# Introduction oing over organizations of different sizes, industries as well as countries with a clear-sighted view brings to light that the efficient and effective exploitation of tangible assets only is far from enough the endeavor capital needed to effectuate fine organizational performance. Variegated drivers were recommended in a vast bundle of organizational literature to ameliorate OP. However, many organizations are still shunning instead of running after those recommendations. Similar standpoints found in the literature signified the importance of both physical and intellectual assets for organizations to enhance OP (Wanjala, 2013). Even though the historical regard of the economic assets as a foremost measure of OP, new trends were emerged and justified using the intellectual assets as a complementary indicator of OP (Hudgins, 2014). Instances of these trends embody the remarkable gap between book value and market value of the organization (Chen et al., 2005 andCurado et al., 2014) in favor of market value (Smriti and Das, 2017), which signifiesthat the added value is devolved upon latent assets or, in other words, intangible or intellectual assets. Such intellectuals are more difficult to imitate than tangibles (Ghatak, 2013), on top of the nature of these intangibles as rare (Pucci et al., 2015) and hard to substitute assets (Amin et al., 2014). Hence, one vein of the literature called organizations upon to pay more attention to intellectual capital as a well-established mean used to induce better levels of OP (Wang and Chang, 2005 Gogan et al., 2016 andKoc, 2017). More than one view of ICwere detected in the literature. One general view took it as invaluable knowledge generating value to the organization (Hashim et al., 2015). A more specific view rated IC as a multi-dimensional concept made up of accumulated capitals pertaining human, structural and relational assets that furnish the organization with essential competencies required to make its objectives real (Awan andSaeed, 2015 andChein, 2013). A third view of the concept considered a combined perspective embraced the aforesaid views. It defined IC as a collection of knowledge sources that exist in the organization's people, structure and customers and can be processed into value (Wu and Sivalogathasan, 2013;Noordin andMohtar, 2013 andJoshi et al., 2013). It was acknowledged that IC covers abundant components related to these three bins of IC. Examples of these components are similar to organizational knowledge, culture, and innovation (Janosevic et al., 2013a), organizational technology, capabilities, and relationships (Badrabadi and Akbarpour, 2013), organizational # Year ( ) A strategies and organizational structure (Janosevic et al., 2013b). Despite the absence of consensus on one clearcut definition of IC (Ozkan et al., 2016 andKoc, 2017), the concept was operationalized with a common voice as a structure encompasses three principals: human capital, structural capital, and relational or customer capital (Stewart, 1997 (Chen et al., 2004) and process capital (Lin, 2015). One study (Wang and Chang, 2005) divided structural capital into innovation and process capital. IC has been figured up as a main source of the competitive advantage of organizations (Smriti and Das, 2017;Saeed et al., 2013;Ogbo et al., 2013and Seleim et al., 2007) and sustainable organizational performance (Mondal and Ghosh, 2012). A well contribution of IC to OP in particular was cited in sundry empirical studies carried out in different industries and countries similar to information technology industry in Taiwan (Wang and Chang, 2005); software companies in Egypt (Seleim et al., 2007), pharmaceutical companies in USA (Bramhandkar et al., 2007) (Nuryaman, 2015); drinking water distribution companies in Romania (Gogan et al., 2016) and tourism and automobile industry in Turkey (Koc, 2017). In agreement with the above-listed research, the main aim of the present study is to explore the influence of IC on OP. However, the contribution of this study followed clearly from IC and OP operationalization, the sample and the model of the study, as well as the setting where the study took place. The study is structured as follows. The following section contains a review of the related literature, from which study hypotheses were drawn. The same section presents examples of definitions of the study variables and dimensions of IC and sub-dimensions of human capital, structural capital, and relational capital. The third section shows the methodology used in the study. It comprises sample of the study, measures used to assess the study variables, as well as data collection. Section four demonstrates data analysis and results. Section five sets forth discussion of the results and implications concluded. Finally, section six sets down limitations and future research directions provided by the study. Nuryaman (2015) defined IC as a main component of the organization market value since which composed of the economic capital plus the intellectual capital of the organization. According to the author, IC represents a difference between book value and replacement assets of an organization. # II Pursuant to these definitions, IC was defined in this study as an integral part of the market value of an organization along with its economic capital, embodies all intangibles related to the organization itself such as management, procedures, trademarks, image, reputation, patents, culture, strategies, to the people of the organization such as knowledge, skills, experience, education, creativity, innovation, commitment, and engagement, and to the organizational relationship, either within the organization or with external stakeholders like customers and suppliers. # Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XVII Issue V Version I Year ( ) A key component of an organization's value. Zéghal and Maaloul (2010) The entire accessible knowledge used by an organization to create value. A # Wu et al. (2012) A set of organization-related abilities integrated with three types of capitals; human, structural and relational capital Nuryaman (2015) A major component of an organization's market value b) Dimensions of intellectual capital IC, in general, has been conceptualized in the literature as a construct comprised three main dimensions: human capital, structural (organizational)capital, and relational (customer or social) capital. Problem-solving and value creation procedures. Nuryaman (2015) Hardware and software infrastructure, products and services innovations. # Koc (2017) Management philosophy, organizational culture, information and network systems, patents and copyrights, and trade secrets. iii. Sub-dimensions of RC Relational capital (RC), social or customer capital as called in some studies, incorporates all organizational relationships, either internal relationships between the management and employees or among employees themselves, or external relationships with stakeholders such as customers, suppliers (Nuryaman, 2015), research and development institutions as well as government (Mumtaz and Abbas, 2014). Moreover, RC includes all relationship-based outcomes like customer satisfaction (Khalique et al., 2011a), customer loyalty, organizational agreements (Koc, 2017), distribution channels, number of key customers (Wang and Chang, 2005). Mumtaz and Abbas (2014) attached other parts such as knowledge related to promotions and advertising practices (Table 5). # c) Definition of organizational performance The literature of OP is loaded with definitions with this construct. Definitions of OP reported by Awan and Saeed (2015) indicated that OP represents the result of employees' task-oriented activities. In their definition of OP, Badrabadi and Akbarpour (2013) described OP as a result of the organizational processes execution and organizational goals achievement that embodies all success-related concepts. Lee at al. (2015) defined OP as an indication of the organization's competency to achieve its strategic goals and compete. # d) Dimensions of organizational performance Dimensions of OP in the literature can be divided into: financial and non-financial measures. Kaplan and Norton (1996) The main focus of the present study is the influence of IC dimensions on OP. Lin (2015) used market value to measure OP. In a study conducted by Pucci et al. (2015) to explore the relationship between IC and OP, OP was measured using return on investment, return on assets, return on sales, capital turnover, and return on equity. In a study of Egyptian firms (Seleim et al., 2007), OP was evaluated by export density of software companies. # e) Human capital and OP Cabrita and Bontis (2008) used a sample consisted of 253 participants selected from 53 banks in order to collect the required data to examine interactions among IC dimensions and OP. The results found significant interactions between the dimensions of IC, human capital, structural capital, and relational capital. In a word, the study concluded that IC together significantly impact OP. Particularly, human capital directly and indirectly affects OP. The same result was echoed in many prior studies ( 2015) concluded a non-significant impact of structural capital on OP. Based on these results, the study hypothesized that: H2: structural capital has a significant impact on organizational performance. # g) Relational capital and OP It was revealed by many studies that relational capital has a significant impact on OP (Wang and Chang, 2005).The results of Yang and Lin (2009) showed that relational capital mediates the relationship between human resource practices and OP. That is, relational capital has an association with OP. Chen et al. (2014) studied the relationship between IC and new product development. Specifically, they estimated the effects of human capital and organizational capital on customer capital which in turn affect the performance in terms of new product development. Their results showed that customer (relational) capital mediates the relationship between human capital and organizational capital and new product performance. In fact, many studies confirmed the positive impact of relational capital on OP (Ghatak, 2013 andAwan andSaeed, 2015). Based on these results, the study suggested that: H3: capital has a significant impact on organizational performance. # III. # Methodology a) Study tool, sample and data collection A questionnaire was developed based on the literature. IC dimensions were measured adopting items from previous studies (Wang and Chang, 2005 Elfar et al., 2017). It included 20 items, each of the variables (HC, SC, RC, and OP) was measured using 5 items. Items of HC covered employees' knowledge, skills, experiences, education, motivation, commitment, creativity and innovation. SC items referred to organizational efficiency and effectiveness, procedures, culture, product or service-oriented innovation, and intangibles such as patents, image and trade secrets. On the other hand, RC items included organizational relationships with stakeholders, agreements, customer contribution and satisfaction. Finally, OP was measured using indicators concerned customer, employee development, individual and job fit, and knowledge performance. All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A total of 500 employees were randomly selected from public hospitals operating in the northern region of Jordan. Exactly, 473 questionnaires were returned and used for statistical analysis. # b) Reliability and validity Reliability of the study tool was measured using Cronbach's alpha (?). The results of reliability illustrated in Table 6 showed that the alpha values of HC, SC, RC, and OP were above 0.7 (Hashim et al., 2015) to confirm the reliability of the questionnaire used in this study. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was used to evaluate the validity. The results of AVE confirmed that the items of each variable were correlates to the theoretical foundation of that variable. AVE values considered acceptable if these value is greater than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2011). # Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XVII Issue V Version I # Year ( ) c) Model of the study and statistical methods used The model of the study is shown in Figure 1. It includes three main independent variables; human capital, structural capital, and relational capital. # Data Analysis and Results # a) Correlation matrix The results shown in Table 7showed significant correlations among independent variables (HC, SC, and RC) and dependent variable (OP). HC is significantly correlates to SC and RC (r = 0.579, 0.668. Sig. = 0.001, respectively) and to OP (r = 0.496, Sig. = 0.000). SC is significantly related to both RC (r = 0.643, Sig. = 0.002) and OP (r = 0.428, Sig. = 0.000). Moreover, RC is significantly associated with OP (r = 0.399, Sig. = 0.001). # b) Regression prior assumption: Multicollinearity Collinearity statistics, i.e., tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) were calculated to check the assumption of multicollinearity. The results (Table 8) indicated that HC, SC, and RC have tolerance values greater than 0.1 and VIF value less than 10, which means that multicollinearity was not overreached (Hashim et al., 2015). # c) Multiple regression analysis The results of the study, as shown in Table 9, indicated that all predictors of intellectual capital explained 76.1% of the variance in OP as expressed by R square (R 2 = 0.761). Human capital has a significant impact on OP (Std. beta = 0.274, t = 11.314, Sig. value = 0.000) that is, hypothesis H1 was accepted. Furthermore, structural capital has a significant impact on OP (Std. beta = 0.287, t = 9.112, Sig. value = 0.000). this result means that H2 was supported. Finally, the results pointed out a significant impact of relational capital on OP (Std. beta = 0.239, t = 7.845, Sig. value = 0.000). The results showed that structural capital has the largest beta value (0.287), followed by human capital (0.274), in comparison with relational capital (0.239). The results shown in Table 9 is also depicted in Figure 2. # Discussion Exploring the extent to which each of IC dimensions significantly has an impact of organizational performance was the main purpose of this study. Expressly, this study sought to determine the impact of human capital, structural capital, and relational capital on organizational performance. The results obtained by the study confirmed that these three dimensions have significant influences on organizational performance. The significant impact of human capital on organizational performance was supported by the current data. Similar result was found by many prior studies. Yang and Lin (2009) found that human capital mediates the relationship between human resource management practices and organizational performance. According to Bontis and Fitzenz (2002), human capital plays a critical role in the enhancement of organizations' profitability. Nuryaman (2015) indicated that human capital components such as individuals' capabilities and commitment enhance the organizational efficiency and productivity, which in turn affects the organization's ability to generate profit. The results of this study in relation to the impact of structural capital on OP were in line with results of numerous previous studies. The components of structural capital like organizational strategies, structure, and culture help the organization to achieve its organizational objectives (Nuryaman, 2015). In agreement with numerous studies, the results confirmed that relational capital significantly predicted organizational performance (Yang andLin, 2009 andWu et al., 2012). Inconsistent with Hashim et al. (2015), the present study found a significant influence of human capital and structural capital on organizational performance. In general, many positive outcomes of intellectual capital found in the literature in correlation to OP Sivalogathasan, 2013 andWanjala, 2013). Smriti and Das (2017) concluded that IC is a predictor of organization's profitability not organization's productivity or market value. # VI. Conclusion, Recommendations and Limitations The results showed that intellectual capital dimensions, human capital, structural capital, and relational capital play a significant role in improving hospitals performance. That is, the intellectual capital is no less important than the economic capital. Based on these results, the study give advice to organizations in general, specially hospitals to pay more attention to their intellectual capital using their human resource practices like training and development programs, staffing, and motivation with a focus on people knowledge, skills, experiences, innovation, creativity, and job evaluation, individual and job fit, problem-solving, organizational structure, supporting infrastructure, and long-term effective relationships with customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. However, the results of this study were drawn based on crosssectional data. Future research should conduct a longitudinal study to explore the influence of IC on OP in a given period of time. Additionally, the results were revealed base on a sample consisted of participants selected from hospitals. It is recommended to study the impact of IC as a whole construct, or its dimensions on OP using samples from different sectors. 1![Figure 1: The conceptual model of the study H1 concerned the relationship between human capital and organizational performance, H2 related to the relationship between structural capital and organizational performance, while H3 pertained the relationship between relational capital and organizational performance. IBM SPSS package-V23 was used to test the hypotheses; multiple regression analysis conducted to estimate the standardized coefficients. Correlations among independent variables and the dependent variable were identified by Pearson Coefficients.](image-2.png "Figure 1 :") 2![Figure 2: The final model of the study](image-3.png "Figure 2 :") a) Definition of intellectual capitalIC has been defined from different perspectives ascan be seen in Table 1. In 2008, The Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definedIC as an economic value proceeded from two types ofintangibles which are organizational and human capitals.Wang and Chang (2005) indicated that IC is a keycomponent engenders organization's value. Zéghal andMaaloul (2010) classified IC as the entire accessibleknowledge can be utilized by the organization to createvalue. Conceptually, Wu et al. (2012) regarded IC as a setof organization-related abilities integrated with three typesof capitals; human, structural and relational capital. 1AuthorsDefinitionsOECD (2000)Economic value results for organizational and human capitals.Wang and Chang (2005) 2AuthorsDimensionsWang and Chang (2005)Human capital, customer capital, innovation capital, and process capital.Cabrita and Bontis (2008)Human capital, structural capital, and relational capitalYang and Lin (2009) Wu and Sivalogathasan (2013)Human capital, organizational (structural) capital, and relational (social) capitalKhalique et al. (2011a)Human capital, structural capital, and customer capitalSumedrea (2013) Wanjala (2013)Human capital, structural capital, and customer (external) capitalNuryaman (2015)Human capital, structural capital, and customer capitalGogan et al. (2016)Human capital, structural capital, and relational capitali. Sub-dimensions of human capital(Wang and Chang, 2005; Yang and Lin, 2009; Sumedrea,Human capital(HC), as a key element of IC, has2013; Wanjala, 2013; Nuryaman, 2015 and Koc, 2017).been defined as a collection of employee characteristicsAccording to Wanjala (2013), HC is considered the majorand abilities revealed in forms of knowledge, skills,part of intellectual capital. Examples of theseexperiences, education, creativity, commitment, innovation,characteristics and abilities or sub-dimensions of HC arelife and business-related attitudes, and motivation, etc.shown in 33YearVolume XVII Issue V Version I( )Authors Wang and Chang (2005) Yang and Lin (2009) Sumedrea (2013) Nuryaman (2015) Koc (2017) ii. Sub-dimensions of structural capital Employee education Employee knowledge, skills and experience. Sub-dimensions of HC Employee motivation and commitment Intellectual ability, creativity and innovation Technical knowledge, job evaluation, creativity, team work, initiatives, problem-solving, analytical and conceptual thinking. creation as vital sub-dimensions of SC. Table 4 showsGlobal Journal of Management and Business ResearchStructural capital (SC) refers to organization-examples of HC sub-dimensions.based intangible assets like efficiency, effectiveness,innovativeness, culture, knowledge, strategies, procedures,patents, trade secrets, information and network systemsetc. (Cabrita and Bontis, 2008;Yang and Lin,2009;Sumedrea, 2013;Nuryaman, 2015 and Koc,2017).Lee et al. (2015) added problem-solving and valueA 4AuthorsSub-dimensions of SCYang and Lin (2009)Process effectiveness, knowledge integrating and sharingSumedrea (2013)Databases, organizational procedures, trademarks, organizational strategies related infrastructure.Lee et al. (2015) 5AuthorsSub-dimensions of RCWang and Chang (2005)Contribution of customers to growth in salesCabrita and Bontis (2008)Relationships with stakeholdersYang and Lin (2009)Internal relationships among individuals within the organization and external relationships between the organization and other organizations.Amiri et al. (2010) cited in Khalique et al. (2011a)Customer loyalty and satisfaction.Nuryaman (2015)Relationships with internal and external partiesKoc (2017)Brands, business name, distribution channels, license and franchising agreements, customer loyalty. H1: human capital has a significant impact onorganizational memory.f) Structural capital and OPGogan et al. (2016) studies relationships amonghuman capital, structural capital, relational capital andorganizational performance and found a significantassociation between the structural capital of IC and OP.According to Yang and Lin (2009), Khalique et al. (2011a),Ghatak (2013) and Awan and Saeed (2015) structuralcapital has a significant influence on OP. On the otherhand, Hashim et al. ( 6VariablesItemsMean (SD)Alpha *AVE **Human capital (HC)1-54.23 (0.587)0.7740.69Structural capital (SC)6-103.86 (0.780)0.8140.70Relational capital (RC)11-154.01 (1.010)0.7980.71Organizational performance (OP)16-203.97 (0.851)0.8360.68* Acceptance level of alpha: alpha > 0.70** Acceptance value of AVE: AVE > 0.5 7VariablesHCSCRCOPHuman capital (HC)-Structural capital (SC)0.579 **-Relational capital (RC)0.668 **0.643 **-Organizational performance (OP)0.496 **0.428 **0.399 **-** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 8ModelTolerance *VIF **Human capital (HC)0.3313.120Structural capital (SC)0.2844.016Relational capital (RC)0.2944.770* Tolerance is accepted at value > 0.1** VIF is accepted at value < 10 9ModelStandardized Coefficients -BetatSig.Human capital0.27411.3140.000Structural capital0.2879.1120.000Relational capital0.2397.8450.001Dependent variable: organizational performanceR 2 : 0.761Df (total): 471F: 63.59, Sig.: 0.000 © 2017 Global Journals Inc. (US) 1 © 2017 Global Journals Inc. (US) The Impact of Intellectual Capital Dimensions on Organizational Performance of Public Hospitals in Jordan ## Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XVII Issue V Version I Year ( ) A * Empirical review on the determinants influencing firm performance in developing countries MAbdullahi AAbubakar RAliyu MUmar International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 5 6 2015 * Influence of intellectual capital in the organizational innovation MAl-Dujaili International Journal on Innovation, Management and Technology 3 2 2012 * Intellectual capital and its effect on financial performance of banks: Evidence from Saudi Arabia MAl-Musali KIsmail Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 164 2014 * Intellectual capital and financial performance of pharmaceutical firms in Pakistan SAmin SAslam MMakki Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences 34 2 2014 * Structural capital, innovation capability and company performance in technology-based Colombian firms NAramburu JSaenz CBlanco Cuadernos de Gestion 15 1 2015 * Intellectual capital and research performance of universities in southern Punjab-Pakistan AAwan KSaeed European Journal of Business Innovation Research 2 6 2015 * A study on the effect of intellectual capital and organizational learning process on organizational performance HBadrabadi TAkbarpour African Journal of Business Management 7 16 2013 * Intellectual capital ROI: A casual map of human capital antecedents and consequents NBontis JFitz-Enz Journal of Intellectual Capital 3 3 2002 * Intellectual capital and the nature of business in Malaysia NBontis WKeow SRichardson Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 1 2000 * Intellectual capital and organizational performance: An empirical study of the pharmaceutical industry ABramhandkar SErickson IApplebee The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 5 4 2007 * Intellectual capital and business performance in the Portuguese banking industry MCabrita NBontis Int. J. Technology Management 43 1-3 2008 * Verification of the influence of intellectual capital upon organizational performance of Taiwan listed info-electronics companies with capital structure as a moderator CChang YLee The Journal of International Management Studies 7 1 2012 * The effect of organizational performance on the intellectual capital accumulation of Taiwan listed Biotechnology companies: Organizational citizen behavior as a moderator YChein The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning 2013 9 * Intellectual capital and new product development CChen TLiu MChu YHsiao Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 33 2014 * The financial crisis of banks (before, during, and after): An intellectual capital perspective. Knowledge and Process Management CCurado MGuedes NBontis 2014 21 * How knowledge management implementation affects the performance of Egyptian construction companies AElfar AElsaid EElsaid The Journal of Applied Business Research 33 3 2017 * Impact of intangibles on bank's performance. Elixir Finance Management AGhatak 2013 59 * The impact of intellectual capital on organizational performance LGogan AArtene ISarca ADraghici Procedia-Social and Behavioral Journal 221 2016 * PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet JHair CRingle MSarstedt Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19 2 2011 * Effect of intellectual capital on organizational performance MHashim IOsman SAlhabshi Procedia-Social and Behavioural Journal 211 2015 * Integration of intellectual capital and knowledge management and its impact on business performance pharmaceutical SHermawan WHariyanto Sumartik Jurnal Akuntansi Multiparadigma 6 3 2015 * The impact of intellectual capital on the performance of U.S. property-casualty insurance companies MHudgins Business and Economics Journal 5 4 2014 * Intellectual capital and financial performance in Serbia. Knowledge and Process Management SJanosevic VDzenopoljac NBontis 2013b 20 * Analysis of intellectual capital practices in Serbia SJanosevic VDzenopoljac SDimitrijevic Actual Problems of Economics 6 144 2013a * Intellectual capital and financial performance: An evaluation of the Australian financial sector MJoshi CDaryll JSidhu MKansal Journal of Intellectual Capital 14 2 2013 * relationship of intellectual capital with the organizational capital of pharmaceutical companies in Pakistan MKhalique JShaari AIsa AAgeel Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 5 12 2011b * Intellectual capital & financial performance: An empirical study on the Oil & gas sector of Pakistan MKhalique MZia-Ur-Rahman MAbrar MKhan MKharal International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting 4 1 2011a * The interaction of intellectual capital assets and knowledge management practices in organizational value creation AKianto PRitala JSpender MVanhala Journal of Intellectual Capital 15 3 2014 * Differentiation of leadership manager behavior between industries in terms of intellectual capital (Tourism and Automotive Sector Example) HKoc Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies 5 1 2017 * The effects of the accumulation of intellectual capital on organizational performance: Using productivity as the moderator YLee MWu CChao International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management 39 1 2015 * How does intellectual capital affect organizational performance? YLin International Journal of Business and Social Science 6 7 2015 * Intellectual capital, innovation and performance: A systematic review of the literature AMention Business and Economic Research 2 1 2012 * Intellectual capital and financial performance of Indian banks AMondal SGhosh Journal of Intellectual Capital 13 4 2012 * An empirical investigation of intellectual capital affecting the performance: A case of private universities in Pakistan SMumtaz QAbbas World Applied Sciences Journal 7 2014 * An exploratory of the intangible assets: methods of measuring intellectual capital MNoordin SMohtar International Journal of Humanities, and Applied Sciences 2 2 2013 * The influence of intellectual capital on the firm's value with the financial performance as intervening variable Nuryaman Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 211 2015 * Intellectual assets and value creation Oecd Synthesis report 2008 OECD * Impact of intellectual capital on organizational performance: Evidence from Nigeria Banking sector AOgbo JEzeobi AItuma JORIND 11 2 2013 * Intellectual capital and financial performance: A study of the Turkish banking sector NOzkan SCakan MKayacan 10.1016/j.bir.2016.03.001 Borsa Istanbul Review 2016 * SME performance: A case for internal consistency TPett JWolf Journal of Small Business Strategy 18 1 2007 * Measuring the relationship between marketing assets, intellectual capital, and firm performance TPucci CSimoni LZanni J. Manage. Gov 19 2015 * Intellectual capital and organizational performance: An empirical study in Telecom sector in Pakistan RSaeed ASami RLodhi AIqbal Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 18 4 2013 * Human capital and organizational performance: A study of Egyptian Software companies ASeleim AAshour NBontis Management Decision 45 4 2007 * Intellectual capital and business performance in the pharmaceutical sector of Jordan ASharabati SJawad NBontis Management Decision 48 1 2010 * The application of the value added intellectual coefficient to measure corporate performance: evidence from technological firm HShiu International Journal of Management 23 2 2006 * Impact of intellectual capital on business performance: Evidence from India pharmaceutical sector NSmriti NDas Polish Journal of Management Studies 15 1 2017 * Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations TStewart 1997 Doubleday New York, NY, U.S.A * Intellectual capital and firm performance: A dynamic relationship in crisis time SSumedrea Procedia-Economic and Finance 6 2013 * The effect of intellectual capital management on organizational competitive advantage in Egyptian hospitals ETaie International Journal of Business and Social Sciences 5 2 2014 * Intellectual capital and performance in casual models: Evidence from the information technology industry in Taiwan WWang CChang Journal of Intellectual Capital 6 2 2005 * To assess the effect of intellectual capital on organizational performance in the manufacturing sector JWanjala International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT & Management 3 12 2013 * To verify how intellectual capital affects organizational performance in listed Taiwan IC Design companies with considering the moderator of corporate governance MWu YLee GWang The Journal of Global Business Management 8 1 2012 * Innovation capability for better performance: Intellectual capital and organization performance of the Apparel industry in Sri Lanka XWu VSivalogathasan Journal of Advanced Management Science 1 3 2013 * Does intellectual capital mediate the relationship between HRM and organizational performance? Perspectives of a healthcare industry in Taiwan CYang CLin The International Journal of Human Resource management 20 9 2009 * Defining methods and criteria of measuring business performance: A comparative research between the literature in Turkey and foreign SYidiz AKarakas Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 58 2012 * Analysing value added as an indicator of intellectual capital and its consequences on company performance DZéghal AMaaloul Journal of Intellectual Capital 11 1 2010