Purpose -Organizational performance is increasingly grounded on knowledge-related issues. The two key academic discussions addressing knowledge in organizations are the Intellectual Capital (IC) and Knowledge Management (KM) literatures. However, there are very few earlier studies systematically combining these approaches and demonstrating how IC assets and their management mechanisms might interact in organizational value creation. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to develop and argue a theoretical model depicting the connections between intellectual capital, knowledge management practices and organizational performance outcomes.Design/methodology/approach -The paper draws on IC and KM literatures to build a theoretical model on how intellectual asset assets and their management practices interact in producing organizational performance.Several conceptual models and related discussion on the interaction of IC and KM practices are put forth.Findings -Organizational value creation is based on both static (IC assets) and dynamic (KM practices) aspects of organizational knowledge, in various combinations. In this paper, potential interaction effects between IC assets and KM practices in terms of moderation and mediation were conceptually analyzed, and four alternative models were proposed on how the knowledge-based issues affect organizational performance.Originality/value -By addressing both the "static" asset aspect of IC as well as the "dynamic" perspective of how leveraging IC assets can be enabled by systematic managerial activities, the paper combines the key issues in IC and KM literatures and demonstrates how intangible resources should be managed to produce value. The authors are not aware of any previous studies explicitly combining and distinguishing IC and KM fields to this extent. The paper therefore contributes to the literature on knowledge-based issues in organizations at large and potentially offers a theoretical grounding for many empirical and theoretical future studies.Practical implications -The paper suggests that organizational value creation is a function of both possessing valuable intangible assets as well as being able to manage these assets systematically. The four models concerning the interaction of IC assets and KM practices in value creation presented in the paper provide managers with tools to reflect about their own thinking model concerning how knowledge produces value in their own firms.

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.

Purpose – Recent empirical studies have suggested that knowledge-based issues are closely related to companies’ innovation performance. However, the majority of research seems to be focused either on static knowledge assets or knowledge processes such as knowledge creation. The purpose of this paper is to concentrate on the conscious and systematic managerial activities for dealing with knowledge in firms (i.e. knowledge management (KM) practices), which aim at innovation performance improvements through proactive management of knowledge assets. The study explores the impact that KM practices have on innovation performance. Design/methodology/approach – The authors provide empirical evidence on how various KM practices influence innovation performance. The results are based on survey data collected in Finland during fall 2013. The authors use partial least squares to test the hypothesized relationships between KM practices and innovation performance. Findings – The authors find that firms are capable of supporting innovation performance through strategic management of knowledge and competence, knowledge-based compensation practices, and information technology practices. The authors also point out that some of the studied KM practices are not directly associated with innovation performance. Originality/value – This study adds to the knowledge-based view of the firm by demonstrating the significance of the management of knowledge for innovation performance. Furthermore, the division of KM practices into ten types and the provision of the validated scales for measuring these add to the general understanding of KM as a field of theory and practice. This study is valuable also from managerial perspective, as it sheds light on the potentially most effective KM practices to improve companies’ innovation performance.

Henri Inkinen Intellectual capital, knowledge management practices and firm performance Lappeenranta 2016 100 pages

This paper explores the idea that well‐aligned HR practices may produce varied and even negative effects on innovation performance. To do so, we examine the interaction effect between rewards for and appraisal of knowledge behaviours on radical and incremental innovation outcomes. Drawing on the insights from the strategic HRM literature on the internal fit between HR practices, as well as the developments of the knowledge governance approach, we argue that rewards and appraisal applied together produce a setting that is conducive for deepening existing knowledge bases, but hindering for more distant and diverse knowledge search. Empirical test of these hypotheses using the data from 259 Finnish companies lends partial support for this argument. Intensive usage of appraisal of knowledge behaviours reduces the positive impact that rewards for such behaviours have on radical innovation. At the same time, rewards and appraisal do not intensify each other's effect on incremental innovation.

Purpose This paper aims to contribute to the emerging discussion on the contextualization of knowledge-oriented research by examining the universality of knowledge management (KM) practices. Knowledge is a firm’s most valuable resource, and KM, or the ability to leverage knowledge resources, constitutes the base for the firm’s competitive advantages. Design/methodology/approach A theorized ten-fold conceptualization of KM practices is tested on a sample of 622 firms from four countries (Finland, Spain, China and Russia). Confirmatory factor analysis and principal component analysis are used to test the applicability of the concept in various country contexts. Findings The findings provide interesting evidence of variation in the managerial assessment of KM practices among countries. This shows that KM practices are socially embedded phenomena, affected by the managers’ institutional and cultural contexts. Research limitations/implications Researchers and managers are advised to be mindful of the differences in terms of KM practices between the studied countries and to display a certain cultural sensitivity when approaching KM. Originality/value The paper is the first to examine the managerially assessed structure of KM practices in a cross-country context with multi-firm datasets. The results will help to determine the similarity of KM practices in four economically and culturally distinct countries. It also adds to the discussion about the potential national peculiarities of KM and provides a novel concept of KM practices, which is tested in a cross-national context. Thus, this study provides an outline for future KM studies and increases managerial understanding about the variety of value-creating KM practices.

Purpose Academics and practitioners around the world have shown interest in what constitutes the relevant intellectual capital (IC) in firms. However, studies have largely neglected to examine whether IC has identical or different structural elements in various parts of the world. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that country-specific institutional structures may impact the perception of IC, and empirically analyse whether differences exist between five countries drawing on the institutional theory. Design/methodology/approach This study tests for the differences in the underlying categorizations of IC in a sample consisting of 708 firms across five countries. Confirmatory factor analysis and comparison of different possible IC models are conducted to empirically examine the IC structure. Findings The results demonstrate that IC has predominantly the same underlying elements across the examined countries. However, trust capital in Finland and renewal capital in Serbia are structurally different compared to other countries. Research limitations/implications Institutional theory and multinational corporate superculture can explain the similarity in the IC structures across countries. Specifically, globalized markets carry institutionalized rules, norms, and expectations for the participating firms; under the influence of this superculture, the firms begin to assimilate. Conversely, the differences suggest that some country- and culture-specific differences remain even during the transition to global markets. Originality/value This study is among the first to question the assumption that IC has identical structural elements across the world, and merges theories of IC and institutions to explain the possible origins of these differences.

Purpose – Organizational processes that create conditions to facilitate employee innovativeness have become topical due to the constant demand for organizations to renew themselves. Research shows that human resource management (HRM) practices can been used to create such conditions, but also the important complementary role of organizational trust has been highlighted in this context. In particular, earlier studies have mostly focused on the concept of interpersonal trust. However, impersonal trust (the individual employee’s expectations about the employer organization’s capability and fairness) has recently been suggested to be an equally or even more relevant facilitator supporting the effect of HRM practices on organizational innovativeness. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The hypotheses were tested with two large-scale quantitative studies from the forestry and information and communication technology industries in Finland. Structural equation modelling (with LISREL) was used to test hypothesis. Findings – This study shows that effective HRM practices indeed facilitate organizational innovativeness, and that this effect is partially mediated by impersonal trust in the organization. This result contributes to the existing literature and practice of HRM and the management of organizational innovativeness. Research limitations/implications – Future studies could include also interpersonal trust in order to study trust-innovativeness linkage. The study also examined this phenomenon only in Finnish context and this sets some limitations to the generalizability of the results. In addition, single respondents were used to assess all the variables used in the study. Further studies could improve on this by utilizing more objective measures of organizational innovativeness. Practical implications – The results suggest that organizations should pay attention to designing HRM practices so that they facilitate the building of impersonal organizational trust. In order to improve innovativeness through organizational trust, it is crucial to develop an organization-wide HRM system, since practices that are inconsistently used can lead to unwanted or inefficient results. Strategic and managerial actions related to HRM could increase employees’ trust in the organization and subsequent conditions for providing continuously innovative solutions. Originality/value – The authors add to the literature by identifying the connection of HRM practices to contributing to behavioural, process and strategic innovativeness through the mediation of impersonal trust. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, this is one of few studies and the first systematic large sample study that examines impersonal trust and its relationship between HRM practices and different types of organizational innovativeness.