Impact of intellectual capital on organizational performance through intrinsic motivation in higher education institutions

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed model of relationships between constructs.

Table 1. Characteristics of the participants

		Men		Women
		Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
Level of education	Bachelor’s degree	10	2.2%	21	5.8%
	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 Institution	Public	367	80.8%	270	74.8%
	Private	87	19.2%	91	25.2%
	Total	454	100.0 %	361	100.0 %

Table 2. Validity and reliability results

Constructs	Sub-constructs	Item	Factor Loadings	CR	AVE	α
INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL	Human capital	HC1 HC2 HC3 HC5	0.657 0.744 0.738 0.740	0.819	0.531	0.811
	Structural Capital	SC2 SC3 SC6 SC7	0.789 0.744 0.669 0.725	0.820	0.533	0.818
	Relational Capital	RC2 RC3 RC4 RC5	0.823 0.831 0.694 0.819	0.875	0.640	0.868
INTRINSIC MOTIVATION		IM1 IM2. IM3 IM4 IM5 IM6	0.837 0.770 0.700 0.809 0.830 0.457	0.881	0.561	0.862
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE		OP1 OP2 OP4	0.834 0.744 0.722	0.809	0.585	0.809

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 Index	>0.95	0.993
RFI: Relative Fit Index	>0.95	0.992
NFI: Normed Fit Index	>0.95	0.993
SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual	<0.05	0.036
PGFI: Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index	>0.5	0.866

Figure 2. Final re-specified Structural Equation Model with ULS.

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 Effect	95 % CI		p	Conclusion
			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.

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.

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
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.
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

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 OP	Supported
H3	IC has a positive relationship on OP	Supported
H4	IM mediates the positive relationship between IC and OP	Supported
H5	The positive relationship between IC and IM is different for public universities than for private universities	Not Supported
H6	The positive relationship between IC and IM is different for public universities than for private universities	Not Supported

Note: IC = Intellectual Capital, IM = Intrinsic Motivation, OP = Organizational Performance.

Table

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