Journal of Intellectual Capital

Antecedents and consequences of intellectual capital: The role of social capital,

knowledge sharing and innovation
Sayyed Mohsen Allameh,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sayyed Mohsen Allameh, (2018) "Antecedents and consequences of intellectual capital: The
role of social capital, knowledge sharing and innovation", Journal of Intellectual Capital, https://
doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2017-0068
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2017-0068
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 10 July 2018, At: 01:37 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 110 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:289728 []
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

Intellectual
Antecedents and consequences of capital
intellectual capital
The role of social capital, knowledge sharing
and innovation
Sayyed Mohsen Allameh
Department of Management, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose and test an integrated model focusing on the drivers and
consequences of intellectual capital in the context of the hotel industry.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative study was conducted, including 156 hotels located in

Iran. Structural equation modeling examines the validity of constructs and path relationships.
Findings – The results of the PLS-SEM analysis provided three findings as follows: the three dimensions of
social capital, namely the structural, relational, and cognitive social capital, had positive effects on knowledge
sharing; knowledge sharing had positive effects on three components of intellectual capital (human capital,
structural capital and relational capital); and intellectual capital dimensions, which in turn, lead to innovation.
Originality/value – The combination of a developing country context and the significance of social capital,
knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and innovation in hotel industry enhance the contextual contribution
of the paper.
Keywords Social capital, Innovation, Hotel industry, Intellectual capital, Knowledge sharing
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Knowledge-based organizations make up a large and vital part of modern societies and gain
more considerable and effective share in the market (Abili, 2011). The knowledge-based
view suggests that knowledge is the main source of value and creating organizational value
mainly depends on the organization’s ability to collect and use knowledge (Hsu and
Sabherwal, 2012; Zhou and Li, 2012). Using knowledge, organizations can apply their own
information with aspects of human added value such as vision, entrepreneurship, concepts
and experiences (Christopoulou et al., 2014; Tuan, 2015).
The type of human interactions and communications is very important for the effective
implementation and management of knowledge processes; therefore, social capital and its
dimensions become important (Farahani et al., 2016). The importance of organizational
social capital is in that it causes people (groups, teams, and organizations) to work together
successfully to accomplish tasks. Organizational social capital builds a sense of cohesion
by creating trust and collaboration. Elements such as trust, mutual understanding,
commitment and stability create a type of communication that helps maintain organizations
in the changing markets (Cohen and Prusak, 2001).
In addition, the companies associated with the tourism industry, especially the hotel
industry, need to view innovation as an essential strategy in the current era in order to
survive the completely competitive and knowledge-based business environment (Souto,
2015; Fraj et al., 2015; Molina-Azorín et al., 2015; Camisón et al., 2016). To encounter the
environmental changes and developments, they need to identify such changes and the
factors underlying organizational innovation and provide the most appropriate answers to
the changes (Chopani et al., 2012; Carlisle et al., 2013; Sung and Choi, 2014; Guttentag, 2015;
García-Villaverde et al., 2017). Hence, due to the intense competition, the complex, dynamic Journal of Intellectual Capital
and changing environment, organizations are totally dependent on their own knowledge © Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
and information-based ability for their survival and growth (Hohenthal and Johanson, 2014; DOI 10.1108/JIC-05-2017-0068
 JIC Nieves et al., 2016; Prajogo and Oke, 2016; Vahlne and Jonsson, 2017). It is considered a
challenge for organizations to create mechanisms to identify sources of knowledge well and
store and collect the knowledge developed in their organizations and disseminates it among
people throughout the organization (Sigala and Chalkiti, 2014; Villar et al., 2014; Masadeh
et al., 2017). Therefore, the main issue is that organizations should be able to identify the
factors affecting the strengthening of intellectual capital and to measure its impact on
innovation (Zerenler et al., 2008; Dumay et al., 2013; Buenechea-Elberdin, 2017).
Meanwhile, in order to promote successful innovation, a holistic understanding of the
relationships among social capital and intellectual capital components, and consequences – is
necessary in organizations (Wu et al., 2008; Delgado-Verde et al., 2014; Chahal and Bakshi,
2015; Chitsazan et al., 2017). Much research has recognized the importance of social capital and
intelectual capital, investigating how organizational factors such as extrinsic incentives,
knowledge acquisition, organizational learning, culture, climate, and so on influence
innovation (Zhou and Li, 2012; Hu and Randel, 2014; Glisson, 2015; Hmieleski et al., 2015;
Martínez-Pérez et al., 2016; Farahani et al., 2016; Agostini et al., 2017). However, to best our
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

knowledge, researchers and practitioners in the hotel industry have not developed an
integrative model that investigates the antecedents and consequences of intellectual capital
from a holistic perspective. As a result, considering the increasing importance of knowledge
and intangible assets of organizations, we have sought to study the relationship between
social capital and innovation through knowledge sharing and intellectual capital.

2. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1 Social capital
Social capital is a concept known as a valuable asset for the protection and security of
societies and empowerment of organizations (Timberlake, 2005). Social capital plays an
important role in meeting the needs of organizations and contributes to their survival in
today’s competitive world. In other words, social capital facilitates knowledge sharing, value
creation, competitive advantage, better and faster performance, and further development of
an organization (Abili, 2011). The sum of the actual and potential resources embedded
within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an
individual or social unit (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Several models have been developed
due to the various studies conducted regarding the organizational concept of social capital
and its multi-dimensional nature (Leana and Van Buren, 1999; Bolino et al., 2002). Nahapiet
and Ghoshal identified and researched three dimensions of social capital used in this study;
namely, structural capital, relational capital, and cognitive capital). In this model, social
capital includes relationships, values and norms that enable people to act and conduct
collectively referring to the common goals and shared values, trust, empathy and social
interaction among staff. Structural capital includes social relationships and networks which
determine how to communicate with one another. The factors in this dimension include
network patterns, density, connectivity and hierarchy. Relational capital is the effective
component of capital (Chow and Chan, 2008), describing the network relationships in terms
of trust between people, shared norms and identification by other people on the network
(Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005). Finally, cognitive capital consists of the shared objectives,
vision and values of the organization’s members (Wasko and Faraj, 2005).

2.2 Knowledge sharing

In the era of knowledge-based economy, it is crucial to have intangible resources and
competence in order for companies to survive in dynamic environments (Subramaniam and
Youndt, 2005). Knowledge sharing refers to activities through which knowledge is shared or
exchanged in different forms from an individual, group or organization to another
 (McAdam et al., 2012). Knowledge sharing focuses more on the process of knowledge Intellectual
collection and. diffusion, and contributes to knowledge exchange, application and creation, capital
and. ultimately, the knowledge-based capability within the organization (Wang and Wang,
2012). Knowledge sharing can have contributions to reduction of production costs, faster
completion of development projects, improvement of decision-making and coordination in
results, the ability to innovate, an increase in sales or income from new products and
services (Huang et al., 2010; Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009; Chen et al., 2017).
Helmstadter (2003) stated that knowledge sharing occurs via voluntary interactions
between human actors (through) a framework of shared institutions, including law, ethical
norms and behavioral regularities. Fernie et al. (2003) argue that knowledge is highly
individualistic and that is embedded in particular social contexts. In fact, knowledge sharing
can simultaneously affect individual and organizational capabilities and competences
and strengthen the intellectual capital of the organization in the field of human and
organizational capital (Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2008; Wang et al., 2014; Akhavan and
Khosravian, 2016).
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

2.3 Intellectual capital

Intellectual capital is a multi-dimensional concept of the assets of knowledge, experience and
practical capabilities in order to create value (Campbell and Rahman, 2010; Dumay, 2016).
Scientists generally agree that intellectual capital contributes as a non-physical and
non-monetary resource, to creating value and extracting value for organizations through
knowledge. Knowledge is not only kept by individuals, but it is also stored by the enterprise
database, business processes, systems and relationships (Youndt et al., 2004; Zharinova,
2011). In the past, the topic of intellectual capital and its effects have been studied by many
researchers (Rehman et al., 2011; Cleary, 2015; Massaro et al., 2015; Dženopoljac et al., 2016;
Handzic et al., 2016; Jain et al., 2017).
According to the studies conducted so far, intellectual capital has three main
components: human capital, structural capital and relational capital (Herremans et al., 2011;
Mention and Bontis, 2013; Matricano, 2016; Wee and Chua, 2016; Buenechea-Elberdin, 2017).
Human capital is one of the dimensions of intellectual capital known as the largest and
most important intangible asset in the organization. Human capital refers to processes
associated with education, training and other career plans to increase the level of
knowledge, skills, abilities, values and social assets of an employee, which will result in
employee satisfaction and performance improvement and will ultimately affect the
performance of the company (Marimuthu et al., 2009). Another aspect of intellectual capital
is the structural capital which is defined as non-human knowledge reserves in an
organization which includes databases, organizational charts, process instructions,
strategies, and anything that gives the organization a value more than the tangible
assets (Bahrami et al., 2011). The third dimension of intellectual capital, the relational
capital, refers to the sum of assets that organize and manage relationships with the
environment. This investment includes the company’s relationships with customers,
shareholders, suppliers, competitors, government, public institutions and society (Hsu and
Fang, 2009; Han and Li, 2015; Chahal and Bakshi, 2015).

2.4 Innovation
Studies have provided various definitions of innovation, but what seems common to all is a
new idea, which is considered the starting point for innovation (Mahmoudi and Kiarazm,
2016). Lu and Sexton (2006) define knowledge-based innovation as the useful production
and practical implementation of a new idea, so that it can improve the overall performance
of the company through knowledge capital and human capital.
 JIC Innovation is known in the theories of economic development as the driving force of
economic growth. With the advent of the knowledge-based economy in recent years,
innovation has found a more critical role in the evolution of social and economic structures, so
that the modern economies are regarded in some studies as innovation-based economies
(Chopani et al., 2012). Organizational innovation is defined as the management practices and
procedures and innovative service processes which are used to respond to environmental
changes, particularly in the use of new technologies, and in order to meet various and new
needs and expectations, and which lead to creation of comparative advantage for a company
in competition with other companies by providing new services in different fields (Rezaei and
Moghanlo, 2015). Innovation is not a one-dimensional concept; rather, it includes a set of
different components and dimensions as a multi-factor domain (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010).
Based on a classification, the components of organizational innovation can generally be
divided into three categories: service innovation (offering new services in response to market
needs or external customers), administrative innovation (creating innovative changes in
organizational strategies and structure and administrative processes and procedures) and
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

innovation culture (making the organizational climate facilitate performing the innovative
activities and providing the necessary conditions for employees’ creativity and ideation)
(Rahimnia and Sajad, 2016).
In fact, the role and importance of innovation has been shown in previous studies as a
stimulus to promote organizational excellence, competitiveness, profitability and efficiency
(Fraj et al., 2015; Zhao and Sun, 2016; Hall and Sena, 2017; Li et al., 2017). In order to achieve
constant innovation, managers need to focus not only on products, technology and
processes, but also on the organizational culture, norms and values governing the
organization (Shahin et al., 2014; Hogan and Coote, 2014; Matinaro and Liu, 2017; Ax and
Greve, 2017).

2.5 Social capital and knowledge sharing

Resources are of great importance from the resource-based perspective. For example,
resources such as physical forms (geographical location and finance), human characteristics
(competence, innovation, skills and knowledge, and superior sales force), and organizational
features (structure and culture, business processes, cost control systems and human
resources systems) are the capital types that can be used to implement the value creation
strategies. Social capital and knowledge sharing behavior have been entered into the
research model in this study as an organizational resource and organizational capability,
respectively. Chow and Chan (2008) have emphasized the importance of social networks
(e.g. structural capital), social trust (e.g. relational capital) and common goals (i.e. cognitive
capital) to encourage knowledge sharing. People in organizational cultures tend to have a
relatively strong direct relationship with the other members. In fact, individual performance
is often dependent on corporate performance. Hence, organizations with networks of strong
ties between their people can take collective actions more easily (Akhavan and Hosseini,
2015). Networks help facilitate information exchange and collection and pave the way for
cooperation and interaction. In fact, structural social capital affects knowledge sharing via
access to people through knowledge or the relevant requirements (Van den Hooff and
Huysman, 2009). The relational dimension of social capital is among the factors that affect
the knowledge sharing and is often regarded as one of the main drivers of knowledge
sharing (Kim and Lee, 2010). The effects of relational capital can be observed in different
forms such as participation, knowledge transfer, innovation and risk reduction (Inkpen and
Tsang, 2005; Hu and Randel, 2014; Bharati et al., 2015; Hmieleski et al., 2015). The cognitive
domain refers to resources and provides the interpretations and concepts shared among
individuals. This shows how employees have a clear understanding of the goals and values
of the organization, and how much they are committed to the conditions (Abili, 2011).
 Wasko and Faraj (2005) also show that knowledge sharing requires common culture and Intellectual
goals. Based on the above, the following research hypotheses are advanced: capital
H1a. Structural social capital is positively related to knowledge sharing.
H1b. Relational social capital is positively related to knowledge sharing.
H1c. Cognitive social capital is positively related to knowledge sharing.

2.6 Knowledge sharing and intellectual capital

From a knowledge management viewpoint, knowledge sharing is the key resource to
develop intellectual capital (Hsu and Sabherwal, 2012). Intellectual capital is a strategic
investment that, if faced with problems, can remain as a competitive advantage in an
organization ( Jain et al., 2017). If knowledge sharing is integrated by different types of
specialized knowledge and facilitates the knowledge-based capabilities, it will be
unparalleled for competition and will finally lead to the strengthening of intellectual
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

capital and earning of much income (Herremans et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Akhavan and
Khosravian, 2016).
As mentioned earlier, since human capital represents the stock of knowledge of
each employee of an organization and includes the skills, expertise, problem solving
ability and leadership styles, the members can use the exchange of knowledge in order to
obtain and share special skills and experience and certain methods to do their jobs in a
better way (Bloodgood and Chilton, 2012). Thus, to the extent that knowledge sharing is
supported among employees, human capital will also be enhanced in the organization
(Hsu, 2008).
Structural capital is another aspect of intellectual capital covering a wide range of
essential elements such as the important executive processes of the organization, their
structuring and policies, information flows and the elements of databases. The planning
and better use of the management structure can be obtained through information and
knowledge sharing in participatory decision-making environments (Yoon et al., 2011).
Besides, it is a very hard and time-consuming task to establish and maintain good
relationships with internal and external stakeholders. To achieve this, the organization
needs to develop a framework and prepare the environment so that different
methods of knowledge sharing can help create a framework that shows the relational
aspects such as trust and reliability (Carmeli and Azeroual, 2009). Hence, we propose the
following hypotheses:
H2a. Knowledge sharing is positively related to relational intellectual capital.
H2b. Knowledge sharing is positively related to human intellectual capital.
H2c. Knowledge sharing is positively related to structural intellectual capital.

2.7 Intellectual capital and innovation

Intellectual capital is a set of knowledge and information in a company or organization
which helps enhance the value of products and services for the company or organization
through intelligence rather than merely through the use of financial capital. In fact,
intellectual capital represents the total intangible assets Known as knowledge assets.
On the other hand, innovation is regarded as central to creating products and services that
provide customers with the added value (Zerenler et al., 2008). Hence, the use of the
intellectual capital of the company is raised as a leverage and requirement for innovation
(Leitner, 2011; Chahal and Bakshi, 2015). In this regard, Narverkar and Jain (2006)
investigated the role of intellectual capital in the organization’s innovation process.
 JIC They found that innovation raises the growth curves of many companies and opens
new markets. This is an essential element that brings growth, wealth and success to an
innovative company. Thus, organizations can use managerial interventions, which improve
their intellectual capital, in order to create approaches that encourage innovation
(Dumay et al., 2013). Innovation requires powerful stimuli that can lead to innovative results
by putting the right people beside the right intellectual culture. Understanding the drivers of
innovation and creating an environment to promote innovation and technology are focused
on by the research and development managers (Ibrahim and Fallah, 2005; Mahmoudi and
Kiarazm, 2016).
Businesses have nowadays realized that they can gain sustainable innovation through
intellectual capital, and that their success largely depends on their ability to manage these
valuable assets (Tootifar Tehranpoor and Ziya, 2014; Buenechea-Elberdin, 2017). Specific
economic conditions of companies have caused their innovations to no longer be based on
tangible assets. What nowadays makes these companies competitive in the current
economic scene is the effective management of knowledge and continuous emphasis on
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

the key factors of knowledge assets such as intellectual capital (St-Pierre and Audet, 2011;
Zhang and Lv, 2015; Agostini et al., 2017). The features of new markets are associated with
rapid technological developments, rapid changes in social conditions and customer needs,
and reduction of the life cycle of products. Therefore, companies should consider
strategies so as to improve innovation (Zerenler et al., 2008). If an organization has poor
systems and procedures, intellectual capital will never achieve its maximum potential
abilities, while organizations with strong intellectual capital will be supported by an
entrepreneurial organizational culture which will make it possible for people to take
innovative actions (Lee et al., 2011; Costa et al., 2014). From these arguments, we propose
the following hypotheses:
H3a. Relational intellectual capital is positively related to organizational innovation.
H3b. Human intellectual capital is positively related to organizational innovation.
H3c. Structural intellectual capital is positively related to organizational innovation.
The hypothesized relationships are depicted in Figure 1.

3. Methodology
This empirical study gathers data from a sample of companies that run hotels in Iran.
To obtain the information related to the target population, the database from the latest report
in 2016, published by the Tourism and Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran, was used. In all,

SSC HIC
H1a H3a
H2a

RSC H1b KS H2c SIC H3b INN

H1c H2c H3c

CSC RIC

Notes: SCC, structural social capital; RSC, relational social capital; CSC, cognitive
Figure 1.
Research model social capital; KS, knowledge sharing; HIC, human intellectual capital; SIC, structural
intellectual capital; RIC, relational intellectual capital; INN, innovation
 156 hotels with a minimum rating of two stars, made up the total population, and the Intellectual
questionnaire was sent to all of them. capital
The hotels were asked to let the top level manager, middle or lower management levels
and frontline employees complete the questionnaire. Between October 2016 and March 2017,
the data were collected, which meant contacting the companies in the population up to five
times, both via e-mail (three times) and regular mail (twice). Finally, excluding those hotels
that decided not to cooperate with the study, and after discarding incomplete questionnaires
of the 950 questionnaires we sent out, 223 valid questionnaires were obtained. This
represents 23.4 percent coverage of the target population.
The research model includes four factors (social capital, knowledge sharing, intellectual
capital and innovation) and each factor is measured with multiple items. All items were
adopted from the extant literature to improve content validity. All items are measured on a
five-point Likert scale ranging from disagree (1) to agree (5).
The study uses a scale of twelve items adapted from Kim et al. (2012) to measure social
capital. A four items scale for knowledge sharing construct was developed from Khazaei
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

Pool et al. (2014). Further, to measure intellectual capital, a scale of twelve items adapted
from Wang et al. (2014). Finally, innovation is measured through an 8-item scale adapted
from Martínez-Pérez et al. (2016). It is also important to note that while social capital
and intellectual capital both include subcomponents called “relational capital” and
“structural capital,” they are different and the respondents of the study can separate these
concepts (see questionnaire items in Table I).
After collecting the questionnaires, the data are analyzed using Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) via SPSS18 and SmartPLS. According to Tsai et al. (2013), Cronbach’s α
and the composite reliability (CR) tests indicate that all constructs with a value above the 0.7
threshold are reliable. We examine CR and average variance extracted (AVE) to analyze
convergent validity and examine if respective CR is greater than 0.7 and AVE exceeds 0.5
(Gefen et al., 2000; Hur et al., 2011; Ho, 2015) (see Table I).
As shown in Table I, values associated to all indicators are greater than adequate rates to
satisfy α, CR and AVE.

4. Results
To estimate the conceptual model and analyze the structural path, the hypotheses have been
analyzed with SmartPLS2. After examining and verifying the model validity, regression
coefficients and “t” statistics are used to test the hypotheses. To test the significance of the
hypotheses, two indices of “t” and “P ” are used. Based on a significance level of 0.05, the “t”
test must be more than 1.96. In other words, if the significance level is below 1.96, the
relevant parameter in the model is not considered important. On the other hand, a value of
less than 0.05 for “P ” indicates that the respective hypothesis is supported at a significance
level of 0.95 (Allameh et al., 2015). Table II illustrates the results from PLS analysis and
show the statistical significance of each hypothesis under path coefficients ( β) and t-tests.
As indicated in Table II, the relationship between social capital constructs and
knowledge sharing are significant. These findings support H1a: ( β ¼ 0.221, T ¼ 3.732), H1b:
( β ¼ 0.149, T ¼ 2.415) and H1c: ( β ¼ 0.357, T ¼ 5.462).
Additionally, the effects of knowledge sharing on human intellectual capital ( β ¼ 0.467,
T ¼ 6.793), structural intellectual capital ( β ¼ 0.125, T ¼ 2.108), and relational intellectual
capital (β ¼ 0.314, T ¼ 4.364) are positive and significant. These findings indicate that H2a,
H2b, and H2c are supported.
Furthermore, the path coefficients from the intellectual capital construct to the
innovation measures are positive and significant: human intellectual capital ( β ¼ 0.504,
T ¼ 8.523), structural intellectual capital ( β ¼ 0.313, T ¼ 4.641), and relational intellectual
capital ( β ¼ 0.255, T ¼ 4.096). According to these findings, H3a, H3b and H3c are supported.
 JIC Factor
Variable Items loading CR AVE α

Structural social In my organization, I have a very good relationship with my 0.831 0.712 0.533 0.761
capital colleagues
My colleagues know what knowledge I have at my disposal 0.632
I know what knowledge could be relevant to which colleague 0.756
Within my organization, I know who has knowledge that is 0.794
relevant to me at their disposal
Relational social I feel connected to my colleagues. 0.744 0.812 0.632 0.795
capital I know my colleagues will always try and help me out if I get 0.605
into difficulties
I can trust my colleagues to lend me a hand if I need it 0.643
I can rely on my colleagues when I need support in my work 0.812
Cognitive social My colleagues and I always agree on what is important at work 0.784 0.737 0.565 0.774
capital My colleagues and I always share the same ambitions and 0.816
vision at work
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

My colleagues and I are always enthusiastic about pursing 0.871

the collective goals and missions of the whole organization
The culture and management style of our organization is 0.951
very similar to ours
Knowledge In my organization, when employees learn new thing, they 0.712 0.873 0.621 0.804
sharing share it with their colleagues
In my organization, employees gain more knowledge 0.724
through the exchange of information with each other
In my organization, knowledge sharing is a common activity 0.809
In my organization, employees share past experiences with 0.914
their colleagues
Human Employees of our company have excellent professional skills 0.752 0.715 0.512 0.711
intellectual in their particular jobs and functions.
capital The company provides well-designed training programs. 0.731
Employees are creative in our company 0.751
Employees hold suitable work experience for accomplishing 0.725
their job successfully in our company
Our organization responds to changes very quickly 0.714
Our organization emphasizes new market development 0.689
Structural Our organization’s culture and atmosphere are flexible and 0.671 0.796 0.661 0.751
intellectual comfortable
capital The overall operations procedure of our organization is very 0.733
efficient
Our organization maintains appropriate interactions with its 0.656
stakeholders
Our organization maintains long-term relationships with 0.723
customers
Relational Our organization has stable and good relationships with the 0.783 0.815 0.624 0.823
intellectual strategic partners
capital Our organization solves problems through effective 0.631
collaboration.
Innovation New products/services 0.768
New delivery process 0.714
New market and sale process 0.841
New business strategy 0.872 0.796 0.588 0.932
Table I. New production process 0.527
Results of factor New managerial techniques 0.811
analysis and New marketing techniques 0.835
reliability tests New service ideas 0.784
 Hypothesis Path Β t-value Result
Intellectual
capital
H1a SCC→KS 0.221** 3.732 Supported
H1b RSC→KS 0.149* 2.415 Supported
H1c CSC→KS 0.357** 5.462 Supported
H2a KS→HIC 0.467** 6.793 Supported
H2b KS→SIC 0.125* 2.108 Supported
H2c KS→RIC 0.314** 4.364 Supported
H3a HIC→INN 0.504** 8.523 Supported
H3b SIC→INN 0.313** 4.641 Supported
H3c RIC→INN 0.255** 4.096 Supported
Notes: SCC, structural social capital; RSC, relational social capital; CSC, cognitive social capital; KS, Table II.
knowledge sharing; HIC, human intellectual capital; SIC, structural intellectual capital; RIC, relational Results of the
intellectual capital; INN, innovation. *p o0.05; **p o0.01 structural model
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

5. Discussion
A review of the concepts, characteristics and factors affecting innovation suggests that
innovation in service organizations is an issue which has become more important among the
managers, employees, researchers and experts in keeping with the growth of technology,
the more complex customer behaviors and the enhanced organizational competition, and it
is the investigation and identification of the factors underlying innovation that will help
organizations in today’s changing era to achieve their goals.
A comparison of the research model with similar models shows that this model is a
logical model, confirming the research results that social capital affects knowledge sharing
and improves intellectual capital and innovation through knowledge sharing. These
findings are consistent with Van den Hooff and Huysman’s (2009) claim saying that social
capital affects the individual knowledge sharing behavior. Kim et al. (2012) also investigated
the impact of social capital as an enabler of knowledge sharing, coming to the conclusion
that social capital and its dimensions will improve knowledge sharing and this finding is in
line with the hypotheses of this study. Hence, we can say that social capital improves
knowledge sharing by facilitating the communication between members. This is because the
staff of hotels think that the mechanisms and arrangements of communication networks
have an important impact on knowledge sharing among the employees and can help
increase knowledge sharing among them. Moreover, the confirmation of H1a-H1c shows
that high-quality communication or trust and confidence among the employees has caused
them to exchange their information more easily and thus improve knowledge sharing.
In other words, employees are psychologically inclined to share knowledge with those
employees who trust them and a have similar mindset to achieve their goals.
Wang et al. (2014) also studied the impact of knowledge sharing on intellectual capital, its
dimensions and performance, showing that knowledge sharing helps improve the
intellectual capital and its dimensions in organizations, and that value creation through
knowledge helps create a competitive strategy for the organization and ultimately leads
to a unique competitive advantage, which is in line with our findings in this research.
The confirmation of H2a-H2c shows that explicit and implicit knowledge sharing among
the staff has caused them to make use of the skills and experiences of one another and
promote them and that knowledge sharing has also facilitated learning amongst the
members. It makes knowledge be placed accurately in organizational systems, such as
procedures and other structures and strengthen the structural dimension. In fact, knowledge
sharing makes more information available to the members and helps the employees and
managers develop and improve long-term friendly relationships with stakeholders, i.e.
owners, employees, customers, partners, etc.
 JIC Furthermore, Dost et al. (2016) concluded that intellectual capital is significantly associated
with innovation adoption, which is in line with the findings of this research. The confirmation
of H3a-H3c of this research show that the higher level of intellectual capital will lead to the
promoted innovation in the organization. In fact, it can be said that it is the effective use of
intellectual capital that is usually effective in success or failure of a set (Chopani et al., 2012).
Knowledge assets including the intellectual capital is currently very important and essential
for maintaining the atmosphere of innovation and developing the sustainable innovative
capabilities in the competitive environment.

6. Conclusions
This research investigated the antecedents of intellectual capital and its impact on
innovation intellectual capital in the hotel industry. First, we dealt with the theoretical
foundation of social capital, knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and innovation and
developed the conceptual model of the research. Then, the questionnaire’s items were
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

examined and its validity was approved. Finally, the results of data analysis confirmed the
research hypotheses. In other words, findings indicate that the social capital components
and knowledge sharing and the intellectual capital dimensions have significant role in the
organization innovation.

6.1 Implications for practitioners and researchers

Our findings in this study have important implications for practitioners and researchers in
order to make sound decisions which will help foster innovation in their services. Since the
impact of the structural dimension of social capital on knowledge sharing is clear, and
considering the high importance of knowledge sharing and human resources for hotels, it
is recommended that hotels make the staff aware of the importance of communication
networks. Systems should also create close interrelationships among the employees to
encourage them to collect and share knowledge and information. Therefore, factors such
as communication, motivations, programs and career promotion paths need to be
considered to encourage employees toward knowledge production and sharing. Since
knowledge sharing is a serious challenge for organizations, the strengthened effect of
social trust (relational capital) on knowledge sharing involves the facilitated cooperation
and collaboration among employees as well as their learning and further participation in
collective talks and negotiations.
As the results proved that knowledge sharing can increase intellectual capital and its
dimensions, the main goal of organizations related to the knowledge sharing could be
converting an employee’s experience, knowledge, skills, information, and expertise into
organizational assets, in order to raise intellectual capital. To this aim, it is very important to
select social people who have great tendency to receive and share knowledge. It is also
effective to create a reward system in order to increase the active participation of employees
in knowledge sharing as an attempt to strengthen intellectual capital.
In relation to the impact of intellectual capital on innovation, it is recommended to adopt
a systematic approach to consider the total components of intellectual capital and
innovation while considering the features of the hotel industry, since our research has
shown that organizations that have an appropriate level of intellectual capital will be more
innovative and facilitate innovation by transferring knowledge and new ideas and
increasing the employees’ ability to understand and apply them.

6.2 Limitations and future research

This study, like many other studies, faced some limitations which show the direction of
future research. First, since this study has been conducted based on a cross-sectional
 research approach, we cannot say definitely whether or not the level of knowledge sharing Intellectual
and intellectual capital in the hotel industry can in the long run remain sustainable as a capital
result of the role of social capital in the innovation of business. However, future studies can
investigate the long-term effects of the relationships assumed in this research.
This research focused on knowledge sharing and intellectual capital as the intermediary
variables between social capital and innovation. However, in other cases, the learning
organization, internal marketing and market dynamism could be included in the conceptual
model. Future research can explore the role of these concepts in the relationship between
social capital and innovation.
Our research framework could include the dimensions of innovation as well and pay
special attention to the different modes of intellectual capital: internal and external, and
exploration and exploitation. Our study takes into account neither the knowledge sharing
variables such as explicit and tacit nor the innovation processes with different learning
skills that are required for each type of market. Future research could consider these
variables too.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

The moderating role of firm size was not dealt within this study. An additional venue for
future research involves the study of firm size effects. One approach may involve a focus on
the study of social capital, knowledge sharing among hotels that vary in size and intellectual
capital with variety of intermediate or ultimate innovation outcomes.
Finally, the results of this study, conducted in Iranian hotels, may represent a particular
culture. Therefore, its cultural influences should be taken into consideration. Values, beliefs
and norms exist not only in organizational cultures, but also at the national or social level.
This is why it seems somewhat difficult to generalize the previous findings including the
results obtained from the studies conducted in a particular country. It is thus necessary to
evaluate the effects of national culture on social capital and intellectual capital studies, as
well as its consequences such as innovation. Therefore, for further validation of the research
results, this model can be used in different countries or in east and west-specific cultures.

References
Abili, K. (2011), “Social capital management in Iranian knowledge-based organizations’ the electronic”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 203-210.
Agostini, L., Nosella, A. and Filippini, R. (2017), “Does intellectual capital allow improving innovation
performance? A quantitative analysis in the SME context”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 400-418.
Akhavan, P. and Hosseini, S. (2015), “Social capital, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: an
empirical study of R&D teams in Iran”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 96-113.
Akhavan, P. and Khosravian, F. (2016), “Case study of a structural model to explore the effects of
knowledge sharing on intellectual capital”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management Systems, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 338-352.
Allameh, S.M., Khazaei Pool, J., Verij Kazemi, R. and Mostafavi, M. (2015), “The impact of emotional
intelligence on transformational leadership and leader effectiveness”, Latin American J.
Management for Sustainable Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 83-93.
Ax, C. and Greve, J. (2017), “Adoption of management accounting innovations: organizational culture
compatibility and perceived outcomes”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 59-74.
Bahrami, S., Rajaeepour, S., Aghahosseni, T., Bakhtiar Nasrabadi, H.A. and Yarmohamadian, M.H.
(2011), “Analysis of multiple relationships of intellectual capital and organizational innovation in
higher education”, Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 27-50.
 JIC Bharati, P., Zhang, W. and Chaudhury, A. (2015), “Better knowledge with social media? Exploring the
roles of social capital and organizational knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 456-475.
Bloodgood, J.M. and Chilton, M.A. (2012), “Performance implications of matching adaption and
innovation cognitive style with explicit and tacit knowledge resources”, Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 106-117.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2002), “Citizenship behavior and creation of social
capital in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 505-522.
Buenechea-Elberdin, M. (2017), “Structured literature review about intellectual capital and innovation”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 262-285.
Cabrera, E.F. and Cabrera, A. (2005), “Fostering knowledge sharing through people management
practices”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 720-735.
Camisón, C.C.A., Puig-Denia, A., Forés, B., Fabra, M.E., Muñoz, A. and Martínez, C.M. (2016), “The
importance of internal resources and capabilities and destination resources to explain firm
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

competitive position in the Spanish tourism industry”, International Journal of Tourism

Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 341-356.
Campbell, D. and Rahman, M.R.A. (2010), “A longitudinal examination of intellectual capital reporting
in Marks & Spencer annual reports, 1978–2008”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 56-70.
Carlisle, S., Kunc, M., Jones, E. and Tiffin, S. (2013), “Supporting innovation for tourism development
through multi-stakeholder approaches: experiences from Africa”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 35, pp. 59-69.
Carmeli, A. and Azeroual, B. (2009), “How relational capital and knowledge combination capability
enhance the performance of work units in a high technology industry”, Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 85-103.
Chahal, H. and Bakshi, P. (2015), “Examining intellectual capital and competitive advantage
relationship: role of innovation and organizational learning”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 376-399.
Chen, X., Zhou, Y., Probert, D. and Su, J. (2017), “Managing knowledge sharing in distributed
innovation from the perspective of developers: empirical study of open source software projects
in China”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Chitsazan, H., Bagheri, A. and Yusefi, A. (2017), “Intellectual, psychological, and social capital and
business innovation: the moderating effect of organizational culture”, Iranian Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 307-333.
Chopani, H., Zare, M., Ghasemi, A. and Gholamzadeh, H. (2012), “An investigation into the relationship
between intellectual capital and organizational innovation (case: Toseeh insurance company)”,
Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 27-58.
Chow, W.S. and Chan, L.S. (2008), “Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational
knowledge sharing”, Information & Management, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 458-465.
Christopoulou, A., Skourlas, C. and Belsis, P. (2014), “Sharing knowledge and integrated information in
therapeutic radiological physics”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 147 No. 1,
pp. 313-320.
Cleary, P. (2015), “An empirical investigation of the impact of management accounting on
structural capital and business performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 566-586.
Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001), In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work,
Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Costa, R.V., Fernández, C.F.J. and Dorrego, P.F. (2014), “Critical elements for product innovation at
Portuguese innovative SMEs: an intellectual capital perspective”, Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 322-338.
 Crossan, M. and Apaydin, M. (2010), “A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a Intellectual
systematic review of the literature”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1154-1191. capital
Delgado-Verde, M., Amores-Salvadó, J., Castro, G.M.-D. and Navas-López, J.E. (2014), “Green
intellectual capital and environmental product innovation: the mediating role of green social
capital”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 261-275.
Dost, M., Badir, Y.F., Ali, Z. and Tariq, A. (2016), “The impact of intellectual capital on innovation
generation and adoption”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 675-695.
Dumay, J. (2016), “A critical reflection on the future of intellectual capital: from reporting to disclosure”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 168-184.
Dumay, J., Rooney, J. and Marini, L. (2013), “An intellectual capital-based differentiation theory of
innovation practice”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 608-633.
Dženopoljac, V., Janoševic, S. and Bontis, N. (2016), “Intellectual capital and financial performance in
the Serbian ICT industry”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 373-396.
Farahani, S., Abdarzadeh, P. and Fatot, B. (2016), “The effect of intellectual capital on organizational
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

innovation mediated by knowledge management and organizational learning in print media”,

Human resource management researches, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 23-48.
Fernie, S., Green, S.D., Weller, S.J. and Newcombe, R. (2003), “Knowledge sharing: context, confusion
and controversy”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 177-187.
Fraj, E., Matute, J. and Melero, I. (2015), “Environmental strategies and organizational competitiveness
in the hotel industry: the role of learning and innovation as determinants of environmental
success”, Tourism Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
García-Villaverde, P.M., Elche, D., Martínez-Pérez, Á. and Ruiz-Ortega, M.J. (2017), “Determinants of
radical innovation in clustered firms of the hospitality and tourism industry”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 61, pp. 45-58.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudreau, M.C. (2000), “Structural equation modeling and regression:
guidelines for research practice”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 1-78.
Glisson, C. (2015), “The role of organizational culture and climate in innovation and effectiveness”,
Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 245-250.
Guttentag, D. (2015), “Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism
accommodation sector”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 1192-1217.
Hall, B.H. and Sena, V. (2017), “Appropriability mechanisms, innovation, and productivity: evidence
from the UK”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 42-62.
Han, Y. and Li, D. (2015), “Effects of intellectual capital on innovative performance: the role of
knowledge-based dynamic capability”, Management Decision, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 40-56.
Handzic, M., Durmic, N., Kraljic, A. and Kraljic, T. (2016), “An empirical investigation of the
relationship between intellectual capital and project success”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 471-483.
Helmstadter, E. (2003), “The institutional economics of knowledge sharing: basic issues”, in
Helmstadter, E. (Ed.) The Economics of Knowledge Sharing: A New Institutional Approach,
Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, pp. 11-38.
Herremans, I.M., Isaac, R.G., Kline, T.J.B. and Nazari, J.A. (2011), “Intellectual capital and uncertainty of
knowledge: control by design of the management system”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98
No. 4, pp. 627-640.
Hmieleski, K.M., Carr, J.C. and Baron, R.A. (2015), “Integrating discovery and creation perspectives of
entrepreneurial action: the relative roles of founding CEO human capital, social capital, and
psychological capital in contexts of risk versus uncertainty”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 289-312.
 JIC Ho, C.W. (2015), “Identify with community or company? An investigation on the consumer behavior in
Facebook brand community”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 930-939.
Hogan, S.J. and Coote, L.V. (2014), “Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: a test of
Schein’s model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 1609-1621.
Hohenthal, J. and Johanson, M. (2014), “Network knowledge and business-relationship value in the foreign
market”, Knowledge, Networks and Power, International Business Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 4-19.
Hsu, I.C. (2008), “Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating for improving organizational
performance through human capital: a preliminary test”, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1316-1326.
Hsu, I.C. and Sabherwal, R. (2012), “Relationship between intellectual capital and knowledge
management: an empirical investigation”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 489-524.
Hsu, Y.H. and Fang, W. (2009), “Intellectual capital and new product development performance: the
mediating role of organizational learning capability”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 664-677.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

Hu, L. and Randel, A.E. (2014), “Knowledge sharing in teams: social capital, extrinsic incentives, and
team innovation”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 213-243.
Huang, T.T., Chen, L. and Stewart, R.A. (2010), “The moderating effect of knowledge sharing on the
relationship between manufacturing activities and business performance”, Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 285-306.
Hur, W.M., Ahn, K.H. and Kim, M. (2011), “Building brand loyalty through managing brand
community commitment”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 1194-1213.
Ibrahim, S. and Fallah, M.H. (2005), “Drivers of innovation and influence of technological clusters”,
Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 33-45.
Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W. (2005), “Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer”, Academy of
management review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 146-165.
Jain, P., Vyas, V. and Roy, A. (2017), “Exploring the mediating role of intellectual capital and
competitive advantage on the relation between CSR and financial performance in SMEs”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Khazaei Pool, J., Asadi, A., Forte, P. and Ansari, M.R. (2014), “The effect of organisational culture on
attitude and intention toward knowledge sharing: a study of Iranian SMEs”, International
Journal of Management and Decision Making, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 286-301.
Kim, T. and Lee, G. (2010), “Examining social capital and knowledge sharing as antecedents of service
innovativeness and business performance in the hotel industry: an application of the resource-
based view (RBV ) theory”, Journal of Tourism Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 13-36.
Kim, T., Lee, G., Paek, S. and Lee, S. (2012), “Social capital, knowledge sharing and organizational
performance: what structural relationship do they have in hotels?”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 683-704.
Leana, C.R. and Van Buren, H.J. (1999), “Organizational social capital and employment practices”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 538-555.
Lee, J.Y., Swink, M. and Pandejpong, T. (2011), “The roles of worker expertise, information sharing
quality, and psychological safety in manufacturing process innovation: an intellectual capital
perspective”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 556-570.
Leitner, K. (2011), “The effect of intellectual capital on product innovativeness in SMEs”, International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Li, D., Zheng, M., Cao, C., Chen, X., Ren, S. and Huang, M. (2017), “The impact of legitimacy pressure
and corporate profitability on green innovation: evidence from China top 100”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 41-49.
Lu, S.L. and Sexton, M. (2006), “Innovation in small construction knowledge intensive professional
service firms: a case study of an architectural practice”, Study of an Architectural Practice and
Economics, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 1269-1282.
 McAdam, R., Moffett, S. and Peng, J. (2012), “Knowledge sharing in Chinese service organizations: a Intellectual
multi case cultural perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 129-147. capital
Magnier-Watanabe, R. and Senoo, D. (2008), “Organizational characteristics as prescriptive factors
of knowledge management initiatives”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 21-36.
Mahmoudi, S. and Kiarazm, A. (2016), “The study of relationship between the components of
intellectual capital and organizational innovation drivers”, Transformation Managemet Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 57-74.
Marimuthu, M., Arokiasamy, L. and Ismail, M. (2009), “Human capital development and its impact on
firm performance: evidence from developmental economics”, The Journal of International Social
Research, Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 265-272.
Martínez-Pérez, A., García-Villaverde, P. and Elche, D. (2016), “The mediating effect of ambidextrous
knowledge strategy between social capital and innovation of cultural tourism clusters firms”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1484-1507.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

Masadeh, R.E.E., Shannak, R., Maqableh, M. and Tarhini, A. (2017), “The impact of knowledge
management on job performance in higher education”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 244-262.
Massaro, M., Dumay, J. and Bagnoli, C. (2015), “Where there is a will there is a way: IC, strategic intent,
diversification and firm performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 490-517.
Matinaro, V. and Liu, Y. (2017), “Towards increased innovativeness and sustainability through
organizational culture: a case study of a Finnish construction business”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 142 No. 1, pp. 3184-3193.
Matricano, D. (2016), “The impact of intellectual capital on start-up expectations”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 654-674.
Mention, A. and Bontis, N. (2013), “Intellectual capital and performance within the banking sector of
Luxembourg and Belgium”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 286-309.
Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and DeChurch, L.A. (2009), “Information sharing and team performance:
a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 535-546.
Molina-Azorín, J.F., Tarí, J.J., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M.D. and Pertusa-Ortega, E.M. (2015),
“The effects of quality and environmental management on competitive advantage: a mixed
methods study in the hotel industry”, Tourism Management, Vol. 50 No. C, pp. 41-54.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital and organizational advantage”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Narverkar, R.S. and Jain, K. (2006), “A new framework to understand the technological innovation
process”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 174-186.
Nieves, J., Quintana, A. and Osorio, J. (2016), “Organizational knowledge, dynamic capabilities and
innovation in the hotel industry”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 158-171.
Prajogo, D.I. and Oke, A. (2016), “Human capital, service innovation advantage, and business
performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 9,
pp. 974-994.
Rahimnia, F. and Sajad, A. (2016), “The impact of Strategic orientations on the performance of
Khorasan science and technology park’s companies with mediating role of organizational
Innovation”, Innovation Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 87-114.
Rehman, W.U., Rehman, C.A. and Sahid, A. (2011), “Intellectual capital performance and its impact on
corporate performance: an empirical evidence from modaraba sector of Pakistan”, Australian
Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 08-16.
Rezaei, R. and Moghanlo, F. (2015), “The effect of intellectual capital on organizational innovation in the
agricultural services ventures of Zanjan province”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Development,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 653-673.
 JIC Shahin, A., Khazaei Pool, J. and Amani, M. (2014), “The effect of organisational factors of knowledge
management on corporate entrepreneurship: an empirical investigation on Iranian sport
organisations”, Middle East Journal of Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 330-341.
Sigala, M. and Chalkiti, K. (2014), “Investigating the exploitation of web 2.0 for knowledge management
in the Greek tourism industry: an utilisation–importance analysis”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 800-812.
Souto, J.E. (2015), “Business model innovation and business concept innovation as the context of
incremental innovation and radical innovation”, Tourism Management, Vol. 51, pp. 142-155.
St‐Pierre, J. and Audet, J. (2011), “Intangible assets and performance: analysis on manufacturing
SMEs”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 202-223.
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M. (2005), “The innovation of intellectual capital on the types of
innovative capabilities”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463.
Sung, S.Y. and Choi, J.N. (2014), “Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of training and
development investments on learning and innovation in organizations”, Journal of
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 393-412.

Timberlake, S. (2005), “Social capital and gender in workplace”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 34-44.
Tootifar Tehranpoor, M. and Ziya, B. (2014), “The effect of intellectual capital to small Sport businesses
innovative in Tehran”, Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 254-269.
Tsai, M.C., Lai, K.H. and Hsu, W.C. (2013), “A study of the institutional forces influencing the adoption
intention of RFID by suppliers”, Information & Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 59-65.
Tuan, L. (2015), “From corporate social responsibility, through entrepreneurial orientation, to
knowledge sharing”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 74-92.
Vahlne, J.-E. and Jonsson, A. (2017), “Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the
multinational business enterprise (MBE): case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA”, International
Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 57-70.
Van den Hooff, B. and Huysman, M. (2009), “Managing knowledge sharing: emergent and engineering
approaches”, Information & Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Villar, C., Alegre, J. and Pla-Barber, J. (2014), “Exploring the role of knowledge management
practices on exports: a dynamic capabilities view”, International Business Review, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 38-44.
Wang, Z., Wang, N. and Liang, H. (2014), “Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm
performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 230-258.
Wang, Z.N. and Wang, N.X. (2012), “Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 8899-8908.
Wang, Z., Wang, N. and Liang, H. (2014), “Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm
performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 230-258.
Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practices”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Wee, J.C. and Chua, A.Y. (2016), “The communication of intellectual capital: the ‘whys’ and ‘whats’ ”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 414-438.
Wu, W.-Y., Chang, M.-L. and Chen, C.W. (2008), “Promoting innovation through the accumulation of
intellectual capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial orientation”, R&D Management, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 265-277.
Yoon, S.W., Matsui, M., Yamada, T. and Nof, S.Y. (2011), “Analysis of effectiveness and benefits of
collaboration modes with information- and knowledge-sharing”, Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 101-112.
Youndt, M.A., Subramaniam, M. and Snell, S.A. (2004), “Intellectual capital profiles: an examination of
investments and returns”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 335-361.
 Zerenler, M., Hasiloglu, S.B. and Mete, S. (2008), “Intellectual capital and innovation performance: Intellectual
empirical evidence in the Turkish automotive supplier”, Journal of Technology Management and capital
Innovation, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 31-40.
Zhang, H.Y. and Lv, S. (2015), “Intellectual capital and technological innovation: the mediating role of
supply chain learning”, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 199-210.
Zhao, X. and Sun, B. (2016), “The influence of Chinese environmental regulation on corporation
innovation and competitiveness”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 1528-1536.
Zharinova, A.G. (2011), “Concept of intellectual capital commercialization management”, Actual
Problems of Economics, Vol. 121 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Zhou, K.Z. and Li, C.B. (2012), “How knowledge affects radical innovation: knowledge base, market
knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33
No. 9, pp. 1090-1102.

Further reading
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms”,
Downloaded by University of Reading At 01:37 10 July 2018 (PT)

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-169.

Corresponding author
Sayyed Mohsen Allameh can be contacted at: sm.allameh@ase.ui.ac.ir

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