The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1469-1930.htm

Leadership, culture, intellectual Leadership,

culture,
capital and knowledge processes intellectual
capital
for organizational innovativeness
across industries: 121
the case of Poland Received 5 February 2021
Revised 22 April 2021
1 July 2021
Wioleta Kucharska 27 September 2021
Accepted 1 October 2021
Management, Faculty of Management and Economics,
Gdansk University of Technology, Gdansk, Poland

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to present the overview of intellectual capital creation micro-mechanisms
concerning formal and informal knowledge processes. The organizational culture, transformational leadership
and innovativeness are also included in the investigation as ascendants and consequences of the focal relation
of intellectual capital and knowledge processes.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on a sample of 1,418 Polish knowledge workers from the
construction, healthcare, higher education and information technology (IT) industries, the empirical model was
developed using the structural equation modeling (SEM) method.
Findings – The study exposes that the essence of transformational leadership innovativeness oriented is
developing all intellectual capital components. To do so, leaders must support both formal and informal
knowledge processes through the organizational culture of knowledge and learning. Furthermore, for best
results of the knowledge transformation into intellectual capital, the learning culture must be shaped by both
components: learning climate and acceptance of mistakes.
Practical implications – Presented findings can be directly applied to organizations to enhance innovativeness.
Namely, leaders who observe that the more knowledge is formally managed in their organizations, the less effective
the knowledge exchange is-should put more effort into supporting informal knowledge processes to smoothly
develop human and relational intellectual capital components. Shortly, leaders must implement an authentic
learning culture, including the mistakes acceptance component, to use the full organizational potential to achieve
intellectual capital growth. Intellectual capital growth is essential for innovativeness.
Originality/value – This study presents the “big picture” of all intellectual capital creation micro-
mechanisms linking transformational leadership with organizational innovativeness and explains the
“knowledge paradox” identified by Mabey and Zhao (2017). This explanation assumes that intellectual capital
components are created informally (i.e. human and relational ones) and formally (i.e. structural ones). Therefore,
for best effects, both formal and informal knowledge processes, must be supported. Furthermore, this study
exposes that the intensity of all explored micro-mechanisms is industry-specific.
Keywords Learning culture, Knowledge culture, Transformational leadership, Innovations, Intellectual
capital, Tacit knowledge, Knowledge processes, Healthcare industry, Higher education, IT industry,
Construction industry, Gender studies
Paper type Research paper

© Wioleta Kucharska. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and
create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://
creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 22 No. 7, 2021
The presented research is a result of the project Tacit Knowledge Sharing Influence on pp. 121-141
Innovativeness. The Sector Analysis No. UMO-2018/31/D/HS4/02623 is financed by the funds of the Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
National Science Center of Poland (Narodowe Centrum Nauki-NCN). DOI 10.1108/JIC-02-2021-0047
JIC 1. Introduction
22,7 Intellectual capital (IC) is a central focus of knowledge-driven companies today. It is believed
there is no knowledge without IC and vice versa (Rastogi, 2000). Therefore, studies exploring
this bidirectional relationship (Garcia-Perez et al., 2020) are vital for organizational
development because they strive to understand this relationship and they help
organizations shape their policies in favor of creating both knowledge and IC.
This study focuses on IC creation arising from knowledge processes and contributes to the
122 literature by demonstrating how tacit and explicit knowledge affect IC. This exploration is needed
to understand the contradiction identified by Mabey and Zhao (2017), who revealed that “the more
knowledge is formally managed, the less likely effective knowledge exchange will occur” (p. 43);
they named this phenomenon the “knowledge paradox.” Solving the mechanism of this paradox
is vital for knowledge management theory and practice; however, following Rastogi (2000) and
Garcia-Perez et al. (2020), this only seems possible through a more in-depth investigation of IC-
related and knowledge management–related organizational processes. This exploration is
needed because tacit and explicit knowledge forms are created differently across the organization,
which might affect IC. Specifically, this study aims to expose how informal processes of tacit
knowledge and formal processes of explicit knowledge influence each component of IC.
Both tacit and explicit knowledge are important in IC development. Moreover, while each
IC component (i.e. human, relational, structural and renewal) is vital for organizational
performance and development (Ahmed et al., 2019), they require different types of
organizational support (Matricano et al., 2020). This study provides an in-depth
exploration of how these four IC components contribute to organizational innovativeness
performance. Specifically, it shows how the components are created through formal and
informal knowledge processes when shaped by organizational culture and driven by
transformational leadership, resulting in IC followed by innovativeness. Moreover, Watkins
and Kim (2018) stated that if the assumption that organizational learning culture enhances
knowledge creation and innovation is empirically confirmed, it is a highly significant
discovery. Thus, the ambition to deliver this proof justifies this study’s profound complexity.
Further, in a comprehensive literature review, Bellucci et al. (2021) noted the urgent need
for studies conducting in-depth explorations of the interconnections between knowledge
management, IC, and market performance with innovation. This study, strongly inspired by
the literature presented above, directly responds to this call.
Moreover, it is argued that transformational leadership is a key factor in enhancing learning,
knowledge, and innovation relations (Klaic et al., 2020). Alrowwad et al. (2020) demonstrated that
transformational leadership affects innovation through IC and presented the general
mechanisms of this effect. This study aims to delve deeper to reveal the micromechanisms.

2. Theoretical framework
All of the factors mentioned so far are related. However, the “big picture” of all IC creation
micromechanisms linking transformational leadership with organizational innovativeness is
still missing. Moreover, the issue of how formal and informal knowledge processes shape IC and
the overall relationship between leadership and innovativeness remains unexplored. While some
extant studies demonstrate a link between leadership, organizational innovativeness, and the
factors of culture, IC and knowledge processes (e.g. Pellegrini et al., 2020), they explain focal parts
of the relationship rather than its entire structure. This study aims to fill this gap. A deeper
understanding of the essence of the aforementioned relations is important for transformational
leadership and innovativeness relation exploration, which is vital for learning organizations’
growth. Moreover, revealing these micromechanisms is critical for:
(1) understanding how particular IC components in organizations are developed as a
result of knowledge processes (Garcia-Perez et al., 2020; Matricano et al., 2020).
 (2) explaining the “knowledge paradox” (Mabey and Zhao, 2017). Leadership,
(3) providing empirical proof supporting the theoretical thesis that learning culture culture,
influences organizational innovativeness (Watkins and Kim, 2018). intellectual
This knowledge is desired by theory and practice to improve organizational innovativeness. capital

2.1 Research question 123

This study aims to answer the following research question: How do formal and informal
knowledge processes shape IC and link the overall relationship between transformational
leadership and innovativeness due to company culture?

2.2 Research problem

The research problem addressed in this study concerns transformational leadership and the
innovativeness of learning organizations. All factors mentioned in the Introduction section
are related, but the details are not known. This lack of knowledge makes it impossible to
understand the micromechanisms linking transformational leadership with organizational
innovativeness; this understanding is desired by theory and practice to improve
organizational innovativeness.

2.3 Aim
This study aims to present an overview of IC creation micromechanisms of formal and
informal knowledge processes driven by organizational culture and transformational
leadership to achieve innovativeness. Specific objectives that support the general aim will:
(1) clarify how the IC components are created in the organization in the relation to
knowledge processes.
(2) explain the “knowledge paradox.”
(3) deliver empirical proof verifying whether learning culture influences organizational
innovativeness.

3. Hypotheses
3.1 Transformational leadership shapes organizational culture
Transformational leaders are a prominent group because they establish organizational ideas
and visions, create strong bonds with employees, motivate employees, and are supportive
and inspirational (Busari et al., 2019). Such leaders are able to effect change through the
development of organizational culture (Brandt et al., 2019). However, leaders sometimes focus
too much on changing organizational policies rather than changing the organizational
mindset, often failing to improve performance as a result (Schwartz, 2018). Thus, this study
focuses on transformational leadership that actively shapes organizational culture to ensure
good innovation performance of learning organizations. Learning organizations facilitate the
learning process of all employees, continuously transforming themselves (Peler et al., 1989).
Therefore, a desire to possess knowledge is a motivation for learning. Given that learning
always changes the perception of things, leaders should support an organizational culture
focused on knowledge, learning, and innovativeness at the individual and organizational
levels (Watkins and Marsick, 1996), and facilitating the flow of constant transformation of
tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (Nonaka et al., 2000). Further, learning organizations
are a formal management system, whereas organizational learning is an activity that occurs
as a result of formal systemic enhancements and even without them (Werner, 2017).
JIC Therefore, a learning culture that is understood as employees’ positive attitudes and
22,7 behaviors toward learning processes is vital for formal and informal organizational learning
processes.
Naqshbandi and Jasimuddin (2018) demonstrated that knowledge-oriented leadership
affects knowledge management capability, which is broadly defined as creating
infrastructure and processes to increase innovativeness. These researchers followed
Donate and de Pablo (2015), who found that a knowledge-oriented company culture
124 influences knowledge management practices, and that knowledge processes are supported
by leadership. Transformational leadership supports knowledge sharing (Coun et al., 2019)
and creates an organizational culture that promotes knowledge, learning, and innovativeness
(Anselmann and Mulder, 2020). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. Transformational leadership has a positive effect on the culture of learning.
H2. Transformational leadership has a positive effect on the organizational culture of
knowledge.
The spontaneous flow and exchange of tacit knowledge require strong leadership to create
favorable conditions for doing so (Mabey and Nicholds, 2015). According to Mabey and Zhao
(2017, p. 48), intentional leadership “based on a collaborative ethic is necessary for the
creation of a ‘shared’ space to promote informal knowledge exchange”. Leaders must
facilitate such learning interactions to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. To
support knowledge sharing, organizations also need to develop a culture in which employees
can learn, unlearn, and relearn in a safe climate (Nold, 2012). Farnese et al. (2019) also
demonstrated the importance of culture for overall organizational learning. Boh and Wong
(2013) noted that organizational climate is vital for learning. Moreover, leadership positively
affects the psychological safety climate of organizations, with this climate mediating the
relationship between leadership and tacit knowledge sharing (Shao et al., 2017). Given that
the climate component promotes learning and the mistake acceptance component forms
learning culture (Kucharska and Bedford, 2020), the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a. Transformational leadership has a positive effect on the climate component of
learning culture.
H1b. Transformational leadership has a positive effect on the mistake acceptance
component of learning culture.
Employees with learning mindsets are open to changes and “are ready to be wrong” (Senge,
2006), meaning they accept the occurrence of mistakes and learn from them. Zappa and
Robins (2016) stressed that the essence of organizational learning is to identify and modify
mistakes. Thus, as demonstrated by Kucharska and Bedford (2020) and Kucharska (2021),
the climate component of learning culture supports the acceptance of mistakes in the learning
process. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1c. The climate component of learning culture supports the mistake acceptance
component.

3.2 Knowledge culture affects learning culture

Organizational culture facilitates the creation and distribution of knowledge (Aramburu et al.,
2015). Islam et al. (2015) defined knowledge culture as one that has the conditions to support
the flow of knowledge across the organization. Watkins and Marsick (1996, p. 4) noted that
“a learning organization must capture, share, and use knowledge so its members can work
together to change the way the organization responds to challenges. People must question the
old, socially constructed, and maintained ways of thinking. Learning must take place and be
supported in teams and larger groups, where individuals can mutually create new Leadership,
knowledge. And the process must be continuous because becoming a learning organization is culture,
a never-ending journey.” In light of this, learning culture is crucial for organizations but is
ineffective without the implemented culture of knowledge. Perez Lopez et al. (2004) and
intellectual
Kucharska and Bedford (2020) argued that there is no learning culture without knowledge capital
culture. Eid and Nuhu (2011) also noted the significant effect of knowledge culture on
learning. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
125
H3a. Knowledge culture has a positive effect on the climate component of learning
culture.
H3b. Knowledge culture has a positive effect on the mistake acceptance component of
learning culture.

3.3 Organizational culture shapes knowledge processes

Knowledge is the “life blood of most organizations today” (Mabey and Zhao, 2017, p. 39).
Thus, the principal focus of organizations is to create and maintain conditions and processes
for using knowledge and creating a competitive advantage (Leone and Schiavone, 2019).
Inkpen and Tsang (2005) emphasized that access to knowledge is important but not sufficient
for effective knowledge capturing and sharing. Moreover, Heisig (2009) noted that, apart from
knowledge processes, technology, and entire organization design, human-oriented factors
such as culture and leadership are critical to ensure the successful implementation of
knowledge management that effects are visible in performance. Furthermore, an
organization’s knowledge culture can shape employees’ positive attitudes toward (tacit
and explicit) knowledge that supports the smooth flow of all knowledge processes. This
assumption is justified by the fact that formal acts are caused by formal rules and policies,
while informal acts are shaped by informal rules (North, 1990). Company culture
accommodates both formal and informal rules. Knowledge (tacit and explicit), according to
culture, is shared formally and informally.
The tacit component of knowledge reflects novelty. The distinction between the explicit
and tacit components of knowledge is perfectly explained by Nonaka’s et al. (2000) “ba”
concept, which determines the moment of transforming the uncodified, often unconscious
tacit knowledge into the conscious and easily codified explicit form. The sharing of both
explicit and tacit knowledge is important and expected. It can also depend on the promise of
perks and other motivational benefits (Shao et al., 2017) or the overall company culture
focused on a positive attitude toward knowledge and learning. The understanding and
appreciation of knowledge as a resource that is visible in knowledge culture lead to
knowledge management and the development of formal knowledge processes. As a result,
knowledge culture supports these processes (Intezari et al., 2017). Thus, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H4a. Knowledge culture has a positive effect on formal explicit knowledge processes.
In contrast to the explicit form of knowledge, which is expressed in words and data and
codified into many easy-to-share forms (e.g. books, reports, documents, databases), tacit
knowledge is personal, context-specific, stored in the human mind, and, undoubtedly,
impossible to be formalized (Olaisen and Revang, 2018). Crane and Bontis (2014, p. 1136)
defined tacit knowledge as “acquired unconsciously and automatically, but capable of
influencing action”. Most tacit knowledge processes occur inside the human mind. Most of
them are unconscious, except when they are revealed and shared e.g. when knowledge
workers actively collaborate (Asher and Popper, 2019). Therefore, tacit knowledge generation
and sharing are not formalized or structured but depend on the knowledge owner’s free will,
while the factor supporting such sharing includes personal motives (e.g. altruistic motives or
JIC desire for self-presentation associated with creating an impression of being an expert).
22,7 Therefore, following Islam et al.’s (2015) statement that knowledge culture supports the flow
of knowledge throughout the organization, it is assumed that knowledge culture might
motivate knowledge workers to share their newly discovered thoughts and ideas. Thus, the
following hypothesis is formulated:
H4b. Knowledge culture has a positive effect on tacit knowledge sharing.
126 Informal sharing is greatly dependent on social skills, cohesion, and the willingness to
commit time and effort to share knowledge with others (Reagans and McEvily, 2003). Shao
et al. (2012) revealed that tacit knowledge-sharing behaviors are motivated by psychological
reasons and facilitated by contextual factors such as organizational climate. Garvin (1993,
p. 80) defined an organization with a learning culture as an “organization skilled at creating,
acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new
knowledge and insights”. A culture that enables a channel of knowledge flow to be created
greatly supports tacit knowledge sharing (Mabey and Zhao, 2017). Therefore, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H4c. The climate component of learning culture has a positive effect on tacit knowledge
sharing (informal).
H4d. The mistake acceptance component of constant learning culture has a positive
effect on tacit knowledge sharing (informal).
Following the distinction noted by Polanyi (1966) between tacit and explicit knowledge,
Nonaka et al. (2000) transferred this understanding of knowledge to the business context
introducing SECI model. Next, Nonaka and Takeuchi (2019) developed socialization,
externalization, combination and internalization model, which emphasizes that
organizational continuous innovation is achievable through constantly and repeatedly
creating new knowledge (tacit), disseminating this knowledge, and converting it into an
explicit form. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5. Tacit knowledge sharing has a positive effect on formal explicit knowledge
processes.

3.4 Knowledge processes support intellectual capital creation

IC is conceptualized as knowledge-based assets that organizations use to achieve and
maintain a competitive advantage (Yang et al., 2015). Knowledge management processes and
IC affect one another (Seleim and Khalil, 2011). IC results from the intangible assets of
knowledge and social relationships (Jardon, 2015). The intangible assets of today are vital
sources of innovativeness, which is the key driver to ensure long-term organizational
competitiveness (Tsui et al., 2014). Moreover, intellectual assets are defined as the “stock of
knowledge” possessed by an organization and comprises human, structural, and relational
capital (Bontis, 1998). Human capital is related to employees’ knowledge, capabilities,
education level, soft and professional skills, and other personal characteristics. Structural
capital reflects the entire knowledge infrastructure of an organization (Hussinki et al., 2017).
The explicit knowledge acquisition and management of an organization are fundamental
parts of structural capital (Abualoush et al., 2018). Structural capital is perceived as an effect
of explicit knowledge integrated into information systems and as the result of knowledge
conversion (Asiaei et al., 2018). Relational capital accumulates internal and external
relationships as a source of potential value (Kianto and Waajakoski, 2010). Additionally, the
renewal capital component of IC, introduced by Kianto (2008), reflects the general
organizational ability to learn and acquire new skills and capabilities.
 Furthermore, Saint-Onge (1996) noted that tacit knowledge has different forms for each Leadership,
organizational IC component: for human capital, tacit knowledge is reflected in mindsets, culture,
assumptions, beliefs, and biases; for relational capital, tacit knowledge is reflected in the
collective mindsets of meaning perception; and for structural capital, tacit knowledge is
intellectual
reflected in the collective culture, norms, and patterns of behavior (p. 12). Vagnoni and Oppi capital
(2015) argued that newly created knowledge strongly supports structural capital. At the same
time, formal knowledge management processes support structural capital creation
(Abualoush et al., 2018). Thus, IC is a result of formal and informal knowledge processes 127
and is the focal point of organizational performance. As a result, hypotheses that both formal
(related to explicit knowledge) and informal (related to tacit knowledge) knowledge processes
support IC are proposed. Further, Wang et al. (2014) demonstrated that the effects of tacit and
explicit knowledge on specific IC components differ. Thus, the hypotheses are divided into
tacit and explicit knowledge as follows:
H6a. Tacit knowledge sharing has a positive effect on human capital.
H6b. Tacit knowledge sharing has a positive effect on relational capital.
H6c. Tacit knowledge sharing has a positive effect on structural capital.
H7a. Explicit knowledge processes have a positive effect on human capital.
H7b. Explicit knowledge processes have a positive effect on relational capital.
H7c. Explicit knowledge processes have a positive effect on structural capital.
Agostini and Nosella (2017), Buenechea-Elberdin et al. (2018), and Oliveira et al. (2020)
considered human capital an antecedent of relational capital. In addition, Kianto (2008) and
Kianto et al. (2010) argued that renewal capital (reflecting the general organizational ability to
learn and acquire new skills and capabilities) is supported by human capital. Thus, the
following hypotheses are put forward:
H8a. Human capital has a positive effect on relational capital.
H8b. Human capital has a positive effect on renewal capital.
Santos-Rodrigues et al. (2013) noted that the human and relational components of IC are
important for innovation development, and the relational and structural components of IC are
vital for innovation adoption, demonstrating that relational capital is critical. Moreover,
Buenechea-Elberdin et al. (2018) revealed that relational capital positively affects renewal
capital. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H9a. Relational capital has a positive effect on renewal capital.
The relational capital component of IC includes all company relationships (Meles et al., 2016).
It can be perceived as a mandatory source of structural capital understood as infrastructure
for value creation by sharing, using and transferring existing knowledge (Sullivan, 2000).
Moreover, Lervik (2006) argued that structural and relational capital are interrelated. Thus,
the following hypothesis is developed:
H9b. Relational capital has a positive effect on structural capital.

3.5 Intellectual capital fosters organizational innovativeness

Innovative ideas are at the center of organizational efforts aimed at delivering superior
market performance and securing sustainable competitive advantages (Cillo et al., 2019). IC is
a source of innovation (Campanella et al., 2014). Renewal capital (Kianto, 2008) is in line with
Senge’s (2006) idea that learning organizations have a shared vision of organizational aims,
JIC and that open-mindedness accommodates diverse viewpoints, experimenting, questioning
22,7 existing assumptions, and shared beliefs to promote continuous innovation. The direct and
positive effect of IC on organizational innovativeness was demonstrated (Cabrilo et al., 2018).
Buenechea-Elberdin et al. (2018) showed that structural capital has a positive effect on
renewal capital and that renewal capital supports organizational innovation performance.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:
128 H10. Structural capital has a positive effect on renewal capital.
H11. Renewal capital has a positive effect on organizational innovativeness.

3.6 Control variables

A control variable is an additional factor possibly affecting the relationship between an
independent and a dependent variable. As a result, a control variable may act as a
confounder, moderator or suppressor (Spector and Brannick, 2011). Such an important
variable for this study is tacit knowledge awareness. According to El-Den and
Sriratanaviriyakul (2019), tacit knowledge awareness is simply the stage at which an
individual realizes something new (e.g. opinion/idea). Social interactions foster awareness
and the development of new concepts (Nonaka et al., 2000). Therefore, the tacit knowledge
awareness moment is promoted by general socialization i.e. task-related interactions and
overall formal, informal and unformal organizational social interactions (Insch et al., 2008).
Moreover, Kremer et al. (2019, p. 67) highlighted that “if new ideas are not articulated, they can
hardly be implemented.” So, the lack of tacit knowledge awareness may disrupt its sharing.
Therefore, it is considered a moderator in this study (Hayes, 2018). Thus, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
Hcv1. Tacit knowledge awareness moderates the effect of learning culture on tacit
knowledge sharing.
This study also aims to control the industry factor. Kucharska and Erickson (2020)
empirically demonstrated that the industry factor is important for knowledge-sharing
studies. Therefore, the comparison between involved in the study sectors seems to be
fascinating. Specifically, all sectors included in this study (information technology [IT],
healthcare, higher education [HE], construction) are defined as knowledge-based industries,
but IT, healthcare, and HE are defined as knowledge-intensive industries (Lee and Jung,
2020). The above industries are driven by knowledge but in a different (industrial) context.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed concerning the potential effect of industry
factors on informal tacit knowledge sharing and formal knowledge processes:
Hcv2a. Industry factor determines informal tacit knowledge sharing.
Hcv2b. Industry factor determines formal knowledge processes.
Figure 1 visualizes theoretical model.

4. Methodology
4.1 Sample
The sampling process focused on recruiting knowledge worker staff from the IT,
construction, HE and healthcare industries in Poland. The sampling plan included
independent samples composed of HE (n 5 368) and construction, healthcare, and IT
(n 5 350 each) professionals. It was designed according to the statistics concerning the labor
market (Statistics Poland, 2017). All samples were characterized by gender and position
balance. The data were collected in January and February 2020.
 Leadership,
culture,
intellectual
capital

129

Figure 1.
Theoretical model

The total variance of the samples was extracted at 73% (total Poland), 76% (construction),
74% (healthcare), 80% (IT), and 77% (HE), while the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test of the samples’
adequacy was obtained at levels 0.929 (total Poland), 0.885 (construction), 0.922 (healthcare),
0.896 (IT), and 0.936 (HE). All samples exceeded 0.6, which confirmed their good quality (Hair
et al., 2010). Further, the Harman single-factor test (Fuller et al., 2016) was applied, and none of
the results – 30% (total Poland), 29% (construction), 34% (healthcare), 29% (IT), and 38%
(HE) – exceeded 50%, confirming the quality of the datasets. Common method variance was
detected at levels of 21% (total Poland), 27% (construction), 17% (healthcare), 36% (IT), and
19% (HE), confirming the accepted level of bias and justifying further analysis and
presentation of the measures (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Appendix A presents sample
details.

4.2 Measures
All included constructs represented by latent variables were measured using existing
attitude scales (Appendix B). The new scale for knowledge processes measurement was
introduced in this study and validated according to deVellis’s (2017) procedure. The survey
began with questions about the workers’ qualifications to ensure the selection of respondents
who: first, had been employed for a minimum of one year by the same company perceived by
them as a “learning organization”; and second, had a “knowledge worker” status, which
concerns positions where knowledge is a tool and the result of their work (input and output of
their working processes). Respondents were given a brief explanation of the purpose of the
study, and definitions of a learning organization, knowledge worker, and tacit knowledge.
They were then asked to react to focal statements measuring all involved constructs using a
seven-point Likert scale to assess respondents’ attitudes to these statements. Further analysis
only included fully completed questionnaires with SD > 0.4. Appendix C includes descriptive
statistics.
The measured constructs reached (standardized) indicator loadings above the reference
level of >0.6 (Hair et al., 2010). Internal consistency of the constructs was assessed using
Cronbach’s alpha and a critical level of >0.7 (Francis, 2001). Average variance extracted
(AVE) was assessed with a test statistic of >0.5 and composite reliability of >0.7 (Byrne,
2016), with all establishing scale validity. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing
the AVE square root against correlations with other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
JIC All AVE coefficients were appropriately larger than the reference value. Appendix D presents
22,7 details.

4.3 Procedure
The analysis procedure began with an assessment of the structural model quality for total
Poland. The control variable “industry” (nominal) was input to the total Poland model, and
130 after the positive result achievement (β 5 0.10***), separate models were created to identify
differences between industries. Given that tacit knowledge awareness was included as a
control variable and was also significant for the total Poland sample (β 5 0.17***), it was also
imputed for industry models. Next, all obtained results were analyzed and discussed.

5. Results
The most interesting findings concern the effect of knowledge processes on IC. Formal and
informal knowledge processes were found to affect different IC components. Specifically,
formal knowledge processes are not significant for relational capital, which is observed for all
four industries under analysis (H7b). Similarly, formal knowledge processes are not
significant for human capital (H7a), except in the HE and IT industries, but this support is not
very strong (β 5 0.11*/0.13*). This implies that formal knowledge processes do not support
human-related components of IC. In contrast, informal tacit knowledge sharing has a positive
effect on all IC components (H6a), with the most potent effect observed for HE and healthcare
(β 5 0.61***/0.65***). However, its influence on the structural component (H6c) is
comparably weaker and not significant in the construction and HE industries. This implies
that informal knowledge sharing supports human-related components of IC. Further, formal
knowledge processes support the structural component, which is observed for all four
industries under analysis (H7c). This implies that formal knowledge processes, in contrast to
informal, strongly support the structural capital component. Renewal capital is strongly
supported by human and structural capital (H8b and H10), whereas the positive effect of the
relational component on renewal capital is noted only in the healthcare industry (H9a). This
study reveals a strong effect of renewal capital on innovativeness for all four industries under
consideration (H11). This highlights the importance of renewal capital for innovativeness.
Another important finding was the influence of knowledge culture and learning culture on
formal and informal knowledge processes. The study finds that knowledge culture strongly
influences the climate component of learning culture (H3b), and this relationship applies to all
four industries. In contrast, the mistakes acceptance component of learning culture is
strongly supported by knowledge culture in the construction and HE industries (H3a). For the
healthcare industry, this relationship is weaker but still significant, and it is insignificant for
the IT industry. Thus, the mistakes acceptance component of learning culture is not equally
observed in all four industries, meaning that the potential of mistakes as a source of learning
is not likely to be equally used in industries as a potential source of tacit knowledge
awareness.
Moreover, the results demonstrate that knowledge culture strongly supports formal
knowledge processes (H4a) and significantly and strongly supports informal tacit knowledge
processes for the healthcare industry (H4b). For the IT industry, this relationship is weaker,
and it is not significant for the construction and HE industries. In addition, it was discovered
that learning culture is more important than knowledge culture for informal tacit knowledge
sharing (H4c-d). The climate component of learning culture is found to have a significant and
direct effect on tacit knowledge sharing in the construction, HE and IT industries (H4c). This
effect is not significant in the healthcare industry. In contrast, the climate component of
learning culture supports the mistakes acceptance component of learning culture in the
healthcare and IT industries, but not in the HE and construction industries (H1c). This means Leadership,
that in the HE and construction industries, the acceptance of mistakes does not result from culture,
the learning climate component. In contrast to the construction and HE industries, learning
climate significantly supports mistakes acceptance in the healthcare industry, and the
intellectual
relationship between learning climate and tacit knowledge sharing is fully mediated by capital
mistakes acceptance (indirect effect 5 0.20(***)-two-tailed BC significance). Further, the
acceptance of mistakes directly supports tacit knowledge sharing in the HE, healthcare, and
construction industries, but not in the IT industry (H4d); however, learning climate supports 131
mistakes acceptance in the IT industry (H4c). Thus, this issue is interesting and requires a
more in-depth investigation. Moreover, in regard to the effect of knowledge culture on
knowledge processes, the effect of tacit knowledge awareness on tacit knowledge sharing is
the strongest in the healthcare industry (Hcv1), where the learning culture is the strongest
and fully supported by the mistakes acceptance component.
Regarding leadership issues, it was found that transformational leadership significantly
affects knowledge and learning cultures in all four analyzed industries (H1a-b, H2). However,
while knowledge culture and learning climate are supported equally strongly by
transformational leadership (H1b, H2), the mistakes acceptance component is supported
by transformational leadership to a lesser extent. This suggests that the mistakes acceptance
component of learning culture may be controversial for companies with strong knowledge
culture. Specifically, companies where knowledge is highly valued may find it difficult to
accept the fact that mistakes occur. This is in line with the learning paradox described by
Kucharska and Bedford (2020). Figure 2 presents all the obtained results. All details of
verifying the hypotheses are presented in Table 1.

6. Discussion
The results illustrate the “big picture” of all of the identified micromechanisms linking
transformational leadership with organizational innovativeness. These micromechanisms
(1) clarified how the IC components are created in the relation to knowledge processes;
(2) explained the “knowledge paradox”;
(3) exposed that IC development is industry-specific;
(4) delivered empirical proof that learning culture influences organizational
innovativeness.
This contribution allows theory and practice to be expanded regarding organizational
innovativeness. These findings are elaborated on below.

6.1 Knowledge paradox is explained by the difference in intellectual capital components

creation
The most interesting finding of the study is that formal knowledge processes affect structural
capital but are not significant in the development of human and relational capital. In contrast,
the informal processes of tacit knowledge sharing have a far greater effect on human and
relational capital than on structural capital. This finding is in line with Mabey and Zhao
(2017), who found that more formal knowledge processes lead to less effective knowledge
exchange. Mabey and Zhao (2017, p. 43) revealed that “the more knowledge is formally
managed, the less likely effective knowledge exchange will occur” (i.e. “knowledge paradox”).
They noted that for organizations of all types (i.e. business and science-oriented), benefits
from explicit knowledge management are supported by an appropriate set of processes.
However, such processes are not effective for tacit knowledge utilization. The present study
 JIC
22,7

132

Figure 2.
Structural model
2
R = 0.50/0.45/0.42/0.59/0.58 TACIT KNOWLEDGE R2 = 0.32/0.15/0.39/0.23/0.48
Constant Learning Culture AWARENESS Human
– Learning Climate 0.13*** 0.46***
0.21*** 0.40***
Capital
TOTAL POLAND/ 0.38*** 0.18*** 0.23*** 0.61*** 0.08**
0.15*** 2 0.43***
CONSTRUCTION/0.40*** 0.32*** ns R = 0.49/0.34/0.54/0.35/0.57 ns
HEALTHCARE/ 0.41*** ns 0.65***
0.26** ns
IT/ 0.46*** 0.10*** Tacit Knowledge 0.57*** 0.23***
0.30*** 0.13*
Higher Education/0.44***
2

ns 0.24*** Sharing 0.30*** 0.11* 0.69*** 0.18*

0.23*** 0.60*** 0.50***
0.46*** 0.19** voluntary act
0.18* 0.69*** 0.32***
0.30** 0.45***
0.17*** 0.27*** 0.43*
ns ns
0.28*** 0.55*** 0.31*** 0.66***
0.29**
0.28*** ns 0.49***
2 0.18***
0.26*** R = 0.44/0.34/0.54/0.35/0.62 0.26* 0.69***
0.29*** 0.13* ns 0.68***
Relational
R = 0.40/0.24/0.47/0.46/0.55

Leadership 0.31*** Constant Learning Culture 0.36*** ns Renewal 0.74*** Organizational

– Mistakes Acceptance 0.15* Capital innovativeness-
transformational Capital
0.31*** 0.18* INTERNAL EXTERNAL
ns 2 2
ns R = 0.61/0.63/0.55/0.62/0.54 R = 0.54/0.35/0.68/0.47/0.75
0.27*** ns
0.49*** 0.47*** 0.25*** 0.27* Explicit ns
ns
0.25*** 0.45*** 0.35*** ns Knowledge ns 0.21*** 0.41***
0.48*** 0.34*** 0.14* formal processes 0.14* 0.44***
0.51*** 0.42*** ns 0.25*** 0.17*** 0.33*** 0.29***
0.62*** 0.41*** 0.29*** 0.21** 0.32*** ns 0.15* 0.52***
0.18* R2 = 0.15/0.08/0.23/0.12/0.17 0.34*** 0.16* 0.25* 0.23***
0.25*** 0.33*** 0.16*
0.27** 0.39*** ns
0.26***
Knowledge Structural
Culture Capital
2 2
R = 0.17/0.06/0.23/0.26/0.38 R = 0.25/0.16/0.41/0.28/0.35

Note(s): ML, standardized results *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
TOTAL POLAND n = 1418; χ2 = 3237.72(746); CMIN/df = 4.34; RMSEA = 0.056; CFI = 0.910; TLI = 0.901
CONSTRUCTION n = 350; χ2 = 1931.221(711); CMIN/df = 2.71; RMSEA = 0.070; CFI = 0.881; TLI = 0.870
HEALTHCARE n = 350; χ2 = 1421.01(638); CMIN/df = 2.23; RMSEA = 0.059; CFI = 0.910; TLI = 0.901
IT n = 350; χ2 = 1577.79(602); CMIN/df = 2.62; RMSEA = 0.068; CFI = 0.887; TLI = 0.874
HE n = 368; χ2 = 1388(535); CMIN/df = 2.59; RMSEA = 0.066; CFI = 0.900; TLI = 0.889
Industry Total Poland without CV Total Poland with CV Construction Healthcare IT Higher education

n 1,418 1,418 350 350 350 368

R2 40% 43% 24% 47% 46% 55%
industry→KP – 0.10*** – – – –
industry→TKS – ns – – – –
TKA→TKS – 0.17*** 0.21*** 0.23*** 0.15** ns
χ2 3741.07 (672) 3237.725 (746) 1931.221 (711) 1421.01 (638) 1577.79 (602) 1388 (535)
CMIN/df 5.57 5.45 2.71 2.23 2.62 2.59
RMSEA 0.057 (0.055lo; 0.059) 0.056 (0.54–.058) 0.070 (0.066–0.074) 0.059 (0.055–0.063) 0.068 (0.064–0.072) 0.066 (0.062–0.070)
CFI 0.917 0.911 0.881 0.910 0.887 0.900
TLI 0.909 0.897 0.870 0.901 0.874 0.889
H1a 0.38*** 0.38*** 0.40*** 0.41*** 0.46*** 0.44***
H1b 0.28*** 0.28*** 0.28*** 0.26*** 0.29*** 0.31***
H1c 0.29*** 0.30*** ns 0.46*** 0.30** ns
H2 0.48*** 0.49*** 0.25*** 0.48*** 0.46*** 0.62***
H3a 0.25*** 0.25*** 0.35*** 0.14* ns 0.29***
H3b 0.47*** 0.47*** 0.45*** 0.34*** 0.42*** 0.41***
H4a 0.25*** 0.25*** 0.21** 0.18* 0.25*** 0.27**
H4b 0.33*** 0.31*** ns 0.27*** 0.27* ns
H4c 0.18*** 0.18*** 0.32*** ns 0.26** 0.10***
H4d 0.24*** 0.24*** 0.19** 0.45*** ns 0.29**
H5 0.18*** 0.18*** 0.13* 0.36*** 0.15* 0.18*
H6a 0.46*** 0.46*** 0.40*** 0.61*** 0.43*** 0.65***
H6b 0.30*** 0.30*** 0.33*** 0.18* 0.17*** 0.55***
H6c 0.17*** 0.17*** ns 0.16* 0.16* ns
H7a 0.08** 0.08** ns ns 0.13* 0.11*
H7b ns ns ns ns ns ns
H7c 0.32*** 0.32*** 0.34*** 0.33*** 0.39*** 0.26***
H8a 0.57*** 0.57*** 0.69*** 0.60*** 0.69*** 0.27***
H8b 0.23*** 0.23*** 0.18* 0.50*** 0.32*** 0.43*
H9a 0.31*** 0.31*** ns 0.26* ns ns
H9b 0.22*** 0.21*** 0.14* 0.33*** 0.15* 0.25*
H10 0.41*** 0.41*** 0.44*** 0.29*** 0.52*** 0.23***
H11 0.66*** 0.66*** 0.49*** 0.69*** 0.68*** 0.74***
intellectual
culture,

133
capital
Leadership,

Table 1.

details
Hypothesis verification
JIC sheds light on this by explaining why this paradox occurs. Based on the results, formal
22,7 knowledge processes support human capital development only in the IT industry (β 5 0.13*),
and these processes are ineffective for relational capital creation, even in the IT industry.
However, voluntary tacit knowledge sharing significantly supports human and relational
capital in all industries. Still, the influence of tacit knowledge sharing on structural capital is
weak for healthcare and IT (β 5 0.16*/both), and it is not significant in the HE and
construction industries. In contrast, formal processes are not effective for the human and
134 relational components of IC. Wang et al.’s (2014) quantitative study in the context of
technology companies in China also identified the lack of a significant effect of explicit
knowledge sharing on relational capital, but noted its significant effect on human capital.

6.2 Intellectual capital creation is industry-specific

Presented results exposed that IC development is industry specific. The IT industry is
exceptionally peculiar about IC creation through formal and informal knowledge processes.
This specificity is also clear when the mistakes acceptance component of learning culture is
considered. This component is not supported by knowledge culture in the IT industry and
does not support informal tacit knowledge sharing, whereas the learning climate component
supports informal tacit knowledge sharing in IT. Thus, the unique results of the present
study and of Mabey and Zhao (2017) show that the IT industry should be studied in
greater depth.
There are also interesting conclusions that apply to the construction industry,
particularly given that the R2 level obtained for this industry was half (R2 5 24%) of that
obtained for the healthcare, IT and HE industries (47%, 46% and 55%, respectively). In the
construction industry, transformational leadership supports learning culture more than it
supports knowledge culture. Further, learning climate significantly affects tacit knowledge
sharing, which influences human and relational capital and does not influence structural
capital, whereas it does in IT and healthcare. The other difference between the construction
industry and other industries is that although human capital is strongly created by tacit
knowledge sharing and strongly influences relational capital, its effect on structural capital
is only significant to a lesser extent, and it does not support renewal capital. In the
construction industry, structural capital is supported by formal knowledge processes and
is the main source of renewal capital. Thus, external innovativeness in the construction
industry is created by a source similar to that in the IT industry (i.e. mainly from new
technologies created outside the company). While innovativeness is supported from the
outside in the healthcare industry, it is principally fostered by human and relational capital
from inside the organization (i.e. from dynamic intelligence and cooperation). This might be
the result of the working environment. The IT and construction industries are more static
and predictable than the healthcare industry, which requires knowledge to be in use on a
continuous basis.
Striking findings are observed for the HE industry. Formal and informal knowledge
processes support human capital. Still, their effect on renewal capital is much lower than that
observed for healthcare and IT. Further, the observed influence of the human component on
HE is the weakest among all of the analyzed industries. Relational capital in HE barely
supports structural capital and, ultimately, does not support the renewal component. This
means that even though human capital in the HE industry is more efficiently created and
prominently supported by leadership, company culture, and knowledge processes than in
other industries, it is not exploited effectively. The highest obtained innovativeness for HE
could be even higher if the human capital component supported relational capital to a greater
extent. Thus, the weakest part of IC creation in HE is internal relational capital. Still, it is
generally a grave problem that is observed for all industries involved in this study, except for
healthcare.
 In summary, the presented R2 for the models of involved industries (Table 1) shows that Leadership,
the examined relations structure explains the explored phenomenon significantly differently culture,
for all included industries. Namely, the whole model explains external innovativeness in 55%
for HE; for healthcare and IT, it is 47% and 46%, respectively, and only 24% for the
intellectual
construction industry. So, it exposes that IC development leading to innovativeness thanks to capital
formal and informal knowledge processes is industry-specific.
135
6.3 Learning culture meaning for innovativeness is empirically proved
Following Watkins and Kim (2018), the Introduction section noted that if the assumption that
organizational learning culture enhances knowledge creation and innovation is empirically
confirmed, it is a highly significant discovery. The theoretical consequences of the findings
concerning the “knowledge paradox” identified by Mabey and Zhao (2017) deliver this
evidence. Namely, this paradox is explained due to the identified structure of
micromechanisms linking transformational leadership with organizational innovativeness.
The essence of the presented explanation is an important element of delivering empirical
evidence for learning culture’s influence on innovativeness. That is, the presented knowledge
paradox’s essence is that the particular components of IC are created due to different
knowledge processes; specifically, human and relational capital are created mostly
informally, whereas structural capital is created mostly formally. Therefore, organizations
focusing on formal knowledge processes may lose the tacit knowledge created by informal
processes that are strongly supported by learning culture. This study revealed that learning
culture and tacit knowledge sharing are vital for IC’s human and relational components. It
showed that the renewal component supported by other components is vital for
innovativeness. Hence, this study demonstrates the importance of learning culture for all
IC components and shows how these components are connected and how vital they are in
terms of organizational innovativeness. Thus, the expected empirical proof of learning
culture’s influence on innovativeness has been delivered.

7. Implications, future research and limitations

The general practical context of the study findings suggests that for the effective
development of all IC components, organizations must think and act more holistically and
support the formal and informal flow of knowledge equally. Therefore, organizations must
create formal solutions supporting a company culture that is focused not only on the
management of knowledge assets (knowledge culture), but also on knowledge creation (i.e. on
learning culture that fosters an appropriate climate and includes a mistake acceptance
component).
In summary, the existing differences between different industries leave significant room
for further studies in gender or national contexts and their interpretation. The issue of why
tacit knowledge sharing in the IT industry is apparently weaker than in the healthcare and
HE industries, but the IT industry is still one of the most innovative industries, remains
unexplored. Is leadership the essence of IT success? Strong leaders established giants such as
Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon. The main reason might be the one mentioned
above – the nature of work (clear rules, mathematical algorithms, logic) – in which case the
“industry” control variable becomes the primary determinant for the type of knowledge
sharing (explicit vs tacit, formal vs informal) and could imply different patterns of IC creation
and its relation to the innovativeness of the company – depending on the industry sector. It
might also be that the national context, including national culture and the maturity level of a
particular industry, is important in terms of further findings. This issue is undoubtedly
fascinating and deserves further investigation.
JIC The principal limitation of the study – apart from the omission of external relational
22,7 capital and the potential effect of the existing domination of men in the IT and construction
sectors – is that this study was conducted in the context of only one country. Thus, the results
may not be generalizable to other countries. Future research could include a cross-country
study to shed light on the explored mechanisms of the effect of transformational leadership
on company culture, knowledge processes, IC and innovativeness in knowledge-intensive
organizations.
136
8. Conclusions
The essence of this study was the exposition of the overall relationship between leadership and
innovativeness. Therefore, the current study presented the “big picture” of all IC creation
micromechanisms linking transformational leadership with organizational innovativeness. As
a result, it explained empirically the “knowledge paradox” identified by Mabey and Zhao (2017,
p. 43), according to which “the more knowledge is formally managed, the less likely effective
knowledge exchange will occur.” The idea behind this paradox is that IC components are
created informally (i.e. human and relational) and formally (i.e. structural). Therefore,
organizations that focus too much on formal knowledge processes might lose the tacit
knowledge created by informal processes. To avoid this, leaders must support both knowledge
culture and learning culture. Learning culture encourages tacit knowledge sharing, which is
vital for the growth of IC’s human and relational components. At the same time, knowledge
culture fosters formal knowledge processes for structural component development. Therefore,
transformational leaders should equally support learning culture and knowledge culture – and,
thanks to this effort-formal and informal knowledge processes to develop intellectual capital.
This is vital for innovativeness and organizational development as a whole.

References
Abualoush, S., Masa’deh, R., Bataineh, K. and Alrowwad, A. (2018), “The role of knowledge
management process and intellectual capital as intermediary variables between knowledge
management infrastructure and organization performance”, Interdisciplinary Journal of
Information, Knowledge, and Management, Vol. 13, pp. 279-309, doi: 10.28945/4088.
Agostini, L. and Nosella, A. (2017), “Enhancing radical innovation performance through intellectual
capital components”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 789-806.
Ahmed, S.S., Guozhu, J., Mubarik, S., Khan, M. and Khan, E. (2019), “Intellectual capital and business
performance: the role of dimensions of absorptive capacity”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 23-39, doi: 10.1108/JIC-11-2018-0199.
Alrowwad, A., Abualoush, S.H. and Masa’deh, R. (2020), “Innovation and intellectual capital as
intermediary variables among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and
organizational performance”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 196-222,
doi: 10.1108/jmd-02-2019-0062.
Anselmann, V. and Mulder, R.H. (2020), “Transformational leadership, knowledge sharing and
reflection, and work teams’ performance: a structural equation modelling analysis”, Journal of
Nursing Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1627-1634, doi: 10.1111/jonm.13118.
Aramburu, N., Saenz, J. and Blanco, C. (2015), “Structural capital, innovation capability, and company
performance in technology-based Colombian firms”, Cuadernos de Gestion, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 39-60, doi: 10.5295/cdg.130427na.
Asher, D. and Popper, M. (2019), “Tacit knowledge as a multilayer phenomenon: the ‘onion’ model”,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 264-275, doi: 10.1108/TLO-06-2018-0105.
Asiaei, K., Jusoh, R. and Bontis, N. (2018), “Intellectual capital and performance measurement systems
in Iran”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 294-320, doi: 10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0125.
Bellucci, M., Marzi, G., Orlando, B. and Ciampi, F. (2021), “Journal of intellectual capital: a review of Leadership,
emerging themes and future trends”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 744-767,
doi: 10.1108/JIC-10-2019-0239. culture,
Boh, W.F. and Wong, S.S. (2013), “Organizational climate and perceived manager effectiveness:
intellectual
influencing perceived usefulness of knowledge sharing mechanisms”, Journal of the Association capital
for Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 122-152.
Bontis, N. (1998), “Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models”,
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-76, doi: 10.1108/00251749810204142. 137
Brandt, E., Andersson, A. and Kjellstrom, S. (2019), “The future trip: a story of transformational
change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 669-686, doi: 10.1108/
JOCM-09-2017-0358.
Buenechea-Elberdin, M., Saenz, J. and Kianto, A. (2018), “Knowledge management strategies,
intellectual capital, and innovation performance: a comparison between high- and low-tech
firms”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1757-1781, doi: 10.1108/jkm-04-
2017-0150.
Busari, A.H., Khan, S.N., Abdullah, S.M. and Mughal, Y.H. (2019), “Transformational leadership style,
followership, and factors of employees’ reactions towards organizational change”, Journal of
Asia Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 181-209, doi: 10.1108/jabs-03-2018-0083.
Byrne, B.M. (2016), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, Routledge, Abingdon.
Cabrilo, S., Kianto, A. and Milic, B. (2018), “The effect of IC components on innovation performance in
Serbian companies”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 448-466, doi: 10.1108/VJIKMS-06-2016-0033.
Campanella, F., Peruta, M.R.D. and Del Giudice, M. (2014), “Creating conditions for innovative
performance of science parks in Europe. How manage the intellectual capital for converting
knowledge into organizational action”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 576-596,
doi: 10.1108/JIC-07-2014-0085.
Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A.M., Ardito, L. and Del Giudice, M. (2019), “Understanding sustainable
innovation: a systematic literature review”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1012-1025, doi: 10.1002/csr.1783.
Coun, M.J.H., Peters, C.P. and Blomme, R.J. (2019), “‘Let’s share!’ the mediating role of employees’ self-
determination in the relationship between transformational and shared leadership and
perceived knowledge sharing among peers”, European Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 481-491, doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2018.12.001.
Crane, L. and Bontis, N. (2014), “Trouble with tacit: developing a new perspective and approach”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 1127-1140, doi: 10.1108/JKM-02-2014-0061.
deVellis, R.F. (2017), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Donate, M.J. and de Pablo, J.D.S. (2015), “The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge
management practices and innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 360-370,
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.022.
Eid, M. and Nuhu, N. (2011), “Impact of learning culture and information technology use on
knowledge sharing of Saudi students”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 48-57, doi: 10.1057/kmrp.2010.25.
El-Den, J. and Sriratanaviriyakul, N. (2019), “The role of opinions and ideas as types of tacit
knowledge”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 161, pp. 23-31, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.095.
Farnese, M., Zaghini, F., Caruso, R., Fida, R., Romagnoli, M. and Sili, A. (2019), “Managing care errors
in the wards: the contribution of authentic leadership and error management culture”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 17-30.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50, doi:
10.1177/002224378101800104.
JIC Francis, G. (2001), Introduction to SPSS for Windows, 3rd ed., Pearson Education, Sydney.
22,7 Fuller, C.M., Simmering, M.J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y. and Babin, B.J. (2016), “Common methods variance
detection in business research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3192-3198, doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008.
Garcia-Perez, A., Ghio, A., Occhipinti, Z. and Verona, R. (2020), “Knowledge management and
intellectual capital in knowledge-based organizations: a review and theoretical perspectives”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 1719-1754, doi: 10.1108/JKM-12-2019-0703.
138
Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 78-91.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J. and Black, W.C. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hayes, A. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Heisig, P. (2009), “Harmonisation of knowledge management – comparing 160 KM frameworks
around the globe”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 4-31.
Hussinki, H., Ritala, P., Vanhala, M. and Kianto, A. (2017), “Intellectual capital, knowledge
management practices and firm performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 904-922, doi: 10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0116.
Inkpen, A. and Tsang, E. (2005), “Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 146-165, doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.15281445.
Insch, G.S., McIntyre, N. and Dawley, D. (2008), “Tacit knowledge: a refinement and empirical test of
the academic tacit knowledge scale”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 142 No. 6, pp. 561-580, doi:
10.3200/JRLP.142.6.561-580.
Intezari, A., Taskin, N. and Pauleen, D.J. (2017), “Looking beyond knowledge sharing: an integrative
approach to knowledge management culture”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 492-515.
Islam, M.Z., Jasimuddin, S.M. and Hasan, I. (2015), “Organizational culture, structure, technology
infrastructure and knowledge sharing”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management Systems, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 67-88, doi: 10.1108/VINE-05-2014-0037.
Jardon, M.C. (2015), “The use of intellectual capital to obtain competitive advantages in regional small
and medium enterprises: empirical evidence from MNCs based in Malaysia”, Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 486-496, doi: 10.1057/kmrp.2014.4.
Kianto, A. and Waajakoski, J. (2010), “Linking social capital to organizational growth”, Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 4-14, doi: 10.1057/kmrp.2009.29.
Kianto, A., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. and Ritala, P. (2010), “Intellectual capital in service- and
product-oriented companies”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 305-325, doi: 10.
1108/14691931011064563.
Kianto, A. (2008), “Development and validation of a survey instrument for measuring organisational
renewal capability”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 42 Nos 1-2,
pp. 69-88, doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2008.018061.
Klaic, A., Burtscher, M.J. and Joans, K. (2020), “Fostering team innovation and learning by means of
team-centric transformational leadership: the role of teamwork quality”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp. 942-966, doi: 10.1111/joop.12316.
Kremer, H., Villamor, I. and Aguinis, H. (2019), “Innovation leadership: best-practice recommendations
for promoting employee creativity, voice, and knowledge sharing”, Business Horizons, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 65-74, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.010.
Kucharska, W. (2021), “Do mistakes acceptance foster innovation? Polish and US cross-country study
of tacit knowledge sharing in IT”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 25 No. 11,
pp. 105-128, doi: 10.1108/JKM-12-2020-0922.
Kucharska, W. and Bedford, D.A.D. (2020), “Love your mistakes!—they help you adapt to change. Leadership,
How do knowledge, collaboration and learning cultures foster organizational intelligence?”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1329-1354, doi: 10.1108/jocm- culture,
02-2020-0052. intellectual
Kucharska, W. and Erickson, G.S. (2020), “The influence of IT-competency dimensions on job capital
satisfaction, knowledge sharing and performance across industries”, VINE Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 387-407, doi: 10.1108/
VJIKMS-06-2019-0098. 139
Lee, J. and Jung, S. (2020), “Industrial land use planning and the growth of knowledge industry:
location pattern of knowledge-intensive services and their determinants in the Seoul
metropolitan area”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 95, p. 104632, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104632.
Leone, D. and Schiavone, F. (2019), “Innovation and knowledge sharing in crowdfunding: how social
dynamics affect project success”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 803-816, doi: 10.1080/09537325.2018.1554858.
Lervik, E. (2006), Relational Capital: A Study on its Importance, Quantification and its Impact on
Business Sectors and Markets, University of Oslo/Autonomous University of Madrid Economics
and Management of Innovation and Technology Policy, Madrid.
Mabey, C. and Nicholds, A. (2015), “Discourses of knowledge across global networks: what can be
learnt about knowledge leadership from the ATLAS collaboration?”, International Business
Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 43-54, doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.05.007.
Mabey, C. and Zhao, S. (2017), “Managing five paradoxes of knowledge exchange in networked
organizations: new priorities for HRM?”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 39-57, doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12106.
Matricano, D., Candelo, E., Sorrentino, M. and Cappiello, G. (2020), “Investigating the link between
intellectual capital and open innovation processes: a longitudinal case study”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0020.
Meles, A., Porzio, C., Sampagnaro, G. and Verdoliva, V. (2016), “The impact of the intellectual capital
efficiency on commercial banks performance: evidence from the US”, Journal of Multinational
Financial Management, Vol. 36, pp. 64-74, doi: 10.1016/j.mulfin.2016.04.003.
Naqshbandi, M.M. and Jasimuddin, S.M. (2018), “Knowledge-oriented leadership and open innovation:
role of knowledge management capability in France-based multinationals”, International
Business Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 701-713, doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.12.001.
Nold, H.A. (2012), “Linking knowledge processes with firm performance: organizational culture”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 16-38, doi: 10.1108/14691931211196196.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (2019), The Wise Company: How Companies Create Continuous
Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000), “SECI, BA and leadership: a unified model of dynamic
knowledge creation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-34, doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(99)
00115-6.
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Olaisen, J. and Revang, O. (2018), “Exploring the performance of tacit knowledge: how to make
ordinary people deliver extraordinary results in teams”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 43, pp. 295-304, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.08.016.
Oliveira, M., Curado, C., Balle, A.R. and Kianto, A. (2020), “Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and
organizational results in SMES: are they related?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 893-911, doi: 10.1108/JIC-04-2019-0077.
Perez Lopez, S., Manuel Montes Peon, J. and Jose Vazquez Ordas, C. (2004), “Managing knowledge: the
link between culture and organizational learning”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8
No. 6, pp. 93-104, doi: 10.1108/13673270410567657.
JIC Peler, M., Boydell, T. and Burgoyne, J. (1989), “Towards the learning company”, Management
Learning, Vol. 20 No. 1, doi: 10.1177/135050768902000101.
22,7
Pellegrini, M.M., Ciampi, F., Marzi, G. and Orlando, B. (2020), “The relationship between knowledge
management and leadership: mapping the field and providing future research avenues”, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1445-1492, doi: 10.1108/JKM-01-2020-0034.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544, doi: 10.1177/014920638601200408.
140
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Rastogi, P.N. (2000), “Knowledge management and intellectual capital—the new virtuous reality of
competitiveness”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 39-48, doi: 10.3233/HSM-
2000-19105.
Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. (2003), “Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of
cohesion and range”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 240-267, doi: 10.2307/
3556658.
Saint-Onge, H. (1996), “Tacit knowledge the key to the strategic alignment of intellectual capital”,
Planning Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 10-16, doi: 10.1108/eb054547.
Santos-Rodrigues, H., Faria, J., Cranfield, D. and Morais, C. (2013), “Intellectual capital and innovation:
a case study of a public healthcare organisation in Europe”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 361-372.
Schwartz, T. (2018), “Leaders focus too much on changing policies, and not enough on changing
minds”, Harvard Business Review, available at: https://hbr.org/2018/06/leaders-focus-too-much-
on-changing-policies-and-not-enough-on-changing-minds (accessed 21 January 2021).
Seleim, A.A.S. and Khalil, O.E.M. (2011), “Understanding the knowledge management—intellectual
capital relationship: a two-way analysis”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 586-614, doi: 10.1108/14691931111181742.
Senge, P.M. (2006), The Fifth Discipline, the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday/
Currency, New York, NY.
Shao, Z., Feng, Y. and Liu, L. (2012), “The mediating effect of organizational culture and knowledge
sharing on transformational leadership and enterprise resource planning systems success: an
empirical study in China”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 2400-2413, doi: 10.
1016/j.chb.2012.07.011.
Shao, Z., Feng, Y. and Wang, T. (2017), “Charismatic leadership and tacit knowledge sharing in the
context of enterprise systems learning: the mediating effect of psychological safety climate and
intrinsic motivation”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 194-208, doi: 10.
1080/0144929X.2016.1221461.
Spector, P.E. and Brannick, M.T. (2011), “Methodological urban legends: the misuse of statistical
control variables”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 287-305, doi: 10.1177/
1094428110369842.
Statistics Poland (2017), Yearbook of Labour Statistics, 2017, Warsaw.
Sullivan, P.H. (2000), Value-driven Intellectual Capital: How to Convert Intangible Corporate Assets into
Market Value, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Tsui, E., Wang, W.M., Cai, L., Cheung, C.F. and Lee, W.B. (2014), “Knowledge-based extraction of
intellectual capital-related information from unstructured data”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1315-1325, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2013.08.029.
Vagnoni, E. and Oppi, C. (2015), “Investigating factors of intellectual capital to enhance achievement
of strategic goals in a university hospital setting”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 331-363, doi: 10.1108/jic-06-2014-0073.
Wang, Z., Wang, N. and Liang, H. (2014), “Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance”,
Management Decision, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 230-258, doi: 10.1108/MD-02-2013-0064.
Watkins, K.E. and Kim, K. (2018), “Current status and promising directions for research on the Leadership,
learning organization”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 15-29, doi: 10.
1002/hrdq.21293. culture,
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1996) (Eds), Action: Creating the Learning Organization, American
intellectual
Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA. capital
Werner, J.M. (2017), Human Resource Development/Talent Development, Cengage, Mason, OH.
Yang, J., Brashear, T.G. and Asare, A. (2015), “The value relevance of brand equity, intellectual capital 141
and intellectual capital management capability”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 543-559, doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2014.1001863.
Zappa, P. and Robins, G. (2016), “Organizational learning across multi-level networks”, Social
Networks, Vol. 44, pp. 295-306, doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2015.03.003.

Appendix

The appendix is available online for this article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354859494_

Leadership_Culture_Intellectual_Capital_and_Knowledge_Processes_for_Organizational_
Innovativeness_across_Industries_The_Case_of_Poland_Appendices

Corresponding author
Wioleta Kucharska can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]