Journal of Intellectual Capital

A human capital measurement scale

Juarez Domingos Frasson Vidotto, Helio Aisenberg Ferenhof, Paulo Mauricio Selig, Rogerio Cid
Bastos,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Juarez Domingos Frasson Vidotto, Helio Aisenberg Ferenhof, Paulo Mauricio Selig, Rogerio Cid
Bastos, (2017) "A human capital measurement scale", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 Issue: 2,
pp.316-329, https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-08-2016-0085
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-08-2016-0085
Downloaded on: 10 July 2017, At: 12:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 37 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 576 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Structured literature review about intellectual capital and innovation", Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 262-285 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2016-0069">https://
doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2016-0069</a>
(2017),"Intellectual capital in the age of Big Data: establishing a research agenda",
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 242-261 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JIC-10-2016-0097">https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2016-0097</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:333301 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

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

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm

JIC
18,2 A human capital
measurement scale
Juarez Domingos Frasson Vidotto, Helio Aisenberg Ferenhof,
316 Paulo Mauricio Selig and Rogerio Cid Bastos
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – Despite the large number of academic publications in human capital, there are few instruments to
measure it. The purpose of this paper is to develop a holistic scale to measure human capital, considering
aspects related to competence, attitudes, skills, leadership, and organizational memory.
Design/methodology/approach – First, a literature review of the existing measurement models was
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

carried out. Second, based on the results the authors developed a scale and a questionnaire that were applied
in a financial institution in Santa Catarina, Brazil, supported by a factor analysis and a reliability analysis.
Findings – As a result of this study a scale consisting of 13 variables of human capital emerged that have been
grouped into three factors – leadership and motivation; qualifications; and satisfaction and creativity – which
can assist in the organization’s human capital measurement. From a theoretical view, a more holistic scale is
provided, which helps to overcome a unilateral focus on knowledge (intangibles).
Research limitations/implications – This work points out that the survey data were collected from a
sample of 220 relationship managers of a specific financial institution. The results should be tested in other
banks or organizations from other sectors to check their suitability and to be generalized.
Practical implications – From a practical point of view, it contributes a “tool” that can assist in the
measurement of human capital and in the knowledge contained, dimensioning the organizational memory
and human repositories.
Originality/value – This is the first study that provides a scale to measure organizational human capital
from the Brazilian financial perspective.
Keywords Scale, Measurement, Human capital, Measurement instrument, Measurement tool
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 18 No. 2, 2017
pp. 316-329
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-08-2016-0085
1. Introduction
The exploitation of traditional production factors is no longer sufficient (Durrani and
Forbes, 2003). The global economic order gives knowledge the status of main production factor,
overcoming the triad of land, capital, and labor. According to Oviedo-Garcia et al. (2014),
knowledge is the most important strategic resource and its management is the key to
institutional performance.
Thus, organizations need to be more dynamic and efficient in using their resources,
especially the assets that form the intellectual capital, to achieve longstanding positive results.
Human capital is intellectual capital’s central element and is formed by the company
individuals’ competence, including knowledge, skills, experience, expertise, and capabilities
(Mention and Bontis, 2013). Durrani and Forbes (2003) reinforce these assumptions by stating
that the organization’s success is connected to the investment flow in human capital and
information technology. Human capital has gained prominence in the knowledge economy,
considering that in this economy knowledge is the principal development factor and educated
and qualified people are its dominant force. Because of the specific characteristics of
individuals, human capital becomes difficult to be imitated, and is therefore strategic for the
organization to remain at the vanguard (Ndinguri et al., 2012). By being a key resource, human
capital must be developed and maintained in the organization.
Knowledge is a key element for human capital development and can be presented in two
forms: explicit or tacit. When knowledge is in explicit form, it can be incorporated into
routines, systems and organization strategies. However, if tacit, it is difficult to be codified
and clarified. It remains with the individual, constituting a human capital that goes away
 when the employee leaves the organization. When this occurs, the organization loses in Human capital
production and productivity – in other words, knowledge loss (Massingham, 2008). measurement
With intangible asset valuation, in the economic context, many academic studies scale
emerged on human capital and intellectual capital – for example, the works of Bueno
et al. (2011) and Mention and Bontis (2013), and the study by Ferenhof et al. (2015) which
performs an extensive intellectual capital dimension analysis. The referenced work presents
the definitions and the classification of the main components of the intellectual capital 317
model. However, despite the large body of literature, there are few studies that provide
objective instruments with quantifiable variables for human capital measurement.
The work of Mention and Bontis (2013) brings forth one approach to quantify human
capital in relation to their performance within the banking sector of Luxemburg and
Belgium; however, their scale has some gaps in the measurement of human capital in a
holistic way. For instance, it does not present questions related to leadership. To fulfil this
gap, the authors consider the work of Bueno et al. (2011), which shows a way to measure
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

leadership related to human capital. Besides, Dunham and Burt (2014) provide a scale to
measure aspects related to organizational memory, applied in New Zealand, that are directly
related to human capital. These, if aggregated with the previous one, could assist in
measuring a broader perspective of human capital.
Given the above and considering the human capital dimensioning relevance for the
organization’s management, the authors highlight that it is important to develop new
research works to facilitate an intellectual capital assessment regarding human aspects.
This study aims to minimize the aforementioned shortcomings and develop a scale to
measure the organization’s human capital. Thus, it is necessary to better understand this
intellectual capital component of human capital, which is covered in the next section.

2. Human capital
Human capital is significantly important to organizations because of its highly important
role in innovation and strategic renewal. According to Subramaniam and Youndt (2005),
human capital positively influences the innovation capability of the organization. This
section presents three topics related to human capital: origin and meaning; the main
components; and evaluation models.

2.1 Human capital origin and meaning

Although knowledge and skills constitute characteristics inherent in individuals, they were
not always recognized as capital. It was only in the second half of the last century that
human aspects came to be regarded as a kind of capital.
Schultz (1961) was the human capital precursor who published this article, which argues
that both knowledge and skills are a “form of capital.” In this work, he defined human
capital as a set of knowledge, skills, and abilities that reside in the individual and that are
used by him/her.
Advancing on these ideas, Becker (1964) developed the human capital theory and
published it in the book. Becker (1964) states that tangible assets are not the only forms of
capital. For him education, medical care, and moral values are examples of capital, because
they increase gains, income, and improve health and therefore their costs should be
considered as an investment in human capital.
In the intellectual capital era, several academic studies have dealt with the subject of
human capital and, as a result, there are several settings according to different approaches
and organizational contexts. For example, Yusoff et al. (2004) defined human capital as a
form of intellectual capital resulting from the combination of attributes such as knowledge,
skills, attitudes, and relationships formed in the minds, bodies, and actions of individuals.
 JIC The above definition is quite appropriate because it is not limited to knowledge and skills
18,2 but also mentions an individual’s actions and attitudes. It is not enough to only have
knowledge and skills; there is a need to put these into practice in the development of
organizational activities. Another important aspect related with this definition, which
makes it more complete, is associated with knowledge and skills, and their storage forms.
Those may be in the individuals’ minds and bodies. On the basis of the definitions of
318 human capital, the authors tried to identify the main human capital components according
to the literature.

2.2 Human capital components

On the basis of the literature review, the authors developed Table I, which highlights the
most frequent human capital components.
Initially, Schultz (1961) considered that human capital was formed by knowledge and
employee skills and highlighted the role of education in shaping the individual. In this
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

reasoning, Mincer (1962) drew attention to the fact that skills are acquired through
experience at work. Becker (1993) in turn pointed out that education and training in
employment are the most important investments in human capital.
In the context of intellectual capital, as stated by Stewart (1998), human capital is formed by
talent, skills, abilities, and ideas. And Stewart (1998) states that the work most valuable parts
are the human tasks such as feel, to judge, to create, and to develop relationships. According
to Edvinsson and Malone (1998), human capital consists of the following factors: skills,
knowledge, skills, experience, creativity, and innovation. Additionally, Bontis (1999) cited
genetic inheritance, education, expertise, and attitudes as factors that constitute human capital.
The authors noted the commitment of many researchers to define, explain, analyze, and
measure this kind of capital to make it more explicit and understandable both in academia
and in the context of the organization. Thus, various intellectual capital models were
developed. The next section presents the main models for measurement, human capital, and
other intellectual capital components.

2.3 Human capital measurement and development

According to Friedman et al. (2000), the human capital perspective considers people as a
valuable asset to be developed. To develop human capital, investments should be directed to
the highest education level, training in the workplace, migration between sectors, health,
and economic information (Schultz, 1973). Complementing, Davenport (2001) stated that
investments should cover the following components: knowledge, skill, talent, behavior,
commitment, and time.
When the people of the organization acquire new knowledge, the human capital value,
the intellectual capital, and the market value of the business are enriched. Because of the
importance of human capital in organizations, it is very important that the company
dimension the level of knowledge, skills, and attitudes of its employees. Based on the human
capital diagnosis, the organization will be able to make investment decisions for the
employees’ development.
The main models that evaluate intellectual assets are presented.
Skandia Navigator (1992-1993) was the first dynamic and holistic intellectual capital
model. The main driver was Leif Edvinsson, and the model’s practical application and
international distribution have made it a paradigmatic reference.
The Navigator is structured around focus areas, highlighted in Figure 1, where the
company concentrates its attention and for which are established measurement indicators.
These focus areas are financial, customer, process, renewal and development, and human.
The model consists of 111 major indexes, distributed by the focus area: financial (18);
client (20); process (19); renewal and development (32); and human (22). The innovative
 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

Edvinsson O’Sullivan Nieves

and and Subramaniam Chen Huang Bueno Santos- and
Schultz Mincer Becker Stewart Sveiby Malone Davenport Bontis Friedman Stankosky and Youndt et al. and Wu et al. Rodrigues Haller
Authors (1961) (1962) (1964) (1998) (1998) (1998) (1999) (1999) et al.(2000) (2004) (2005) (2009) (2010) (2011) et al. (2013) (2014)

Components
Talent X X X X
Education X X X X X X X X
Experience X X X X X X X X X X X
Knowledge X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Skills X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Attitudes X X X X X X X X
Creativity X X X X X X
Leadership X
Source: Authors
measurement

319
Human capital

scale

Human capital main

Table I.

components
 JIC Navigator Skandia
18,2
Financial focus Historic

Customer Human Process

320 focus focus focus
Today

Focus on renewal and

development Tomorrow

Figure 1. Operating environment

Skandia navigator
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

Source: Edvinsson and Malone (1998)

aspect of the model is the identification of approaches within a certain time frame. The past
of the company is defined by the financial perspective. Customers’ approaches and
processes represent the organization’s present situation. Renovation and development of
information identifies the future. Particular importance is placed on the human approach.
It constitutes the core of the “Navigator” model, which is directly related to other intellectual
capital perspectives.
Stewart model (1997) – Thomas A. Stewart was a pioneer and is a leading authority on
intellectual capital. For him it is necessary to find rigorous alternatives to follow this kind of
capital, correlated to financial results. Still according to him, there are alternatives such as
“trial and error” to evaluate the intellectual capital components (Stewart, 2010).
The author proposes a model that provides organizations with an indicator to draw up their
own proposals. Stewart identifies the intellectual capital components as human capital,
structural capital, and customer capital. Intangible measurement occurs at two levels using
indicators for each of the mentioned components, and global indicators such as Tobin’s Q and a
certain ratio between the market value and the book value. The model can be seen in Figure 2.
Western Ontario University model – This model is defined as a system of interrelated
intellectual capital blocks that determine business results. Thus, it is considered that human
capital influences, decisively, the client capital and the structural capital and that the latter
two are interdependent (Bontis, 1996). The relations can be seen in Figure 3.
Intellectus model (Bueno et al., 2011) – This model seeks to clarify the interrelations
between the organization’s intangible assets. The model presents an intellectual capital
component structure based on human capital, structural capital, and customer capital.
Each intellectual capital component has an intangible activities group that the authors
call elements. Each element has a set of variables that are measured according to indicators,
as shown in Figure 4.
In the presented measurement model analysis the authors have placed major emphasis
on the human aspects of intellectual capital. This is justified because the organization’s
competitiveness has to be determined by ideas, experiences, discoveries, and expertise that
can generate and disseminate an organization’s people (Klein, 1998).
This has led to greater people recognition and their appreciation, and often the
expression “employees are our most important assets.” But to what extent is this true?
Will all people be considered assets? According to Stewart (2010), some employees really are
invaluable assets, but others are just costs, often significantly high. In this sense, Sveiby
(1998), when analyzing professional and organizational skills, suggests a classification of
four employee categories: professional, manager, leader, and support personnel.
 Market-to-
book ratio
Human capital
Customer measurement
retention Knowledge worker
Customer
capital rate turnover rate Human scale
capital
measures
measures
Brand
equity New product sales
as % of total sales 321
Customer
satisfaction Employee
attitude

Ratio of sales
Databases at cst
to sakes, general,
replacement cost
and admin costs Working
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

capital
turns

Structural Figure 2.
capital Intellectual capital
measures navigator
Source: Stewart (1998)

Structural
capital

Human
Performance
capital

Relational
capital

Intellectual capital Performance Figure 3.

Western Ontario
university model
Source: Bontis (1996)

Professionals or experts can be considered organizational assets as well as leaders, the first
category because they generate revenue and the second because they make decisions and
direct other employees. Company managers have a traditional role limited by higher
authorities and little knowledge of organization competence. The support personnel by the
lack of higher qualifications and the low level of organizational information tend to be less
likely to achieve the knowledge organization assets status.
Organizational “assets” are people endowed with high human capital. As stated by
Ndinguri et al. (2012), from the perspective of knowledge, human capital has become a key
resource for the organization to achieve strategic competitive advantage because it is
difficult to be imitated. This statement is corroborated by Meijerink et al. (2013), proving
that higher levels of human capital result in higher levels of sustainable competitive
advantage.
Given these findings it is imperative that the leaders know who is who in the organization
(Stewart, 2010), who in fact are the most important assets, and who represent only costs.
 JIC
18,2 Intellectual capital

RC
322 SC
HC OC CT NC SC

E1 En E1 En E1 En E1 En E1 En
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

V1 Vn V1 Vn V1 Vn V1 Vn V1 Vn V1 Vn V1 Vn V1 Vn V1 Vn V1 Vn

i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in i1 in

Figure 4.
Intellectus model
Source: Bueno et al. (2011)

For this, mechanisms that can provide accurate information about the human capital level are
essential. Given the lack of tools available, this study aims at providing a composite scale of
measurable variables that can contribute to the human capital evaluation.

3. Methodological procedures
The methodological procedures for this study followed three distinct steps. Initially, the
authors sought to identify published papers on intellectual capital and human capital
offering tools for measuring the human aspects of intellectual capital. For this, the authors
conducted a systematic review of Scopus databases and Web of Science.
In these searches, the authors found many publications on intellectual capital and human
capital, specifically on human capital measurement. The authors found that works like
Edvinsson and Malone (1998), Bueno et al. (2011), Mention and Bontis (2013), and Dunham
and Burt (2014) addressed this issue, but there is still a lack of studies that have validated
instruments for human capital dimensioning.
Based on these studies, the authors developed a questionnaire grounded on existing
scales that used quantitative variables. The questionnaire construction procedure consisted
of identification of questions used in previous studies that contain scales for assessment of
human capital and organizational memory. Once the questionnaire had been developed, the
authors analyzed its consistency, by verifying whether the variables met the objectives’
initially proposed requirements. After verification, the instrument was submitted to a
pre-test to ensure comprehension by the target public, in the Brazilian context, and finally,
after adaptations and validation, it was applied.
Based on this procedure, the authors developed a questionnaire consisting of 18
variables related to human capital that were scored on the basis of a seven-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), as shown in the below list.
 Human capital measuring variables: Human capital
(1) Variables related to human capital measurement
• CH1. Our employees’ competence is at the appropriate level.
scale
• CH2. When an employee leaves the company we have a training program for a
successor.
• CH3. The business schedule is up to date; i.e. it generally fulfills all goals and 323
deadlines.
• CH4. The organization gets the most out of its employees when they cooperate
with each other in team tasks.
• CH5. The experience of the staff is a key aspect for the development of
organizational activities.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

• CH6. Our organization consistently generates new ideas.

• CH7. The organization supports employees upgrading their skills and
qualifications, if needed.
• CH8. Our company employees are considered intelligent (gifted).
• CH9. Our employees are considered widely as the best in the whole banking sector.
• CH10. Our employees are satisfied with the organization.
• CH11. Our employees constantly do their best.
• CH12. Our employees have leadership skills.
• CH13. Our organization’s employees evaluate about their actions.
• CH14. Our employees generally perform tasks with a lot of energy.
• CH15. Employees learn from each other.
• CH16. Employees are encouraged to express their opinions in group discussions.
• CH17. The organization is assured that it is getting the most from its employees.
• CH18. Our employees usually perform to the best of their ability, which makes
this organization different in the industry.
Source: adapted from Mention and Bontis (2013), Edvinsson and Malone (1998), and
Bueno et al. (2011).
The authors highlight that a scale is an instrument built with the objective of measuring
the intensity of opinions and attitudes in the most objective way possible. It has validity
when it actually measures what it proposes to measure.
Data collection was carried out at a financial institution in the state of Santa Catarina,
Brazil. The questionnaire was sent to the whole population consisting of 577 relationship
managers, and 220 were returned.
Data analysis was performed using factorial analysis and reliability factors analysis.
The basic idea of factor analysis, according to Fávero et al. (2009), is to represent a set of
original variables observed through a smaller number of intrinsic factors. To determine
the factors, the authors chose the latent root criterion, which is the most comprehensive
method used to determine the factors number (Hair et al., 2009). The latent root is a
measure of the amount of a variance factor. In this method, the particular values, also
called eigenvalues, are ordered by size, and values equal to unity (1) or larger are retained
(Fávero et al., 2009).
 JIC To examine the internal consistency of the factors, Cronbach’s α coefficient was employed
18,2 (Lattin et al., 2011). Cronbach’s α ranges from 0 to 1; the higher the average correlation between
items, the higher the α value, reflecting a high internal consistency for the index.
Factor analysis and internal consistency analysis were carried out following
pre-established criteria that included the most relevant factor loadings and high levels of
reliability factors. As a result, a questionnaire consisting of 13 variables divided into three
human capital factors emerged, as can be seen in the sequence.
324
4. Analysis and discussion
This section includes two sub-sections: the first is dedicated to the variable factor analysis
and the second to the reliability analysis.

4.1 Factor analysis

This analysis considered the minimum factor loadings of 0.40 – variable weight in the
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

factor‐which are the most important (Fávero et al., 2009). Also, to ensure greater reliability,
we also observed its Cronbach’s α index, that for this work should be higher 0.60 for each
factor. Thus, according to the parameters established in advance, the factor analysis was
represented by 13 variables. Table II shows the overall explained variance matrix that
represents the eigenvalues associated with each linear component (factor).
As per the latent root criterion laid down by Fávero et al. (2009), the first two components
or factors should be retained, because they have eigenvalues greater than 1. The original
human capital data variance explanatory power is 56.24 percent. Although, according to the
practical rule, this criterion should explain at least 60 percent of the total variance, the
authors opted for the retention of the first three factors, given that the three factors have
eigenvalues close to the unit and increase the total variance explanation to 63.32 percent.
The first three eigenvalue factors extracted reached 5.78, 1.52, and 0.92, respectively.
In importance order, factor 1 accounts for 44.48 percent of the variance, followed by factor
2 with 11.75 percent and factor 3 with 7.08 percent.
In Figure 5, it is possible to visualize the variance of the three factors chosen from the
eigenvalues on the y-axis and the factors on the x-axis. Starting from point 3, the graph
becomes more horizontal, reflecting the maximum number of factors to be taken, given the
low contribution of the others.
Table III shows the rotated matrix components from Promax method. In this matrix, it is
possible to view the factor variable loadings on the factors on which they were allocated.

Initial eigenvalues
Factors Total % of variance % accumulated

1 5.783 44.486 44.486

2 1.528 11.756 56.242
3 0.921 7.086 63.328
4 0.740 5.695 69.023
5 0.653 5.020 74.043
6 0.645 4.963 79.006
7 0.555 4.269 83.275
8 0.459 3.529 86.804
9 0.447 3.442 90.245
10 0.399 3.069 93.314
11 0.335 2.576 95.891
Table II. 12 0.280 2.153 98.043
Total explained 13 0.254 1.957 100.000
variance matrix Source: Primary Data
 6 Human capital
measurement
5 scale
4
Eigenvalues
3 325
2

0
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Number of factors Figure 5.

Factors graphic
Source: Primary Data

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

CH1 0.745
CH2 0.674
CH6 0.454
CH7 0.857
CH8 0.786
CH9 0.743
CH10 0.623
CH11 0.827
CH12 0.673
CH13 0.814
CH14 0.856
CH15 0.783
Table III.
CH17 0.891 Factor rotated
Source: Primary data charges matrix

After identifying the human capital factors amount, in this case 3, and the composition of
each factor. The next step was to “name” them from the allocated variables. As shown in
Table III, the first factor adds five variables (CH11, CH12, CH13, CH14, and CH15). These
variables are related to aspects of employee performance, leadership skills, reflection on
their actions, energy used in performing the tasks, and learning on the job. By the variables’
grouped characteristics, this factor was called “Leadership and Motivation.”
Factor 2 also includes five variables (CH1, CH2, CH7, CH8, and CH9) that refer to issues
related to the competence of employees, training replacements, support for the improvement
of skills and qualifications of employees, intelligence (talent), recognition, and appreciation
of employees. This factor was called “Qualifications.”
Factor 3 comprises three variables (CH6, CH10, and CH17) that are linked to issues
regarding the generation of new ideas (creativity), employee satisfaction with the
organization, and the organization’s view about the maximum effort of the staff. This factor
was called “satisfaction and creativity.”
 JIC 4.2 Reliability analysis
18,2 In the present study, the authors calculated Cronbach’s α indices for the three human capital
factors. From the factors that comprise the variable, the reliability level of each factor was
identified, as can be seen in Table IV.
Upon completion of the factor analysis that considered only the most representative variables
with loads from 0.40, with reliability index greater than 0.60, the remaining number of variables
326 was reduced to 13. Five variables were excluded for not meeting the pre-established criteria.
Three variables with factorial load function below 0.40 were removed: CH3 –
“The business schedule is up to date,” namely generally fulfill targets and deadlines;
CH16 – “Employees are encouraged to express their opinions in group discussions”; and
CH18 – “Our employees usually give it their all,” which makes this organization different
from others in the industry. Furthermore, due to its reliability index, Cronbach’s α less than
0.60, two other variables were excluded: CH4 – “The organization gets the most out of their
employees when they cooperate with each other in team tasks”; and CH5 – “The staff
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

experience is a key aspect for the development of organizational activities.”

Thus, the number of variables to measure human capital was reduced to 13, which were
allocated three factors.

5. Results
The study presents a scale to measure the organization’s human capital, as shown in Table V.
The scale comprises three factors formed by quantifiable variables that offer response options
on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (I totally agree).
This scale is consistent: first, because the variables were obtained from relevant work
validated in different contexts (Mention and Bontis, 2013; Edvinsson and Malone, 1998;
Bueno et al., 2011). Second, the data were collected from a representative sample of 220
research participants. Third, the authors followed the methodological rigor of factor and
reliability analysis.
Academically, this work is important because it represents an advancement in
knowledge generated in previous works. According to Hair et al. (2009), the use of scales
validated in previous studies is a normal procedure in the scientific community. The scale
employed in this study was adapted to the Brazilian context in order to validate its contents
and verify language criteria, ambiguity, and bias. The result helps to alleviate the shortage
of instruments and mechanisms available in the literature to measure the level of human
capital in organizations.
To market the new scale a practical and reliable tool is constituted for the manager to
determine the stage of the organization’s human capital. From the diagnosis obtained the
manager can make strategic investment decisions for human capital development to meet
the identified needs.

6. Conclusions
This study originated from the lack of instruments for measuring human capital in the
academic literature. The study aims to develop a scale to measure the organization’s human

Factors N. variable Cronbach’s α

01 – leadership and motivation 5 0.857

Table IV. 02 – qualifications 5 0.833
Human capital factors 03 – satisfaction and creativity 3 0.687
Cronbach’s α Source: Primary Data
 Variables related to human capital Mensuration
Human capital
measurement
Leadership and motivation scale
Our employees constantly do their best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Our employees have leadership skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Our organization’s employees evaluate their actions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Employees generally perform tasks with a lot of energy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Employees learn from each other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 327
Qualifications
Our employees’ competence is at a suitable level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When an employee leaves the company we have a training program for a successor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The organization supports employees in upgrading their skills and qualifications 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
where necessary
Our company employees are considered intelligent (gifted) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Our employees are widely considered the best in the whole banking sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

Satisfaction and creativity

Our organization consistently generates new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Our employees are satisfied with the organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table V.
The organization is assured that it is getting the most from its employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Human capital
Source: Authors measurement scale

capital in order to provide a diagnosis to support the adoption of strategic actions regarding
the investment and development of personnel. The study gap was identified from the
literature review of the databases Scopus and Web of Science. This research identified
several intellectual capital models; however, there are still very few instruments to measure
an organization’s human capital.
From the literature review, the authors developed and applied a scale grounded in a
questionnaire with quantifiable variables, which helps to fulfill the existing gap, because the
proposed scale provides a diagnosis regarding knowledge, skills and attitudes, especially
regarding leadership, creativity, willingness to cooperate, satisfaction, and performance.
From the results emerged three human capital factors: leadership and motivation,
composed of five variables; qualifications, also comprising five variables; and satisfaction
and creativity, consisting of three variables. Thus, the authors developed a scale that assists
in human capital measurement in the context of a financial institution.
From a theoretical point of view, this paper is positioned as a contribution as it provides
a more holistic scale, which helps to overcome a unilateral focus on knowledge (intangibles).
Additionally, the findings provide a complement to the previous literature on human capital
measurement and offer suggestions for future research.
From a practical view, it contributes a “tool” that can assist in the measurement of
human capital and in the knowledge contained, dimensioning the organizational memory
and the human repositories. The questionnaire itself can be a useful tool to identify
individual needs and dimension the level of organizational memory and knowledge.
Moreover, this knowledge, when shared, can contribute to human capital enrichment, to
effectiveness of knowledge management, and to expand the organizational memory.
In this study, the authors identified that there are influences of human capital such as
organizational memory and the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the individual. As these
fields of research are correlated it is very important that the organization maintain high
levels of intellectual assets to be competitive in the market. In this sense, this study suggests
new research related to the following topics: identify ways to improve people’s attitudes,
which are fundamental to the application of human capital skills and knowledge; develop
mechanisms that can strengthen the people’s knowledge sharing, elevating the human
 JIC capital; assist in revealing whether the extent of experience in terms of years of work in the
18,2 organization can be a differential for the organization; and make use of structural equation
modeling statistics to validate the theory behind the scale.
As a limitation, the authors point out that the survey data were collected from a sample
of 220 relationship managers from a specific financial institution. Therefore, the results
should be tested in other banks or organizations from other sectors to check their suitability
328 and generalization.

References
Becker, G.S. (1964), HUMAN CAPITAL a Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to
Education, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Becker, G.S. (1993), HUMAN CAPITAL a Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to
Education, 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

Bontis, N. (1996), “Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models”,
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 67-76.
Bontis, N. (1999), “Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: framing and
advancing the state of the field”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 433-462.
Bueno, E., Real, H.D., Fernandez, P., Longo, M., Merino, C., Murcia, C. and Salmador, M.P. (2011),
“Modelo intellectus: medición Y gestión del capital intelectual”, Documents Intellectus, IADE,
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid.
Chen, C.J., Shih, H.A. and Yang, S.Y. (2009), “The role of intellectual capital in knowledge transfer”,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 402-411.
Davenport, T.O. (1999), Human Capital: What it is and Why People Invest it, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Davenport, T.O. (2001), O Capital Humano: o que é e por que as pessoas investem nele, Nobel, São Paulo.
Dunham, A.H. and Burt, C.D.B. (2014), “Understanding employee knowledge: the development of an
organizational memory scale”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 126-145.
Durrani, T.S. and Forbes, S.M. (2003), “Intellectual capital and technology strategy”, IEMC’03
Proceedings, Managing Technologically Driven Organizations: ‘The Human Side of Innovation
and Change’, Albany, NY Faculty of Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Albany, NY, Faculty
of Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1998), Capital Intelectual, Makron Books, São Paulo.
Fávero, L.P., Belfiore, P., Silva, F.L. and Chan, B.L. (2009), Análise de Dados, Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro.
Ferenhof, H.A., Durst, S., Bialecki, M.Z. and Selig, P.M. (2015), “Intellectual capital dimensions: state of
the art in 2014”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 58-100.
Friedman, B., Hatch, J. and Walker, M.D. (2000), Como Atrair, Gerenciar e Reter Capital Humano: da
promessa à realidade, Futura, São Paulo.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2009), Análise multivariada de
dados, 6th ed., Bookman, Porto Alegre.
Huang, Y.C. and Wu, Y.C.J. (2010), “Intellectual capital and knowledge productivity: the Taiwan biotech
industry”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 580-599.
Klein, D.A. (1998), A gestão estratégica do capital intelectual: recursos para a economia baseada em
conhecimento, Qualitymark, Rio de Janeiro.
Lattin, J., Carroll, J.D. and Green, P.E. (2011), Análise de Dados Multivariados, Cengage Learning, São Paulo.
Massingham, P. (2008), “Measuring the impact of knowledge loss: more than ripples on a pond?”,
Management Learning, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 541-560.
Meijerink, J., Bondarouk, T. and Looise, J.K. (2013), “Value creation through HR shared services:
towards a conceptual framework”, Personnel Review, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 154-175.
 Mention, A.L. and Bontis, N. (2013), “Intellectual capital and performance within the banking sector of Human capital
Luxembourg and Belgium”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 286-309. measurement
Mincer, J. (1962), “On the job training: costs, returns and some implications”, Journal of Political scale
Economy, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 50-79.
Ndinguri, E., Prieto, L. and Machtmes, K. (2012), “Human capital development dynamics: the knowledge
based approach”, Academy of Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 121-136.
Nieves, J. and Haller, S. (2014), “Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources”, Tourism 329
Management, Vol. 40, pp. 224-232, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S02
61517713001295
O’Sullivan, K.J. and Stankosky, M. (2004), “The impact of knowledge management technology on
intellectual capital”, Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 331-346.
Oviedo-Garcia, M.A., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., Garcia Del Junco, J. and Riquelme-Miranda, A. (2014),
“Organizational learning capacity and its impact on the results in a government agency in
Chile”, International Public Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 74-110.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)

Santos-Rodrigues, H., Faria, J., Cranfield, D. and Morais, C. (2013), “Intellectual capital and innovation:
a hospital case study”, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Intellectual Capital (ECIC),
pp. 376-383.
Schultz, T.W. (1961), “Investment in human capital”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 1-17.
Schultz, T.W. (1973), O Capital Humano: investimentos em educação e pesquisa, Zahar, Rio de Janeiro.
Stewart, T.A. (1998), Capital Intelectual: a nova vantagem competitiva das empresas, Campus, Rio de Janeiro.
Stewart, T.A. (2010), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Kindle edition, New York, NY,
available at: www.Amazon.com
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A. (2005), “The influence of intellectual capital on the types of
innovative capabilities”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463.
Sveiby, K.E. (1998), A Nova Riqueza das Organizações – gerenciando e avaliando patrimônios de
conhecimento, Campus, Rio de Janeiro.
Yusoff, W.F.W., Jantan, M. and Ibrahim, D.N. (2004), “The interactive effects of human capital,
structural capital and social capital on firm performance”, Asian Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-18.

Further reading
Becker, S.G. (2012), Human Capital a Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to
Education, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Gliem, J.A. and Gliem, R.R. (2003), “Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient for Likert-type scales”, 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult,
Continuing, and Community Education, pp. 82-88.
Sampieri, R.H., Collado, C.F. and Lucio, P.B. (2010), Metodologia de la Investigación, 5th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, México City.

Corresponding author
Juarez Domingos Frasson Vidotto can be contacted at: juarezvidotto@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
 This article has been cited by:

1. Jamal Ben Mansour, Abdelhadi Naji, André Leclerc. 2017. The Relationship between Training
Satisfaction and the Readiness to Transfer Learning: The Mediating Role of Normative
Commitment. Sustainability 9:5, 834. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 12:16 10 July 2017 (PT)