepreneurial opportunity recognition
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: among SMEs in the Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in 23, 816–839. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2020-0177
2,3
Personality, 36, 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6 Raineri, A. (2017). Linking human resources practices with performance:
2,3
Payne, G. T., Benson, G. S., & Finegold, D. L. (2009). Corporate board The simultaneous mediation of collective affective commitment and
attributes, team effectiveness and financial performance. Journal of human capital. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Management Studies, 46, 704–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486 28, 3149–3178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1155163
2
.2008.00819.x Ramadan, B. M., Dahiyat, S. E., Bontis, N., & Al-dalahmeh, M. A. (2017).
2
Peñalba-Aguirrezabalaga, C., Sáenz, J., & Ritala, P. (2020). Marketing- Intellectual capital, knowledge management and social capital within the
specific intellectual capital: Conceptualization, scale development and ICT sector in Jordan. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(2), 437–462.
empirical illustration. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 947–984. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-06-2016-0067
1
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2019-0095 Ramezan, M. (2011). Intellectual capital and organizational organic struc-
1
Pennings, J. M., Lee, K., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1998). Human capital, ture in knowledge society: How are these concepts related? International
social capital, and firm dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 41, Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10
425–440. https://doi.org/10.2307/257082 .1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.10.004
2,3
Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., Fleish- Raudulovich, L. (2008). An empirical examination of the factors affecting
man, E. A., Levin, K. Y., Campion, M. A., Mayfield, M., Morgeson, F. P., the internationalization of professional service SMEs: The case of India
Pearlman, K., Gowing, M. K., Lancaster, A. R., Silver, M. B., & Dye, (Unpublished bachelor’s thesis). University of Pittsburgh.
D. M. (2001). Understanding work using the occupational information Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring
network (O*NET): Implications for practice and research. Personnel organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice.
2
Journal of Management, 35, 718–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630 Seleim, A. A. S., & Khalil, O. E. M. (2011). Understanding the knowledge
8330560 management–intellectual capital relationship: A two-way analysis. Jour-
2
Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial nal of Intellectual Capital, 12(4), 586–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/
perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model 14691931111181742
2,3
of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 561– Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., Laskovaia, A., & MahdaviMazdeh,
589. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.329 H. (2020). Navigating the emerging market context: Performance im-
Roch, S. G., Paquin, A. R., & Littlejohn, T. W. (2009). Do raters agree more plications of effectuation and causation for small and medium enter-
on observable items? Human Performance, 22, 391–409. https://doi.org/ prises during adverse economic conditions in Russia. Strategic
10.1080/08959280903248344 Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(3), 470–500. https://doi.org/10.1002/se
2
Rondeau, K. V., Williams, E. S., & Wagar, T. H. (2009). Developing j.1353
1
human capital: What is the impact on nurse turnover? Journal of Nursing Shome, M. K. (2008). Globalization and its impact on human resource
Management, 17, 739–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2009 management. Global Journal of Business Management, 2(1), 71–86.
.00988.x http://goonebook.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Vol.-2-No.-1-June-2008
2
Rosdi, I. S. (2014). A human resource management framework for innova- .pdf#page=77
2,3
tive capability development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Multime- Shou, Y., Hu, W., & Xu, Y. (2018). Exploring the role of intellectual
dia University. capital in supply chain intelligence integration. Industrial Management

Roth, P. L., Switzer, F. S., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Oh, I. S. (2011). and Data Systems, 118(5), 1018–1032. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-06-
Toward better meta-analytic matrices: How input values can affect 2017-0285
research conclusions in human resource management simulations. Per- 2,3
Siahaan, D. T. (2017). An empirical analysis of firm innovation capability
sonnel Psychology, 64, 899–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570 and performance of indonesian ICT SMEs (Unpublished doctoral disser-
.2011.01231.x tation). RMIT University.
2
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external Siahaan, D. T., & Tan, C. S. L. (2020). Antecedents of innovation
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and capability and firm performance of Indonesian ICT SMES. Asian
Applied, 80, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976 Journal of Business Research, 10(2), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.14707/
1
Rudež, H. N., & Mihalič, T. (2007). Intellectual capital in the hotel ajbr.200083
2
industry: A case study from Slovenia. International Journal of Hospi- Singh, B., & Rao, M. K. (2016). Effect of intellectual capital on dynamic
tality Management, 26(1), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2005 capabilities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(2), 129–
.11.002 149. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-12-2014-0225
2 1
Ruiz, E., De Pablo, J. D. S., Muñoz, R. M., & Peña, I. (2018). The influence Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Contingencies within dynamic
of total quality management on firms’ intellectual capital. South African managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment
Journal of Business Management, 49(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sa and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,
jbm.v49i1.396 30(13), 1375–1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.791
2,3
Sackett, P. R., Lievens, F., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Kuncel, N. R. (2017). Skaggs, B. C., & Youndt, M. A. (2004). Strategic positioning, human
Individual differences and their measurement: A review of 100 years of capital, and performance in service organizations: A customer interaction
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 254–273. https://doi.org/10 approach. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 85–99. https://doi.org/10
.1037/apl0000151 .1002/smj.365
1
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Smart, G. (1999). Management assessment methods in venture capital:
Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG- An empirical analysis of human capital valuation. The Journal of Private
P24E-52WK-6CDG Equity, 2(3), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpe.1999.319951
2,3 2
Santoso, E. (2011). Intellectual capital in Indonesia: The influence on Smith, A., Courvisanos, J., Tuck, J., & McEachern, S. (2012). Building
financial performance of banking industry (Unpublished doctoral disser- the capacity to innovate: The role of human capital. National Centre for
tation). University of Phoenix. Vocational Education Research.
1
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge,
the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in
529–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.529 high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 346–357.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis (3rd ed.). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.16928421
2,3
Sage Publications. Smriti, N., & Das, N. (2017). Impact of intellectual capital on business
Schmidt, F. L., & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite versus multiple criteria: A performance: Evidence from Indian pharmaceutical sector. Polish Jour-
review and resolution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24(3), nal of Management Studies, 15(1), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.2307/
419–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1971.tb00365.x 256484
1
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta- Snell, S. A., & Dean, J. W. (1992). Integrated manufacturing and
analysis methods. University of Iowa, Department of Management and human resource management: A human capital perspective. Academy
Organization. of Management Journal, 35(3), 467–504. https://doi.org/10.2307/
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 256484
2
40(3), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x Sokolov, D., & Zavyalova, E. (2021). Human resource management systems
2,3
Schneider, B., & Bartram, D. (2017). Aggregate personality and organi- and intellectual capital: Is the relationship universal in knowledge-intensive
zational competitive advantage. Journal of Occupational and Organiza- firms? International Journal of Manpower, 42(4), 683–701. https://doi.org/
tional Psychology, 90(4), 461–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12180 10.1108/IJM-11-2018-0372
1 1
Schultz, T. (1981). Investment in population quality. In T. W. Schultz (Ed.), Somaya, D., Williamson, I. O., & Lorinkova, N. (2008). Gone but not lost:
Investing in people (pp. 18–39). University of California Press. The different performance impacts of employee mobility between co-
1
Schulz, E., Chowdhury, S., & Van de Voort, D. (2013). Firm productivity operators versus competitors. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 936–
moderated link between human capital and compensation: The signifi- 953. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.34789660
cance of task-specific human capital. Human Resource Management, Stewart, G. L., & Nandkeolyar, A. K. (2007). Exploring How constraints
52(3), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21537 created by other people influence intraindividual variation in objective
performance measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1149–1158. Sciences, 11(3), 231–262. https://www.qurtuba.edu.pk/jms/default_files/
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1149 JMS/special_edition/5%20EBM/12%20(AIC-EBM%202017)%20231-
2
Su, H. Y. (2014). Business ethics and the development of intellectual capital. 262%20Irfan%20Ullah.pdf
2
Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- Ulubeyli, S., & Yorulmaz, D. (2019). Intellectual capital based reputation
013-1623-4 for market internationalization: The case of engineering consultancy firms.
1,2
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(1), 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-
capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management 01-2019-0010
Journal, 48, 450–463. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407911 Van Iddekinge, C. H., Arnold, J. D., Frieder, R. E., & Roth, P. L. (2019).
Subramony, M. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of prehire work experi-
between HRM bundles and firm performance. Human Resource Manage- ence. Personnel Psychology, 72, 571–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/pe
ment, 48(5), 745–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20315 ps.12335
1,2,3 1
Subramony, M., Segers, J., Chadwick, C., & Shyamsunder, A. (2018). Vidal-Salazar, M. D., Hurtado-Torres, N. E., & Matías-Reche, F. (2012).
Leadership development practice bundles and organizational perfor- Training as a generator of employee capabilities. International Journal
mance: The mediating role of human capital and social capital. Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(13), 2680–2697. https://doi.org/10
of Business Research, 83, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017 .1080/09585192.2011.610971

1
.09.044 Vomberg, A., Homburg, C., & Bornemann, T. (2015). Talented people and
1
Sullivan, P. H. (1999). Profiting from intellectual capital. Journal of strong brands: The contribution of human capital and brand equity to firm
Knowledge Management, 3(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/1367 value. Strategic Management Journal, 36(13), 2122–2131. https://doi.org/
3279910275585 10.1002/smj.2328
2,3 2
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Multiple dimensions of human resource Wahid, R. A., Lumpur, U. K. L. K., & Mahmood, M. R. (2013). Relation-
development and organizational performance. Journal of Organizational ship of intellectual capital dimensions and performance of banks in
Behavior, 35(6), 851–870. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1933 Malaysia: An exploratory study. International Journal of Business and
2
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2018). To invest or not to invest : Strategic Social Science, 4(15), 151–159. https://ijbssnet.com/journal/index/2240
decision making toward investing in training and development in Korean Society for Human Resource Management. (2020). Business and human
manufacturing firms. International Journal of Human Resource Man- capital challenges today and in the future.
agement, 29(13), 2080–2105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016 Wallace, S. R. (1965). Criteria for what? American Psychologist, 20(6),
.1239215 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022446
2,3
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H. C., & Takeuchi, K. (2007). An Wang, C. H., Yen, C. D., & Liu, G. H. W. (2015a). How intellectual capital
empirical examination of the mechanisms mediating between high- influences individual performance: A multi-level perspective. Computers
performance work systems and the performance of Japanese organizations. in Human Behavior, 51(8), 930–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1069–1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/ .10.044
1
0021-9010.92.4.1069 Wang, H., Choi, J., Wan, G., & Dong, J. Q. (2016). Slack resources and
1
Tapsell, S. (1998). Making money from brainpower: The new wealth of the rent-generating potential of firm-specific knowledge. Journal of
nations. Management- Auckland, 45(6), 36–43. Management, 42(2), 500–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631348
2
Tarus, D. K., & Sitienei, E. K. (2015). Intellectual capital and innova- 4519
tiveness in software development firms: The moderating role of firm size. 2,3
Wang, L.-L., Wang, Y.-W., & Sun, W.-M. (2013). Study on the relation-
Journal of African Business, 16(1–2), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/ ship between human capital management and agricultural enterprise
15228916.2015.1061284 performance-based on different marketing strategy. In E. Qi, J. Shen,
2
Teo, S. T. T., Reed, K. K., & Ly, K. (2014). Human resource involvement & R. Dou (Eds.), Proceedings of 20th international conference on
in developing intellectual capital. Service Industries Journal, 34(15), industrial engineering and engineering management (pp. 827–835).
1219–1233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2014.942651 Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-40072-8_
2,3
Tippins, M. J., & Sohi, R. S. (2003). IT competency and firm performance: 82#editor-information
2,3
Is organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal, Wang, X., Hou, Y., & Cullinane, N. (2015b). How does the human
24, 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.337 resource department’s client relationship management impact on organi-
Tipton, E., Pustejovsky, J. E., & Ahmadi, H. (2019). A history of meta- zational performance in China? Mediate effect of human capital. South
regression: Technical, conceptual, and practical developments between African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 18(3), 291–307.
1974 and 2018. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(2), 161–179. https:// https://doi.org/10.17159/2222-3436/2015/V18N3A1
2,3
doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1338 Wang, Z., Wang, N., Cao, J., & Ye, X. (2016). The impact of intellectual
2
Torre, C., Tommasetti, A., & Maione, G. (2020). Technology usage, capital—Knowledge management strategy fit on firm performance. Man-
intellectual capital, firm performance and employee satisfaction: The agement Decision, 54(8), 1861–1885. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-
accountants’ idea. TQM Journal, 33(3), 545–567. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 2015-0231
2,3
TQM-04-2020-0070 Wang, Z., Wang, N., & Liang, H. (2014). Knowledge sharing, intellectual
2,3
Torre, E. D., Zatzick, C. D., Sikora, D., & Solari, L. (2018). Workforce capital and firm performance. Management Decision, 52(2), 230–258.
churning, human capital disruption, and organizational performance in https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2013-0064
2,3
different technological contexts. Human Resource Management Journal, Welbourne, T. M., & Pardo-del-Val, M. (2009). Relational capital:
28(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12167 Strategic advantage for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs)
2,3
Tse, C. H., Yu, L., & Zhu, J. (2017). A multimediation model of learning through negotiation and collaboration. Group Decision and Negotiation,
by exporting: Analysis of export-induced productivity gains. Journal of 18, 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9138-6
Management, 43(7), 2118–2146. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631557 2,3
Wetter, E. (2009). Patterns of performance in new firms: Estimating the
3998 effects of absorptive capacity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eco-
1,2
Ullah, I., Hameed, R. M., & Kashif, A. R. (2017). Ethical leadership nomic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics.
2
impacts intellectual capital facets paving way to foster innovative perfor- Wilderom, C. P. M., Hur, Y., Wiersma, U. J., Van den Berg, P. T., & Lee, J.
mance: A Pakistani software houses perspective. Journal of Managerial (2015). From manager’s emotional intelligence to objective store
performance: Through store cohesiveness and sales-directed employee perceptions of the role of HR configurations in the development of
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 825–844. https://doi.org/ knowledge stocks. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 531–554.
10.1002/job.2006 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20297
2
Williams, C., & Lee, S. H. (2016). Knowledge flows in the emerging market 2,3
Yang, C. C., & Lin, C. Y. Y. (2009). Does intellectual capital mediate the
MNC: The role of subsidiary HRM practices in Korean MNCs. Interna- relationship between HRM and organizational performance? Perspective
tional Business Review, 25(1), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev of a healthcare industry in Taiwan. International Journal of Human
.2014.08.011 Resource Management, 20, 1965–1984. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519
Wood, J. (2008). Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a 0903142415
2,3
meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1), 79–95. https:// Yang, Z., Zhou, X., & Zhang, P. (2015). Centralization and innovation
doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296638 performance in an emerging economy: Testing the moderating effects.
1
Wright, P., Dunford, B., & Snell, S. (2001). Human resources and the Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(2), 415–442. https://doi.org/10
resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701–721. .1007/s10490-014-9394-8
2
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700607 Yoo, T. (2020). How to use language agents for knowledge transfer?
Wright, P. M., Coff, R. W., & Moliterno, T. P. (2014). Strategic human Evidence from translators and multinational organizations in Korea.
capital: Crossing the great divide. Journal of Management, 40, 353–370. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(4), 899–919. https://doi.org/10
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313518437 .1108/JKM-09-2019-0498
1
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., Park, H. J., Gerhart, B., & Youndt, M. A., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Human resource configurations,
Delery, J. E. (2001). Measurement error in research on human resources intellectual capital, and organizational performance. Journal of Manage-
and firm performance: Additional data and suggestions for future research. rial Issues, 16(3), 337–360. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40604485
1,2,3
Personnel Psychology, 54, 875–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570 Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, M., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Intellectual
.2001.tb00235.x capital profiles: An examination of investments and returns. Journal of
2,3
Wright, P. M., McCormick, B., Sherman, W. S., & McMahan, G. C. Management Studies, 41(2), 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
(1999). The role of human resource practices in petro-chemical refinery 6486.2004.00435.x
performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 1
Zhang, X., Xie, L., Li, J., & Cheng, L. (2022). “Outside in”: Global demand
551–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/095851999340260 heterogeneity and dynamic capabilities of multinational enterprises. Jour-
1
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (2011). Exploring human capital: Putting nal of International Business Studies, 53, 709–722. https://doi.org/10
human back into strategic human resource management. Human Resource .1057/s41267-019-00252-6
Management Journal, 21, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583 Zhao, Z. J., & Chadwick, C. (2014). What we will do versus what we can
.2010.00165.x do: The relative effects of unit-level NPD motivation and capability.
2,3
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., Smart, D. L., & McCormick, B. (1997). Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1867–1880. https://doi.org/10
Team cognitive ability as a predictor of team performance (Working Paper .1002/smj.2184
No. 97–10). CAHRS/Cornell University. Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to
2,3
Xiao, Q. (2008). Hospital organizations as complex adaptive systems: A creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback,
configurational approach to examining complexity adaptation in action and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413–422.
and implications on organizational performance (Unpublished doctoral https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.413
dissertation). University of Alabama. Zickar, M. J. (2020). Measurement development and evaluation. Annual
2
Yamao, S., de Cieri, H., & Hutchings, K. (2009). Transferring subsidiary Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7,
knowledge to global headquarters: Subsidiary senior executives’ 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044957
Appendix A
Rating Scale Used to Assess HCR Measure Quality (Study 2)
1 2 3 4 5
Evaluation aspect Very poor Poor Marginal Good Very good
HCR dimension • Only refers to • Assesses only one • Assesses two • Assesses three • Assesses four
coverage compound KSAOs HCR dimension HCR dimensions HCR dimensions HCR dimensions
(KSAO) (KSAO or compound (KSAO or compound (KSAO or compound
KSAOs) KSAOs) KSAOs)
Number of items • Includes one item for • Includes two items • Includes three items • Includes four items • Includes five or more
per dimension each HCR dimension for each HCR for each HCR for each HCR items for each HCR
assessed dimension assessed dimension assessed dimension assessed dimension assessed
Comprehensiveness • Does not capture any • Captures only one • Captures more than • Captures several • Captures the entire
within dimensions specific aspects of the specific aspect of the one specific aspect, aspects, but not the domain of the HCR
HCR dimension(s) HCR dimension(s) but not nearly all the entire domain of the dimension(s)
assessed assessed aspects of the HCR HCR dimension(s) assessed
dimension(s) assessed
assessed
Note. HCR = human capital resources; KSAOs = knowledge, skills, abilities, other characteristics.
(Appendices continue)
Appendix B
Example HCR Measure for Unit Customer Service Performance
Please rate the competence of customer service employees in [business unit or job] using the scale provided.
HCR dimension Characteristic Very poor Poor Satisfactory Good Very good
Knowledge Customer and personal service knowledge: Knowledge of 1 2 3 4 5
principles and processes for providing customer and personal
services. This includes customer needs assessment, meeting
quality standards for services, and evaluation of customer
satisfaction.
English language: Knowledge of the structure and content of 1 2 3 4 5
the English language, including the meaning and spelling of
words, rules of composition, and grammar.
Administrative knowledge: Knowledge of administrative and 1 2 3 4 5

office procedures and systems, such as word processing,

managing files and records, stenography, and transcription,
designing forms, and workplace terminology.
Skills Active listening: Giving full attention to what other people are 1 2 3 4 5
saying, taking time to understand the points being made,
asking appropriate questions, and not interrupting at
inappropriate times.
Speaking: Talking to others to convey information effectively. 1 2 3 4 5
Social skills: Being aware of others’ reactions and 1 2 3 4 5
understanding why they react as they do.
Abilities Oral comprehension: The ability to listen to and understand 1 2 3 4 5
information and ideas presented through spoken words and
sentences.
Oral expression: The ability to communicate information and 1 2 3 4 5
ideas in speaking.
Speech clarity: The ability to speak clearly. 1 2 3 4 5
Other characteristics Conscientiousness: Being trustworthy, accountable, and 1 2 3 4 5
attentive to details.
Agreeableness: Being pleasant with others on the job and 1 2 3 4 5
displaying a good-natured, cooperative attitude.
Integrity: Being honest and ethical. 1 2 3 4 5
Note. HCR = human capital resources. The characteristics identified for customer service representatives are adopted from Occupational Information
Network (O*NET).
Received December 16, 2020

Revision received February 4, 2023
Accepted February 7, 2023 ▪

Applet_2023-5-10_168368003292431

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Applet_2023-5-10_168368003292431

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Applet_2023-5-10_168368003292431

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Applied Psychology

© 2023 American Psychological Association

The Deﬁnition and Measurement of Human Capital Resources:

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001088.supp

level) construct as opposed to an individual-level one. Further, we

We used the following criteria to determine whether the articles 2

Feature/categories Example characteristics Example HCR definition

knowledge, skills, and abilities of the

organizational human resources” (Alpkan

Feature/categories Example characteristics Example HCR definition

deﬁnitions often mention knowledge, skills, and abilities but disre-

gard other characteristics (e.g., personality).

In Study 1, we coded 166 HCR deﬁnitions to understand how

researchers have deﬁned the construct. Approximately half of

tend to specify that HCR consist of knowledge, skills, and abilities,

HCR: knowledge, skills, and abilities (3)

and some deﬁnitions now acknowledge other characteristics (e.g.,

that ranges from “stable” to “malleable” (Wright et al., 2014), and

Non-HCR: none (0)

2017). In contrast, variables such as attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction,

your education, 3. your experience, and 4.

Human capital is “the collective knowledge,

differences that can affect performance. Thus, to provide greater

your attitudes about life and business”

experience and professional skills and

construct clarity for future research, we delineate the types of other

skills, and abilities that reside with

characteristics (i.e., “O’s”) from which collective HCR emerge.

Researchers generally have discussed three main categories of

values (e.g., Chernyshenko et al., 2011; Murphy, 2012; Peterson

et al., 2001). Personality traits reﬂect relatively stable dispositions

Barrick & Mount, 1991; Goldberg, 1990) and/or subdimensions of

and Machiavellianism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). In addition,

researchers have identiﬁed several motivational traits (Sackett

general self-efﬁcacy (Judge et al., 1998), goal orientation (Dweck,

1986), personal initiative (Frese et al., 2007), and proactive person-

produce professional services” (p. 426).

Content Validity of HCR Measures Method

Content validity is a critical aspect of construct validity (Messick, Literature Search

that asked employees to indicate whether they are afﬁliative (i.e.,

Non-HCR: education, HPWPs, and work

Non-HCR: unclear construct that can be

either HCR or non-HCR (1)

HCR: other characteristics (1)

HCR: knowledge (1)

Non-HCR: none (0)

HCR: skills (1)

• Our employees are widely considered the best in

between each measure and Ployhart and Moliterno’s deﬁnition, and

calculated D scores representing deﬁciency, contamination, and a

combination thereof. As before, larger D scores indicate greater

dissimilarity between the measure and the construct deﬁnition (see

Table 5 for several Example D score calculations).

NEO Personality Inventory

measure, which was used in 50 studies. An additional 12 studies

measures of HCR are highly study speciﬁc.

Contamination of HCR Measures

Fully Partially Partially and

Capabilities 3 5.1 1 3.3 4 4.5