Uriguen Aguirre et al.

, Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Impact of intellectual capital on organizational
performance through intrinsic motivation in
higher education institutions
Received: 04 December 2022 Patricia Alexandra Uriguen Aguirre1* and Beatrice Elcira Avolio Alecchi1
Accepted: 07 March 2023
Abstract: The purpose of this research is to analyze the relationship between
*Corresponding author: Patricia
Alexandra Uriguen Aguirre CENTRUM intellectual capital and organizational performance with the mediating rol of
Catolica Graduate Business School, intrinsic motivation in higher education institutions. We conducted an empirical
Lima, Peru – Pontificia Universidad
Catolica del Peru, Lima, Peru study with a sample of 815 employees from public and private universities in
E-mail: [email protected]
Ecuador. Data were obtained from an instrument adapted the previous research­
Reviewing editor: administered to faculty and administrative staff in management positions. A
Pablo Ruiz, Universidad de Castilla-
La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain structural equation modelling approach was used to analyze the relationships
Additional information is available at between variables and their magnitude and direction. The results showed
the end of the article a significant relationship between intellectual capital and organizational perfor­
mance, with a partial mediation of intrinsic motivation. No significant differences
were found in the effect of intellectual capital between public and private univer­
sities. Managers who aim to improve the performance of their organizations with
their intellectual capital can benefit from the intrinsic motivation of their employ­
ees. This research shows intrinsic motivation as a mediator between intellectual
capital and organizational performance, but also analyzes their relationships based
on the Self-Determination Theory, which is a novelty according to the existing
literature.

Subjects: Latin American & Hispanic Studies; Business, Management and Accounting;
Education - Social Sciences

Keywords: Intellectual capital; intrinsic motivation; organizational performance; self-

determination theory; higher education institutions

JEL classifications: M10; M54; I23

1. Introduction
Organizations strive to achieve a performance that makes them stand out, meet the needs of their
customers and stakeholders, and achieve sustained growth (Almatrooshi et al., 2016). Intellectual
capital has been identified as an important element to improve the performance of organizations
due to the competitive advantage that represents the accumulation of knowledge, for example,
the ability to solve increasingly complex problems and the reduction of costs with process
improvement (Mehralian et al., 2020). Some authors have also highlighted the importance of
intellectual capital for organizational performance in higher education institutions (Chatterji &
Kiran, 2017).

© 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Intellectual capital is not easy to accumulate, it takes time, dedication and correct decision-
making, which implies a cost that could be quantified (Juliya, 2015). However, making a great
effort to accumulate intellectual capital is not enough to achieve the expected results (Bhandari
et al., 2020), since there are organizations that have intellectual capital and still do not see it
reflected in their performance (Khan et al., 2018; Rehman et al., 2021; Weqar et al., 2020). This
problem affects many organizations, but particularly universities as they are more dependent on
the accumulation of intellectual capital to create value and achieve a sustainable competitive
advantage (DiBerardino & Corsi, 2018; Quintero-Quintero et al., 2021). Previous studies pointed out
that intellectual capital in universities is necessary to improve their social image (Frondizi et al.,
2019), their ranking (Brusca et al., 2019), their academic results (De Matos Pedro et al., 2020;
Salinas-Ávila et al., 2020) and the fulfillment of objectives (Cricelli et al., 2018; Nicolò et al., 2021).

Intellectual capital is shown as a fundamental resource to give the organization a competitive

advantage, however, it is still necessary to find the best way to acquire and adapt this resource
considering the dynamics of changes (Barrena-Martínez et al., 2019). Intellectual capital increases
the value of intangible assets through the application of knowledge, but it is the employees of the
organization who create it and share it (Konno & Schillaci, 2021). However, the development and
implementation of intellectual capital depends on the fact that members of the organization have
the necessary knowledge and the will to use it and share it (Alvino et al., 2021). Thus, it is
necessary to identify ways to improve the application of intellectual capital so that it can impact
on the results of the organization (Weqar et al., 2020). Nevertheless, there is little literature that
establishes how intellectual capital should be increased and implemented (Ahmed et al., 2019;
Konno & Schillaci, 2021) especially in higher education institutions (De Matos Pedro et al., 2020;
Nicoló et al., 2020; Quintero-Quintero et al., 2021).

The knowledge-based view (KBV) theory points out that the resources of the organization that
come from knowledge are essential to establish a sustainable competitive advantage because
they drive cost efficiency, better customer relationships, innovation and creativity, which has an
impact on a better performance (Kengatharan, 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). This could explain the
fact that research on intellectual capital and its relationship with other variables has been con­
ducted with that view, ignoring that resources are managed and implemented by the people who
work in the organization, so human behavior plays a key role. The self-determination theory (SDT)
(Ryan & Deci, 2000) established a new perspective on the dynamics of human talent. The authors
highlighted the need to maintain an adequate environment for the internal motivation of employ­
ees, which is a way to promote high-quality motivation and reflects in the results of the organiza­
tion. In order to make that employees feel satisfied while performing their tasks without relying on
external stimulus, it is essential that they feel competent and with the necessary resources. This
will increase their productivity and performance (Rigby & Ryan, 2018). Internal motivation reduces
negative aspects and increases positive aspects, which helps improve results (Manganelli et al.,
2018).

Another aspect observed in the literature is the lack of clarity on the differences in the applica­
tion and effectiveness of intellectual capital between public or private institutions (Barral et al.,
2018; Guthrie et al., 2015). Quintero-Quintero et al. (2021) carried out a bibliometric analysis of all
research on intellectual capital since 1947 and, based on their opinion about the university setting,
they did not find studies that differentiated the effect of intellectual capital in public and private
higher education institutions.

In order to fill these literature gaps, this research proposes a theoretical model that includes
intrinsic motivation as a key element of the relationship between said variables. This model
includes intellectual capital as a second-order construct that has a positive relationship in orga­
nizational performance with the partial mediation of intrinsic motivation, besides considering the
effects of intellectual capital if the organization is public or private.

Page 2 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Figure 1. Proposed model of

relationships between
constructs.

This model contributes to close the knowledge gap in terms of the application of intellectual
capital, its nature and its effect on the field of higher education (Barrena-Martínez et al., 2019;
Quintero-Quintero et al., 2021). It also creates more knowledge about the benefits of intrinsic
motivation in the organizational performance, which needs further research (Kuvaas et al., 2017;
Mostafa et al., 2020; Scales et al., 2020) especially in the field of higher education (Ryan & Deci,
2020). In addition, it analyzes the differences between public and private organizations in terms of
the use of intellectual capital and its results, which is necessary and little studied nowadays
(Guthrie et al., 2015; Yeganeh et al., 2014).

In order to achieve the above, we used a quantitative approach with a cross-sectional data
collection and a structural model of equations. The study was conducted in public and private
universities in several cities of Ecuador and the population included executives that carried out
administrative tasks and planning. The next section of this manuscript presents the literature
review and the justification of the hypotheses. Later, we explain the methodology, including the
population, sample, data collection and instruments. The subsequent chapters present the data
analysis and the results obtained, as well as the findings, implications, limitations and recommen­
dations for future research.

2. Literature review and hypothesis

This research proposes a theoretical model that includes the positive impact of intellectual capital
on the organizational performance, with a partial mediation of intrinsic motivation, in a higher
education setting (Figure 1). This section reviews the most important concepts of the study
variables and how they are linked to each other, based on the proposed model.

2.1. Intellectual capital

Intellectual capital can be defined as the set of skills and experiences of the members of an
organization that, combined with information and other resources, can guide its growth (Joshi
et al., 2013). According to Agostini et al. (2017), intellectual capital is composed of three main
elements: human capital, organizational capital and relational capital. The first is the ability of
employees to solve problems. In this category, it should be noted the importance of the creativity,
experience and learning abilities of employees. The organizational capital is all the knowledge that
remains in the company and does not come from its employees; it mostly relates to activities and
processes. The relational capital is formed by the relationships established with external service
providers, such as suppliers, customers and others, taking into account other relational resources
such as reputation, brand and loyalty. External actors give the organization important resources
and capabilities such as money for sales, raw materials and distribution channels.

Page 3 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Figure 2. Final re-specified

Structural Equation Model with
ULS.

Intellectual capital has been studied as a unique construct, but its elements have also been
examined separately to consider their individual effects (Agostini et al., 2017). This is how we
found different results in terms of the elements of intellectual capital, highlighting human capital,
because according to some research it has had a greater influence on certain results of the
organization, such as innovation (Barrena-Martínez et al., 2019) and commitment (Ouakouak &
Ouedraogo, 2018). Managers have considered it a predictor of the performance of the human
resource within the organization (Kianto et al., 2017). Furthermore, Aramburu and Sáenz (2011)
pointed out that human resources, given their specialized knowledge, represent an asset that is
difficult to copy, thus, they have the potential to provide the organization with a competitive
advantage.

2.2. Intrinsic motivation

The SDT theory shows two types of motivation: extrinsic and intrinsic. However, some authors have
found difficulties when trying to explain it by integrating the two types of motivation instead of
focusing on one at a time (Lombardi et al., 2019). Kuvaas et al. (2017) recommended focusing on
intrinsic motivation as a factor that can explain the results at work more accurately. Moreover,
according to Ryan and Deci (2020), intrinsic motivation is an expression of the active integrative
tendency of the human being. Thus, their exploration in work activities is an example of behaviors
that do not dependent on external incentives or pressures, but on satisfaction. When employees

Page 4 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

are intrinsically motivated, there will be higher quality consequences in terms of their behaviors
and general well-being. When jobs have extrinsic rewards, employees do not significantly change
their intrinsic motivation; on the contrary, some studies have shown that the extrinsic motivation
grows at the expense of the intrinsic one (Dysvik et al., 2013).

Although the two types of motivation can coexist, in reality they are two separate dimensions
and one of them may have greater influence than the other one (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Based on
this fact, some authors created models that analyzed these constructs separately to understand
their characteristics and their possible impact on organizations (Frey & Jegen, 2001). With the
introduction of behavioral economics thought currents, the price effect suggests that external
incentives do not alter intrinsic motivation and refer to it as the presumption of separability, which
gives extrinsic motivation independence from the intrinsic one (Bowles & Polanía-Reyes, 2012).

2.3. Organizational performance

Organizational performance is the measure of the progress and development of the organization
(Koohang et al., 2017). It can be considered as the comparison between actual results and
expected results in the organization, taking into account its goals and objectives (Tomal & Jones,
2015). Some authors have considered that financial and non-financial parameters measure orga­
nizational performance. The financial parameters have to do with assets, revenues, profits or
profitability (Liao & Wu, 2009), while the non-financial ones are related to innovation, competitive
advantage, quality or continuous improvement (Kirby, 2005). However, other authors have noted
the difficulty in determining a general list of measures that can be applied to all organizations.

In the case of higher education settings, Abubakar et al. (2018) highlighted the superiority of
non-financial measures to evaluate the acquisition of long-term competitive advantages and
affirmed that it is necessary to measure the organizational results in this way.

These authors also stated that most higher education institutions use peers for accreditation
based on their academic achievements; however, these results are difficult to interpret for anyone
outside the academia, as is the case of some stakeholders. Likewise, quality used to be assessed
only on the basis of the academic achievement of students, but non-academic aspects affecting
students are now considered to be equally important. Based on this perspective, to measure the
organizational performance of universities it is necessary to consider their objectives, student
satisfaction, university responses, curriculum development, research productivity and research
ranking (Iqbal et al., 2019).

2.4. Intellectual capital and intrinsic motivation

Intellectual capital is a resource that improves employee motivation and influences organizational
performance (Li et al., 2021) because when employees feel motivated, their work performance
improves (William & Pelto, 2021). Employees feel motivated when they know they have the
necessary resources to improve their work (Deci et al., 2017). This self-awareness of their capacity
is a source of internal satisfaction and encourages them to use those resources in their work and
meet the goals (Bhandari et al., 2020). Based on this, we assumed that the feeling of having all the
necessary resources stimulates the willing of employees to use them. Therefore, we posed the
following hypothesis:

H1: Intellectual capital has a positive relationship with intrinsic motivation

2.5. Intrinsic motivation and organizational performance

Intrinsic motivation improves work production, not only in quantity but in quality (Garbers &
Konradt, 2014). Kuvaas et al. (2017) found a direct relationship between intrinsic motivation and
employee performance. Çetin and Aşkun, (2018) found a direct relationship between intrinsic
motivation and the self-efficacy of employees. Within the context of education, Froiland and
Worrell (2016) and Taylor et al. (2014) demonstrated that there is a relationship between intrinsic

Page 5 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

motivation and improvement in academic performance as well as in the outcomes of educational

institutions.

Motivation is directly related to the commitment of the organization employees, the objectives
and the organizational culture (Anra & Yamin, 2017), as well as the skills to execute tasks and work
in an environment that allows individual development (Shoraj & Llaci, 2015). In addition, motiva­
tion gives employees the opportunity to act, create and develop (Deci et al., 2017; Muzafary et al.,
2021) but also contributes to the generation of a greater performance (Ryan & Deci, 2020) through
a high level of commitment to the organization (Kuvaas et al., 2017; Sabir, 2017). As a result, we
posed the following hypothesis:

H2: Intrinsic motivation has a positive relationship with organizational performance

2.6. Intellectual capital and organizational performance

Several studies have shown a positive impact of the human, structural and relational dimensions
of intellectual capital on the performance of organizations (Agostini et al., 2017). Although some
authors prefer to measure it from an economic approach, intellectual capital improves the effec­
tiveness and performance of the organization in general (Iqbal et al., 2019) by making available,
from the human capital, the skills and capacities of the employees (Kengatharan, 2019); from the
structural capital, the knowledge and business culture (Agostini et al., 2017); and from relational
capital, the strengthening of relationships within and outside the organization (Bontis, 2011;
Kengatharan, 2019). In this regard, an adequate level of intellectual capital should be reflected
in better organizational performance and an increase in the competitive advantage (Shujahat
et al., 2017). Thus, we posed the following hypothesis:

H3: Intellectual capital has a positive relationship with organizational performance.

2.7. Relationship between intellectual capital, intrinsic motivation and organizational

performance
In order to achieve an adequate organizational performance it is necessary to have the employees
motivated and this commitment mainly relies on the managers of the company because if they
manage their subordinates effectively, the organization can be successful (Pirohov-Tóth, 2019).
Within a company, motivation favors the internal part of the employees because it implies a great
organizational commitment and make them see their professional prosperity with greater freedom
in the work context (Liu et al., 2021; Martín et al., 2009). Therefore, motivation allows the exchange
and use of knowledge, but also, positively influences the organizational performance (Jobira &
Mohammed, 2021; Tran & Bich, 2018)

Likewise, motivation increases employee satisfaction levels and drives them to make the most of
their knowledge, which is critical to individual and collective performance in organizations (Gagné
& Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2020; Shoraj & Llaci, 2015; Vroom, 1964). In addition, it increases the
level of satisfaction of individuals and leads them to fully use their knowledge, which is essential
for the improvement of individual and collective performance within an organization (Ryan & Deci,
2020; Shujahat et al., 2017). Despite some authors highlighted the importance of rewards (Jyoti &
Rani, 2017; Rohim & Budhiasa, 2019), recent research pointed out the counterproductive effects of
external stimuli, as they cause individuals to be trapped in inertia and not act for the benefit of the
organization if they are not rewarded. Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, has been shown to
be directly related to the achievement of goals (Lombardi et al., 2019). Based on these theories, we
proposed the following hypothesis:

H4: Intrinsic motivation mediates the positive effect of intellectual capital with organizational
performance

Page 6 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Intellectual capital consists of intangible assets that create competitive advantage in the opera­
tions of an organization; however, there is a question that arises whether these intangible assets
perform the same function or have the same influence if the organization is public or private
(Quintero-Quintero et al., 2021). Wall (2005) affirmed that the private sector is not aware of the
importance of valuing non-tangible assets, while the public sector needs to look at non-financial
results. Guthrie et al. (2015) promoted more research on intellectual capital in the public sector
due to significant differences between sectors of the economy to improve administration and
strategic control, just as private organizations do. Some authors have identified differences
between public and private universities in terms of key drivers to obtain their results (Klafke
et al., 2020; Mohammadi & Karupiah, 2019), while others have not found significant differences
(Barral et al., 2018). In this regard, the elements that form the intellectual capital have not shown
homogeneity in their influence when they have been measured separately (Brusca et al., 2019; De
Matos Pedro et al., 2020). As a result, we posed the following hypothesis:

H5: The effect of intellectual capital on intrinsic motivation is significantly different in public
universities than in private universities

Recent research has found ambiguous results regarding the effect of intellectual capital on the
organizational performance of public and private institutions. While the public sector can benefit
more from intellectual capital due to public policies (Guthrie et al., 2015), the elements that form
the intellectual capital can favor private universities due to the technology and organizational and
personal capacities that are part of the strategic agility that is common in them (Lyn Chan &
Muthuveloo, 2019). Some elements of intellectual capital could be affected due to dependence on
public funds, especially in developing countries (Khalid et al., 2019). Based on the above, the effect
of intellectual capital on organizational performance could vary depending on the type of organi­
zation; therefore, we posed the following hypothesis:

H6: The effect of intellectual capital on organizational performance is significantly different in

public universities than in private universities.

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Sampling and data collection

The population is represented by the personnel who work in higher education institutions, the
research was conducted in Ecuador. Professors and university directors who perform planning and
administration tasks because we considered they had the necessary knowledge to answer the
questions. The questionnaire was emailed and data were collected between December 2021 and
January 2022. The sample size was composed of 879 participants who were part of the 59 officially
registered Ecuadorian universities. The average age of the participants was 46 years (SD = 8) and
the seniority at work was 12 years (SD = 8). Table 1 shows other important characteristics. After the
data collection, we conducted an analysis to find lost or skewed data towards a single response.
We eliminated 64 records and kept 815 valid observations. The sample size exceeded the mini­
mum recommended by several authors to test a SEM model (Kline, 2011; Shi et al., 2018).

3.2. Instruments
Instruments taken from previous research in the literature were considered. For the intellectual
capital variable and the organizational performance variable, we used the questionnaire created
by Iqbal et al. (2019), whereas for the intrinsic motivation variable, we used the questionnaire of
Kuvaas et al. (2017). Intellectual capital was a second-order construct that had three first-order
reflective constructs: human capital with 5 indicators, structural capital with 7 indicators and
relational capital with 5 indicators. Intrinsic motivation was a first-order construct with 6 indica­
tors, while organizational performance had 5 indicators, which made it also a first-order construct.
All these instruments were validated in previous research and obtained indicators that certify their
reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. The items of the questionnaire were measured

Page 7 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Table 1. Characteristics of the participants

Men Women
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Level of Bachelor’s 10 2.2% 21 5.8%
education degree
Master’s degree 314 69.2% 248 68.7%
PhD 130 28.6% 92 25.5%
Total 454 100.0 % 361 100.0 %
Type of Public 367 80.8% 270 74.8%
Institution
Private 87 19.2% 91 25.2%
Total 454 100.0 % 361 100.0 %

with a five-point Likert scale, with ranges that went from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly
agree.

We used the double translation method for the questionnaire and administered it in Spanish.
Two certified translators translated the questionnaire into Spanish and then back into English to
compare it with the original. This procedure also improved the drafting of the questions. The
Spanish translation of the questionnaire was analyzed by a group of eight experts, four university
professors and four company directors from various sectors. The experts examined the appropri­
ateness, relevance, formulation and content of the questions. Some questions were changed to
ensure their understanding and accuracy; however, none were removed at this stage. We con­
ducted a pilot test to ensure the correct understanding of the questions and measure their internal
consistency using the Cronbach’s Alpha, which achieved a value greater than 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978).
After all these procedures, we finally obtained the final version of the questionnaire (Appendix A1).
In order to avoid a possible bias of the common method, due to the nature of the data collection
process, we followed the procedures recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003) regarding the
psychological distance, drafting and ordering of the items of the questionnaire.

3.3. Method
In order to confirm the relationships between variables, we used a structural equation model and
an unweighted least squares estimation. Following all the phases indicated by Weston and Gore
(2006) for the preliminary analysis of the data, we tested the measurement model and the
structural model. Then, we carried out a confirmatory factor analysis to establish the measure­
ment model and ensure the reliability as well as the convergent and discriminant validity. Later,
we evaluated the structural model to measure the relationships between all the variables of the
theoretical model and their adjustment.

4. Data analysis and results

We conducted an exploratory factor analysis to establish a priori the psychometric properties of
the questionnaire and the possibility of a common method bias. The items included three dimen­
sions as expected and no factor had more than 50% of the variance so the common method bias
was not considered a risk. In order to verify the requirement of multivariate normality, we
calculated the Mardia’s coefficient and obtained a value of 115, much higher than the value of
5, as suggested by Bentler (1990), which indicates that the data did not follow a multivariate
normal distribution. When analyzing the measurement model, we found adequate values in the
composite reliability (CR) and in the average variance extracted (AVE); however, the discriminant
validity was not satisfied for the IC and OP variables. The results in the goodness-of-fit tests were
neither adequate. Using index modification, we identified the items with high correlation among
the constructs and later eliminated HC4, SC1, SC4, SC5, RC1, OP3, and OP5.

Page 8 of 21
 Table 2. Validity and reliability results
Constructs Sub-constructs Item Factor Loadings CR AVE α
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL Human capital HC1 0.657 0.819 0.531 0.811

HC2 0.744
HC3 0.738
HC5 0.740
Structural Capital SC2 0.789 0.820 0.533 0.818
SC3 0.744
SC6 0.669
SC7 0.725
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772

Relational Capital RC2 0.823 0.875 0.640 0.868

RC3 0.831
RC4 0.694
RC5 0.819
INTRINSIC MOTIVATION IM1 0.837 0.881 0.561 0.862
IM2. 0.770
IM3 0.700
IM4 0.809
IM5 0.830
IM6 0.457
ORGANIZATIONAL OP1 0.834 0.809 0.585 0.809
PERFORMANCE OP2 0.744
OP4 0.722

Page 9 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Table 2 shows the Cronbach’s Alpha values and the composite reliability, which had to be greater
than 0.7 to prove the reliability of the items (Henseler et al., 2009; Nunnally, 1978). In the same
table, we noted the average variance extracted, as a measure of convergent validity, with a value
greater than .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), which fulfilled all variables with this parameter. In
addition, as a measure of convergent validity, we analyzed the factor loadings that were signifi­
cant and greater than .70, with the exception of HC1 and RC4 that were very close to that value.
We also revised item IM6 with a value of .457, but there was no need to eliminate it because the
whole variable complied with the required values, and the other indicators were greater than .70.

For the discriminant validity analysis, we used the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (Henseler et al.,
2015) that uses the correlations between indicators within each construct and the correlations of
indicators between constructs. This method is more reliable than others commonly used (Hair
et al., 2017; Henseler et al., 2015). Many authors suggests that the value of the ratio should be less
than .85 for strict discriminatory validity and less than .90 for a more liberal one. As Table 3 shows,
there were no values lower than .85; therefore, it can be concluded that the main constructs had
discriminating validity.

In the end, we obtained adequate goodness-of-fit indices according to the acceptance ranges,
as suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999): Square root mean residual (SRMR) =.036, Adjusted
Goodness of Fit (AGFI) =.993, Relative Fit Index (RFI) =.992, Normed Fit Index (NFI) =.993 and
Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) =.866). This allowed us to conclude that the measurement
model had a good overall adjustment, and we continued the analysis.

For the structural equations model, we used the AMOS 26 program and an unweighted least
squares estimation. This method does not establish that the observed variables should follow
a normal distribution. It is widely used in Likert-type questionnaires and is based on the polychoric
correlation matrix (Bollen, 1989; Schumacher & Lomax, 1996). The model met the suggested
values for goodness-of-fit indicators (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2011), thus, we used to validate
hypotheses about relationships between constructs. The coefficient of determination R2 of the
dependent variable OP obtained a value of 0.734, which indicates that 73.4% of its variance was

Table 3. Discriminant Validity using Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

IC IM OP
IC
IM 0.755 [0.706, 0.797] -
OP 0.841 [0.811, 0.866] 0.637 [0.578, 0.688] -
Note: IC =Intellectual Capital, IM =Intrinsic Motivation, OP =Organizational Performance. Values in brackets are 95%
confidence interval .

Table 4. Results of measure index in structural model using ULS

Goodness of Fit Measure Acceptable Level Obtained
CMIN/df: Relative chi square <3 0.891
AGFI: Adjusted Goodness of Fit >0.95 0.993
Index
RFI: Relative Fit Index >0.95 0.992
NFI: Normed Fit Index >0.95 0.993
SRMR: Standardized Root Mean <0.05 0.036
Square Residual
PGFI: Parsimony Goodness of Fit >0.5 0.866
Index

Page 10 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

explained by the other two variables of the model. The results obtained and their cut-off points are
summarized in Table 4.

According to these results, there is a direct, significant and positive effect between intellectual
capital and intrinsic motivation (βstandardized = .751, p = .003); therefore, H1 was accepted. There is
also a direct, positive and significant relationship between intrinsic motivation and organizational
performance (βstandardized = .657, p = .002); thus, H2 was accepted. In addition, the results proved
that there is a direct, positive and significant relationship between intellectual capital and organi­
zational performance (βstandardized = .830, p = .002) (see results of direct effects in Figure 2 and
Table 5). In order to verify the mediating effect of the intrinsic motivation variable, we used the
bootstrapping technique and the results showed significance in the direct and indirect effects (see
Table 6). The intrinsic motivation had a partial mediating effect in the relationship between
intellectual capital and organizational performance, so H4 was accepted.

In order to identify whether the effect of intellectual capital on intrinsic motivation and organi­
zational performance is different if universities are public or private, we conducted a multigroup
analysis, which was useful to know if the factor structure of the model was significantly different or
not, among the groups examined (Byrne, 2004). We established the configural invariance and
metric invariance prior to the multigroup analysis. Likewise, to measure the configural invariance,
we used the obtained measurement model and recalculated the goodness of fit indicators, first
with the data of public universities and then with the data of private universities. The results
obtained showed that adequate adjustment indicators were met considering the two groups (AGFI
=.974, NFI=.971, RFI=.970, SRMR=.039). Therefore, we established the configural invariance and
indicated that the measurement model was unique for public and private universities.

Regarding the metric invariance, following the recommendations of Cheung and Rensvold
(2002), we calculated the differences of the RFI and the NFI between the two groups using
a general model and a restricted one with equal factor loadings. Under this analysis, if the

Table 5. Test for direct effects between constructs with 95% confidence interval
Relationship Direct effect 95 % CI p Conclusion
Low High
IC– > IM .751 .701 .789 .003 Positive
relationship
IC– > OP .830 .751 .914 .002 Positive
relationship
IM– > OP .657 .598 .703 .002 Positive
relationship
Note: IC = Intellectual Capital, IM = Intrinsic Motivation, OP = Organizational Performance. Standardized coefficients
reported. Bootstrap sample = 2,000 with replacement.

Table 6. Test for mediation using a bootstrap analysis with 95% confidence interval
Relationships Direct effect Indirect 95 % CI p Conclusion
Effect

Low High
IC– > IM– > OP .988 .869 .862 1 .002 Partial
mediation
Note: IC = Intellectual Capital, IM = Intrinsic Motivation, OP = Organizational Performance.
Unstandardized coefficients reported. Bootstrap sample = 2,000 with replacement.

Page 11 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Table 7. Comparison of metric invariance indicators

Index Unconstrained Model Constrained Model Difference
NFI 0.992 0.990 0.002
RFI 0.990 0.989 0.001
Note: NFI =Normal Fit Index, RFI =Relative Fit Index.

difference was less than 0.01, the equality between the restricted and the unrestricted model had
to be accepted, in this way, the invariance was fulfilled. As Table 7 shows, in both cases the
difference was less than 0.01, thus, the existence of metric invariance was confirmed, that is, the
items measure the same throughout the two groups surveyed.

For the multigroup analysis, it was necessary to determine whether the relationships proposed in
the model differed according to the type of university. For this purpose, we measured the differ­
ences between the path coefficients of the model for public university and those of the model for
private university, as well as its significance. The comparison of the restricted and unrestricted
models showed a difference in chi-square of 11,007 (p = .088) which indicates that there were
differences between the models. However, these differences were found within the second-order
construct. Table 8 shows the results obtained from the individual analysis. We noted that the
relationship between intellectual capital and intrinsic motivation did not vary significantly between
public and private universities, therefore, H5 was not accepted. Likewise, the relationship between
intellectual capital and organizational performance did not differ significantly between public and
private universities, therefore, H6 was not accepted. However, it should be noted the dynamics
between first-order constructs and intellectual capital, which is a second-order construct. The
relationship between intellectual capital and structural capital was stronger in public universities,
just as the relationship between intellectual capital and human capital. On the other hand, the
relationship between intellectual capital and relational capital was stronger in private universities.
The evaluation of the hypotheses has been summarized in Table 9.

5. Discussion
The purpose of this research was to test the relationship between intellectual capital and organi­
zational performance with the mediation of intrinsic motivation. The results showed a positive
impact of intellectual capital on intrinsic motivation. Therefore, we can affirm the resources of the
organization influence the intrinsic motivation of the employees and this can be explained by the
basic elements of intrinsic motivation such as autonomy and trust. When employees know they
have all the resources and skills, they decide to use them and see their tasks as a motivation,
without the need for external stimuli (Deci et al., 2017).

The data analysis also showed that intellectual capital has a positive impact on organizational
performance. This is consistent with previous results, and although this relationship has been extensively
studied in some industries, it has not been the same in the field of higher education. In this regard, Cricelli
et al. (2018) found in Colombian universities a positive relationship between the three elements of
intellectual capital and the organizational performance by measuring them separately. It was also
found that the universities with the greatest intellectual capital are those that excel in performance.
Tjahjadi et al. (2019) found a relationship between IC and OP in universities in Indonesia using intellectual
capital as a construct with three dimensions. Both studies, conducted in developing countries, considered
public institutions that were previously measured by their research, education and community service for
development. The relationship between the acquisition of intellectual capital and the performance of
higher education institutions in this case suggested that its accumulation, management and dissemina­
tion help universities to improve their role before their stakeholders and may generate a greater influence
in society in the future. This is in line with the study of Bisogno et al. (2018), who stated that the future of
intellectual capital in universities should have a greater impact on the daily lives of people.

Page 12 of 21
 Table 8. Differences in factor loadings according to type of institution
Path Name Beta for Public Beta for Private Difference in Betas P-Value for Difference Interpretation
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

IC → IM. 0.743*** 0.761*** −0.018 0.188 There is no difference.

IC → HC. 0.986*** 0.887*** 0.100 0.004 The positive relationship
between HC and IC is strong
for Public universities.
IC → RC. 0.900*** 0.944*** −0.044 0.062 The positive relationship
between RC and IC is strong
for Private universities.
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772

IC → SC. 0.988*** 0.978*** 0.010 0.017 The positive relationship

between HC and IC is strong
for Public universities.
IC → OP. 0.846*** 0.898*** −0.052 0.364 There is no difference.
IC = Intellectual Capital, IM = Intrinsic Motivation, OP = Organizational Performance, HC = Human Capital, RC = Relational Capital, SC = Structural Capital, ***p <.0.01

Page 13 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Table 9. Summary of results of hypothesis tests based on the Structural Equation Model
Hypothesis Relationship Decision
H1 IC has a positive relationship on IM Supported
H2 IM has a positive relationship on Supported
OP
H3 IC has a positive relationship on OP Supported
H4 IM mediates the positive Supported
relationship between IC and OP
H5 The positive relationship between Not Supported
IC and IM is different for public
universities than for private
universities
H6 The positive relationship between Not Supported
IC and IM is different for public
universities than for private
universities
Note: IC = Intellectual Capital, IM = Intrinsic Motivation, OP = Organizational Performance.

The results also showed a direct relationship between intrinsic motivation and organizational
performance. More than a century of research on motivation and its relationship with work has
shown that goal orientation and resource placement are important elements that are repeated on
time and everywhere (Kanfer et al., 2017). Kuvaas et al. (2017) found that intrinsic motivation is
positively related to the positive results of the organization and that it is better to measure it as
a separate construct. They concluded that organizations should make every effort to increase the
intrinsic motivation of their employees if they want to improve performance. The results are
especially significant for higher education institutions, since intrinsic motivation is one of the
most significant elements in a learning environment (Fırat et al., 2017).

The relationships that were identified also showed a partial mediation of the intrinsic motivation in the
positive relationship of intellectual capital with organizational performance. This suggests that the
intangible resources that form intellectual capital facilitate the intrinsic motivation by giving employees
confidence in their skills to use said resources and meet the entrusted goals. According to the SDT theory,
when employees feel they have autonomy and competence to do their work, their satisfaction and
intrinsic motivation increase, as well as their performance, which benefits the entire organization (Gagné
& Deci, 2005). Curiosity and exploration are behaviors promoted by intrinsic motivation and do not
depend on external incentives; besides bringing satisfaction and joy, this type of motivation represents
an important aspect in the learning process and actions of organizations (Deci et al., 2017). The SDT
theory is very convenient in the higher education setting, since elements such as motivation and
psychological well-being are especially relevant for the academic environment (Ryan & Deci, 2020).
These results are consistent with the approach that states that interactions between organizational
structures and employee motivation shape organizational performance (Jinhai et al., 2021).

The results also showed that there are no significant differences between public and private
universities in terms of the effect of intellectual capital, both in intrinsic motivation and in
organizational performance. This is a novelty since there are no previous research on this type of
analysis in a university setting, and contradicts the findings of Yeganeh et al. (2014), who noted
differences in the effect of the elements of intellectual capital on public and private insurance
companies in Iran. In this research, the benefits of having intangible assets that provide a strategic
advantage to the organizations seem to be the same regardless of how they obtain their funds.
This can be explained by the fact that the most valuable resources of universities are the knowl­
edge and expertise of their professors, researchers and managers, but also their interaction with
their students and society in general, which creates a value that is difficult to imitate by other
organizations (Quintero-Quintero et al., 2021).

Page 14 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

6. Conclusions and implications

This study provides a deeper understanding of the relationships between intellectual capital,
intrinsic motivation and organizational performance in higher education institutions. There are
two main conclusions that should be highlighted. The first is that regardless of whether the
organization strives to build its intellectual capital to improve its performance, it is the people
who ultimately use those resources in the daily processes that create value, and if they are not
internally motivated, the expected results may not be achieved. The second has to do with the
dynamics of the elements of intellectual capital according to the type of organization. In higher
education institutions, intellectual capital has a bigger impact on the elements that form them,
depending on whether the organization is public or private. This opens up new questions, but also
has theoretical and practical implications.

This research shows theoretical contributions by showing the integration between fundamental
concepts of two different theories. The KBV theory highlights the knowledge of the members of the
organization as a source of competitive advantage, but does not consider human behavior as
a fundamental factor for the use and dissemination of that knowledge. The SDT theory helps integrate
that element to explain why the results may not be as expected despite having accumulated
intellectual capital. The present study opens new perspectives for the research on intellectual capital
as a second-order construct, since there could be differences in the contribution of each element of
intellectual capital in public and private organizations, at least in the higher education setting.

These results may change the perception of managers, in terms of the automatic application of
intellectual capital, highlighting the need for a strategy that aligns the employees with the
expected results of the organization. This strategy requires well-defined policies in the manage­
ment of human talent, especially in the recruitment, selection and training. It is also important to
improve the effectiveness of assigning tasks to the right individuals and to monitor that they are
motivated by achievement. Finally, managers should closely monitor the way in which each
element of intellectual capital contributes, without assuming that they all contribute equally and
taking actions to improve their results.

7. Limitations and future research

This research was conducted in a university setting and included the participation of managers. Future
research could consider interviewing other important actors in universities. In addition, we recom­
mend to test the theoretical model in other settings to establish similarities or differences, which will
contribute to the generalization of the results. Other studies could focus on the differences in the effect
of intellectual capital according to some other characteristics of the organization, such as the size of
the organization. Finally, the effect of intellectual capital elements could be measured separately to
isolate their individual effects and gain greater insight into their behavior in organizations.

Funding higher education institutions, Patricia Alexandra Uriguen

The authors received no direct funding for this research. Aguirre, Beatrice Elcira Avolio Alecchi & Pablo Ruiz, Cogent
Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772.
Author details
Patricia Alexandra Uriguen Aguirre1 References
E-mail: [email protected] Abubakar, A., Hilman, H., & Kaliappen, N. (2018). New
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3095-8765 tools for measuring global academic performance.
Beatrice Elcira Avolio Alecchi1 Sage Open, 8(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1200-7651 2158244018790787
1
CENTRUM Catolica Graduate Business School, Lima, Agostini, L., Nosella, A., & Filippini, R. (2017). Does
Peru – Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, Lima, intellectual capital allow improving innovation
Peru. performance? A quantitative analysis in the SME
context. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(2),
Disclosure statement 400–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2016-
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the 0056
author(s). Ahmed, S. S., Guozhu, J., Mubarik, S., Khan, M., &
Khan, E. (2019). Intellectual capital and business
Citation information performance: The role of dimensions of absorptive
Cite this article as: Impact of intellectual capital on orga­ capacity. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(1),
nizational performance through intrinsic motivation in 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-11-2018-0199

Page 15 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Almatrooshi, B., Singh, S. K., & Farouk, S. (2016). Chatterji, N., & Kiran, R. (2017). Role of human and rela­
Determinants of organizational performance: tional capital of universities as underpinnings of
A proposed framework. International Journal of a knowledge economy: A structural modelling per­
Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6), spective from north Indian universities. International
844–859. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-02-2016-0038 Journal of Educational Development, 56, 52–61.
Alvino, F., DiVaio, A., Hassan, R., & Palladino, R. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.06.004
Intellectual capital and sustainable development: Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating
A systematic literature review. Journal of Intellectual goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement
Capital, 22(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11- invariance. Structural Equation Modeling:
2019-0259 A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.
Anra, Y., & Yamin, M. (2017). Relationships between lec­ org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
turer performance, organizational culture, leader­ Cricelli, L., Greco, M., Grimaldi, M., & Llanes Dueñas, L. P.
ship, and achievement motivation. Foresight and STI (2018). Intellectual capital and university perfor­
Governance, 11(2), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.17323/ mance in emerging countries. Journal of Intellectual
2500-2597.2017.2.92.97 Capital, 19(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-02-
Aramburu, N., & Sáenz, J. (2011). Structural capital, 2017-0037
innovation capability, and size effect: An empirical Deci, E., Olafsen, A., & Ryan, R. (2017). Self-determination
study. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(3), theory in work organizations: The state of a science.
307–325. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2011.17.3.307 Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Barral, M. R. M., Ribeiro, F. G., & Canever, M. D. (2018). Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/
Influence of the university environment in the 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych032516-113108
entrepreneurial intention in public and private De Matos Pedro, E., Alves, H., & Leitão, J. (2020). In search
universities. RAUSP Management Journal, 53(1), of intangible connections: Intellectual capital, per­
122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rauspm.2017.12. formance and quality of life in higher education
009 institutions. Higher Education, 83(2), 243–260.
Barrena-Martínez, J., Livio, C., Ferrándiz, E., Greco, M., & https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00653-9
Grimaldi, M. (2019). Joint forces: Towards an inte­ DiBerardino, D., & Corsi, C. (2018). A quality evaluation
gration of intellectual capital theory and the open approach to disclosing third mission activities and
innovation paradigm. Journal of Business Research, intellectual capital in Italian universities. Journal of
112, 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019. Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 178–201. https://doi.org/
10.029 10.1108/jic-02-2017-0042
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., & Gagné, M. (2013). An investiga­
models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. tion of the unique, synergistic, and balanced rela­
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 tionships between basic psychological needs and
Bhandari, K. R., Rana, S., Paul, J., & Salo, J. (2020). Relative intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social
exploration and firm performance: Why Psychology, 43(5), 1050–1064. https://doi.org/10.
resource-theory alone is not sufficient? Journal of 1111/jasp.12068
Business Research, 118, 363–377. https://doi.org/10. Fırat, M., Kılınç, H., & Yüzer, T. V. (2017). Level of intrinsic
1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.001 motivation of distance education students in
Bisogno, M., Dumay, J., Manes Rossi, F., & Tartaglia e-learning environments. Journal of Computer
Polcini, P. (2018). Identifying future directions for IC Assisted Learning, 34(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.
research in education: A literature review. Journal of 1111/jcal.12214
Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 10–33. https://doi.org/10. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation
1108/jic-10-2017-0133 models with unobservable variables and measure­
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for gen­ ment error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of
eral structural equation models. Sociological Methods Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/
& Research, 17(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10.1177/002224378101800313
0049124189017003004 Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory.
Bontis, N. (2011). Assessing knowledge assets: A review of Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589–611. https://
the models used to measure intellectual capital. doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00150
International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), Froiland, J. M., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Intrinsic motivation,
41–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00053 learning goals, engagement, and achievement in
Bowles, S., & Polanía-Reyes, S. (2012). Economic incen­ a diverse high school. Psychology in the Schools, 53
tives and social preferences: Substitutes or (3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21901
complements? Journal of Economic Literature, 50(2), Frondizi, R., Fantauzzi, C., Colasanti, N., & Fiorani, G.
368–425. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.2.368 (2019). The evaluation of universities’ third mission
Brusca, I., Cohen, S., Manes-Rossi, F., & Nicolò, G. (2019). and intellectual capital: Theoretical analysis and
Intellectual capital disclosure and academic rankings application to Italy. Sustainability, 11(12), 3455.
in European universities. Meditari Accountancy https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123455
Research, 28(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory
medar-01-2019-0432 and work motivation. Journal of Organizational
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.
using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural 322
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(2), Garbers, Y., & Konradt, U. (2014). The effect of financial
272–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/ incentives on performance: A quantitative review of
s15328007sem1102_8 individual and team-based financial incentives.
Çetin, F., & Aşkun, D. (2018). The effect of occupational Journal of Occupational and Organizational
self-efficacy on work performance through intrinsic Psychology, 87(1), 102–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/
work motivation. Management Research Review, 41 joop.12039
(2), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2017- Guthrie, J. & Dumay, J. (2015). New frontiers in the use of
0062 intellectual capital in the public sector. Journal of

Page 16 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 258–266. https://doi.org/ Management, 26(2), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.

10.1108/jic-02-2015-0017 1002/csr.1678
Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer Kianto, A., Sáenz, J. Y., & Aramburu, N. (2017).
on partial least squares structural equation modeling Knowledge-based human resource management
(PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage. practices, intellectual capital and innovation. Journal
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new of Business Research, 81, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.
criterion for assessing discriminant validity in 1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.018
variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal Kirby, J. (2005). Toward a theory of high performance.
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 30–39.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 Klafke, R., De Oliveira, M. C. V., & Ferreira, J. M. (2020). The
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sinkovics, R. (2009). The use of good professor: A comparison between public and
partial least squares path modeling in international private universities. Journal of Education, 200(1),
marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057419875124
277–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009) Kline, R. B. (2011). Methodology in the social sciences.
0000020014 principles and practice of structural equation model­
Hu, L. -T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit ing (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Konno, N., & Schillaci, E. S. (2021). Intellectual capital in
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. society 5.0 by the lens of the knowledge creation
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary theory. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(3), 478–505.
Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/ https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0060
10705519909540118 Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J., & Goluchowski, J. (2017). The
Iqbal, A., Latif, F., Marimon, F., Sahibzada, U. F., & impact of leadership on trust, knowledge manage­
Hussain, S. (2019). From knowledge management to ment, and organizational performance: A research
organizational performance: Modelling the mediating model. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3),
role of innovation and intellectual capital in higher 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2016-0072
education. Journal of Enterprise Information Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Weibel, A., Dysvik, A., &
Management, 32(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Nerstad, C. G. L. (2017). Do intrinsic and extrinsic
JEIM-04-2018-0083 motivation relate differently to employee outcomes?
Jinhai, Y., Checkland, K., Wilson, P. M., & Howard, S. J. Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, 244–258. https://
(2021). Agency autonomy, public service motivation, doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.05.004
and organizational performance. Public Management Liao, S. H., & Wu, C. C. (2009). The relationship among
Review, 25(1), 150–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/ knowledge management, organizational learning,
14719037.2021.1980290 and organizational performance. International
Jobira, A. F., & Mohammed, A. A. (2021). Predicting orga­ Journal of Business and Management, 4(4), 64–76.
nizational performance from motivation in Oromia https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v4n4p64
Seed Enterprise Bale Branch. Humanities & Social Li, S., Jia, R., Seufert, J., Hu, W., & Luo, J. (2021). The
Sciences Communications, 8(66), 1–7. https://doi.org/ impact of ability-, motivation- and
10.1057/s41599-021-00742-9 opportunity-enhancing strategic human resource
Joshi, M., Cahill, D., Sidhu, J., & Kansal, M. (2013). management on performance: The mediating roles
Intellectual capital and financial performance: An of emotional capability and intellectual capital. Asia
evaluation of the Australian financial sector. Journal Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 60(3), 453–478.
of Intellectual Capital, 14(2), 264–285. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12293
10.1108/14691931311323887 Liu, X., Lyu, B., Fan, J., Yu, S., Xiong, Y., & Chen, H. (2021).
Juliya, T. (2015). Intellectual capital cost management. A study on influence of psychological capital of
Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 792–796. Chinese university teachers upon job thriving: Based
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00439-6 on motivational work behavior as an intermediary
Jyoti, J., & Rani, A. (2017). High performance work system variable. Sage Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/
and organisational performance: Role of knowledge 21582440211003093
management. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1770–1795. Lombardi, S., Cavaliere, V., Giustiniano, L., & Cipollini, F.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2015-0262 (2019). What money cannot buy: The detrimental
Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation effect of rewards on knowledge sharing. European
related to work: A century of progress. The Journal of Management Review, 17(1), 153–170. https://doi.org/
Applied Psychology, 102(3), 338–355. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/emre.12346
10.1037/apl0000133 Lyn Chan, J. I., & Muthuveloo, R. (2019). Antecedents and
Kengatharan, N. (2019). A knowledge-based theory of the influence of strategic agility on organizational per­
firm: Nexus of intellectual capital, productivity and formance of private higher education institutions in
firms’ performance. International Journal of Malaysia. Studies in Higher Education, 46(8), 1–14.
Manpower, 40(6), 1056–1074. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1703131
1108/IJM-03-2018-0096 Manganelli, L., Thibault Landry, A., Forest, J., &
Khalid, N., Ahmed, U., Tundikbayeva, B., & Ahmed, M. Carpentier, J. (2018). Self-determination theory can
(2019). Entrepreneurship and organizational perfor­ help you generate performance and well-being in the
mance: Empirical insight into the role of entrepre­ workplace: A review of the literature. Advances in
neurial training, culture and government funding Developing Human Resources, 20(2), 227–240.
across higher education institutions in Pakistan. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422318757210
Management Science Letters, 9(5), 755–770. https:// Martín, N., Martín, V., & Trevilla, C. (2009). The influence of
doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.1.013 employee motivation on knowledge transfer. Journal
Khan, S. Z., Yang, Q., & Waheed, A. (2018). Investment in of Knowledge Management, 13(6), 478–490. https://
intangible resources and capabilities spurs sustain­ doi.org/10.1108/13673270910997132
able competitive advantage and firm performance. Mehralian, G., Peikanpour, M., Rangchian, M., &
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Aghakhani, H. (2020). Managerial skills and

Page 17 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

performance in small businesses: The mediating role Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/
of organizational climate. Journal of Asia Business 0003-066x.55.1.68
Studies, 14(3), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic
JABS-02-2019-0041 motivation from a self-determination theory perspec­
Mohammadi, S., & Karupiah, P. (2019). Quality of work life tive: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions.
and academic staff performance: A comparative Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61(1), 1–11.
study in public and private universities in Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Studies in Higher Education, 45(6), 1093–1107. Sabir, A. (2017). Motivation: Outstanding way to promote
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1652808 productivity in employees. American Journal of
Mostafa, A. A., Hussin, N., Jabbar, H. K., Ibithal, A., Management Science and Engineering, 2(3), 35–40.
Othman, R., & Mohammed, A. (2020). Intellectual https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajmse.20170203.11
capital and firm performance classification and Salinas-Ávila, J., Abreu-Ledón, R., & Tamayo-Arias, J.
motivation: Systematic literature review. Test (2020). Intellectual capital and knowledge genera­
Engineering and Management, 83, 28691–28703. tion: An empirical study from Colombian public
Muzafary, S., Ali, I., Hussain, M., Mdletshe, B., Tilwani, S. A., universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6),
& Khattak, R. (2021). Intrinsic rewards and employee 1053–1084. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-09-2019-0223
creative performance: Moderating effects of job Scales, P. C., Van Boekel, M., Pekel, K., Syvertsen, A. K., &
autonomy and proactive personality: A perspective of Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2020). Effects of developmental
self-determination theory. International Journal of relationships with teachers on middle-school students’
Innovation, Creativity and Change, 15(2), 701–725. motivation and performance. Psychology in the Schools,
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6464124 57(4), 646–677. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22350
Nicoló, G., Manes-Rossi, F., Christiaens, J., & Aversano, N. Schumacher, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s
(2020). Accountability through intellectual capital guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence
disclosure in Italian Universities. Journal of Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Management & Governance, 24(4), 1055–1087. Shi, D., Lee, T., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-019-09497-7 Understanding the model size effect on SEM fit
Nicolò, G., Raimo, N., Polcini, P. T., & Vitolla, F. (2021). indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Unveiling the link between performance and 79(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Intellectual Capital disclosure in the context of 0013164418783530
Italian public universities. Evaluation and Program Shoraj, D., & Llaci, S. (2015). Motivation and its impact on
Planning, 88, 101969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eval organizational effectiveness in Albanian businesses.
progplan.2021.101969 Sage Open, 5(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). 2158244015582229
McGraw-Hill. Shujahat, M., Ali, B., Nawaz, F., Durst, S., & Kianto, A.
Ouakouak, M. L., & Ouedraogo, N. (2018). Fostering knowl­ (2017). Translating the impact of knowledge man­
edge sharing and knowledge utilization. Business agement into knowledge-based innovation: The
Process Management Journal, 25(4), 757–779. https:// neglected and mediating role ofknowledge-worker
doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2017-0107 satisfaction. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Pirohov-Tóth, B. (2019). Role of management in the effect Manufacturing & Service Industries, 28(4), 200–212.
on employee motivation of organizational perfor­ https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20735
mance – Hungarian case study. Journal of Economics Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K.,
and Business, 2(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., & Koestner, R. (2014). A
3413667 self-determination theory approach to predicting
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & school achievement over time: The unique role of
Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature Psychology, 39(4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied cedpsych.2014.08.002
Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Tjahjadi, B., Soewarno, N., Astri, E., & Hariyati, H. (2019).
0021-9010.88.5.879 Does intellectual capital matter in performance man­
Quintero-Quintero, W., Blanco-Ariza, A., Garzón, M., & agement system-organizational performance rela­
Mikhailov, O. (2021). Intellectual capital: A review tionship? Experience of higher education institutions in
and bibliometric analysis. Publications, 9(4), 1–23. Indonesia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(4),
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9040046 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-12-2018-0209
Rehman, U., Aslam, E., & Iqbal, A. (2021). Intellectual Tomal, D. R., & Jones, K. J. (2015). A comparison of core
capital efficiency and bank performance: Evidence competencies of women and men leaders in the
from Islamic banks. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(1), manufacturing industry. The Coastal Business
113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.02.004 Journal, 14(1), 13–25.
Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Self-determination the­ Tran, G., & Bich, N. (2018). Factors affecting work moti­
ory in human resource development: New directions vation of office workers – a study in ho chi minh city,
and practical considerations. Advances in Developing vietnam. Journal B&It, 2(2), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.
Human Resources, 20(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10. 14311/bit.2018.02.01
1177/1523422318756954 Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley & Sons.
Rohim, A., & Budhiasa, I. G. S. (2019). Organizational Wall, A. (2005). The measurement and management of
culture as moderator in the relationship between intellectual capital in the public sector. Public
organizational reward on knowledge sharing and Management Review, 7(2), 289–303. https://doi.org/
employee performance. Journal of Management 10.1080/14719030500091723
Development, 38(7), 538–560. https://doi.org/10. Weqar, F., Khan, A. M., Raushan, M. A., & Haque, S. M. I.
1108/JMD-07-2018-0190 (2020). Measuring the impact of intellectual capital on
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory the financial performance of the finance sector of India.
and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(3), 1134–1151.
development, and well-being. The American https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00654-0

Page 18 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural Yeganeh, M. V., Sharahi, B. Y., Mohammadi, E., & Beigi, F. H.
equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (2014). A survey of intellectual capital in public and
(5), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/ private insurance companies of Iran case: Tehran City.
0011000006286345 Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114,
William, Y. D., & Pelto, E. (2021). Customer knowledge 602–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.754
sharing in cross-border mergers and acquisitions: Zhang, M., Qi, Y., Wang, Z., Pawar, K. S., & Zhao, X. (2018). How
The role of customer motivation and promise does intellectual capital affect product innovation per­
management. Journal of International formance? Evidence from China and India. International
Management, 27(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(3),
intman.2021.100858 895–914. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2016-0612

Page 19 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

Appendix Appendix A1: Questionnaire

ITEM COD VARIABLE FUENTE

IC INTTELECTUAL CAPITAL Iqbal et al. (2019)

HC HUMAN CAPITAL

1 HC1 Employees hold suitable work experience for accomplishing their job
successfully in our university.

2 HC2 Employees of our university have excellent professional skills in their

particular jobs and functions.

3 HC3 The university provides well-designed training programs.

4 HC4 The employees of our university often develop new ideas and knowledge.

5 HC5 Employees are creative in our university.

SC STRUCTURAL CAPITAL

6 SC1 The overall operations procedure of our university is very efficient.

7 SC2 Our university responds to changes very quickly.

8 SC3 Our university has an easily accessible information system.

9 SC4 Systems and procedures of our university support innovation.

10 SC5 Our university’s culture and atmosphere are flexible and comfortable.

11 SC6 Our university emphasizes new market development investment.

12 SC7 There is support among different departments in our university.

RC RELATIONAL CAPITAL

13 RC1 Our university discovers and solves problems through intimate

communication and effective collaboration.

14 RC2 Our university maintains appropriate interactions with its stakeholders.

15 RC3 Our university maintains long-term relationships with customers.

16 RC4 Our university has many excellent suppliers.

17 RC5 Our university has stable and good relationships with the strategic partners.

IM INTRINSIC MOTIVATION Kuvass et al. (2017)

18 IM1 The tasks that I do at work are themselves representing a driving power
in my job.

19 IM2 The tasks that I do at work are enjoyable.

20 IM3 My job is meaningful.

21 IM4 My job is very exciting.

22 IM5 My job is so interesting that it is a motivation in itself.

23 IM6 Sometimes I become so inspired by my job that I almost forget

everything else around me.

OP ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Iqbal et al. (2019)

24 OP1 Customer satisfaction of our university is better as compared to key

competitors.

25 OP2 Curriculum development of our university is better as compared to key

competitors.

26 OP3 Responsiveness of our university is better as compared to key

competitors.

27 OP4 Research productivity of our university is better as compared to key

competitors.

28 OP5 Research ranking of our university is better as compared to key competitors

Page 20 of 21
Uriguen Aguirre et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2189772
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189772

© 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 21 of 21