Search results

Purpose: This study examines the key role of diversity management in supporting intellectual capital in organisations. Intellectual capital, which includes the knowledge, skills and innovative potential of employees, is recognised as a valuable resource that drives organisational success. By embracing diversity and managing it effectively, organisations can unleash the full potential of their intellectual capital and achieve a lot of benefits.

Methodology: The study is based on primary data. The research method used to achieve the objective and answer the research questions is a critical analysis of the literature on the subject, as well as an analysis of the qualitative research conducted by the author on the topic of building intellectual capital of enterprises in Poland conducted in 2019. The study used a dataset of 1,067 enterprises operating in Poland (with at least 10 employees).

Findings: It should be noted that this study underscores the crucial role of diversity management in enhancing intellectual capital within organisations. By embracing diversity and fostering an inclusive environment, organisations can tap into collective intelligence, creativity, and problem-solving capabilities of a diverse workforce. The benefits extend beyond organisational performance, encompassing innovation, employee engagement, and customer satisfaction.

Significance: The study highlights that it is imperative for organisations to implement effective diversity management strategies and continuously evaluate their progress to unlock the full potential of their intellectual capital and drive sustainable success in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

The transformation from an industrial to a knowledge economy and society are underway. In the knowledge economy, the knowledge of people and organizations—their intellectual capital assets—are the primary factors of production and the source of wealth. This is in contrast to other kinds of capital that fueled the industrial and the agricultural economies. Librarians have understood the knowledge society as one characterized by an increased focus on digital resources and an expanded use of virtual channels to deliver those resources. However, the nature of the knowledge society and economy is far more expansive than a digital environment. A knowledge society is one in which all members of a society engage in knowledge transactions—in the business environment, in the social sphere, in civic activities, and in everyday environmental actions. This view of the knowledge society presents new opportunities for librarians to leverage their intellectual capital. This chapter profiles the intellectual capital assets of librarians, considers how they align with professional competencies, and presents use cases that illustrate the value of these assets. Future scenarios illustrate how traditional functional competencies might shift in the knowledge economy. These also suggest contexts which highlight undervalued or new competencies. Seven observations describe how librarians might prepare for expanded roles in the knowledge society.

Intellectual capital is the set of all intangible assets, that is, invisible, non-monetary assets held by a library, which can be identified as separate assets. Intellectual capital has become the buzzword of a knowledge-based economy and is the ultimate source of competitive advantage. In this work, we review the literature to analyse the effect of intellectual capital utilisation in the overall library management, to identify and classify intellectual capital and to provide some guidelines for researchers and practitioners. A literature review for the intellectual capital in libraries is conducted, and a qualitative analysis is undertaken, which interrelates library management to intellectual capital is taking place. The review leads to identification and classification of intellectual capital as well as to a number of quite innovative and interesting issues for the interrelation of intellectual capital to the management of libraries. The issues studied include intellectual capital economic valuation methods, the effect of the locality (spatial factor) to intellectual capital utilisation and the analysis of co-opetition (cooperation and competition) for intellectual capital utilisation. This is one of only a few studies about the management of intellectual capital in libraries and information services (LIS)—an innovative and challenging area of research in library management.

Much like “Yeti,” the Abominable Snowman whose footprints are everywhere but itself nowhere to be seen, unfounded assertions of human capital as valuable contributors to strategic success continue to proliferate. Many of these treatments are nonbinding, nonmeasureable, idiosyncratic, tautological, and therefore nearly impossible to use for any comparative market valuation. In this chapter, we selectively review the interdisciplinary literature on exemplars of human-derived capital. We systematically examine specific epistemological strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in recognized theories, measures, and practices. In particular, a multidisciplinary, multilevel, connectionist point of view is suggested. We present the case for an evidence-based classification system of human-derived capital at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. Our framework goes beyond static stock models by emphasizing dynamic human-derived capital flows, as well as their within-level and cross-level linkages, all within the context of a modern society that increasingly is networked, fluent with technology, and prodigious with social media.

Models of value creation that have been proposed for supporting value-based management are described and analyzed, including the Balanced Scorecard, the Baldrige Quality Award Criteria, the Deming Management Method, the Service-Profit Chain, and the Skandia Intellectual Capital Model. These models are compared, their potential for guiding the identification of value drivers and performance measures for value-based management is assessed, and management issues that must be addressed if such models are to contribute to long-run value creation are explored. These issues include causally linking value drivers to each other and to financial outcomes, the extent to which the models take a dynamic, or whole-system, view of value creation, and whether multiple value drivers should be explicitly weighted and combined to form a “value index.” Finally, the substantial body of research evidence linking intangible value drivers to financial outcomes is reviewed, and some directions for further research are offered.