Intellectual capital research and practice:

7 myths and one golden rule

Constantin BRATIANU
The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania
Academy of Romanian Scientist, Bucharest, Romania
constantin.bratianu@gmail.com

Abstract. The intellectual capital research and practice entered in the last years into a visible
decline due to some barriers in understanding its intangible nature and designing Newtonian
metrics for its measurement and reporting. Inertial thinking is very powerful in promoting new
approaches for the need of a new perspective in working with intellectual capital. Unfortunately,
even some top journals in the domain of intellectual capital remained trapped into this
Newtonian logic and standard statistical analysis, as a result of the mind-set of their editorial
staff and reviewers. The purpose of this paper is to present a critical analysis of the intellectual
capital research and practice today and to reveal some of the most important barriers in
understanding the complexity and nature of the intellectual capital. These barriers manifest like
myths in approaching the research into intellectual capital, myths that create a false reality and
false research questions, which enter into collision with the real life of companies and their
business. The paper identifies seven myths which created a Newtonian version of the non-
Newtonian reality, and a golden rule for further research into the intellectual capital of
organizations. The conclusion of the present critical analysis is that we need a new approach to
understand the complexity of the intellectual capital and new metrics to measure it.

Keywords: intellectual capital, knowledge, metaphorical thinking, rationality, emotionality,

spirituality, linearity.

Please cite the article as follows: Bratianu, C. (2018), “Intellectual capital research and
practice: 7 myths and one golden rule”, Management & Marketing. Challenges for the
Knowledge Society, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 859-879, DOI: 10.2478/mmcks-2018-0010.

Introduction
The concept of intellectual capital appeared when people could not explain the value
paradox of some new type of companies, called knowledge companies, for which their
stock value is three, five, or ten times the book value of their assets. The answer came
when experts discovered that the intangible resources of those companies became
dominant with respect to the traditional hard or tangible resources. As Stewart (1999,
p. 55) remarks, “The hard assets of a knowledge company contribute far less to the
value of its ultimate product (or service) than the intangible assets – the talents of its
people, the efficacy of its management systems, the character of its relationships to its
customers – that together are the intellectual capital”. Intellectual capital is the hidden
value of a knowledge company and it is very hard to reveal it and to measure it. As a
logical consequence of that, it is very difficult to define it. For the purpose of our
research, we choose the definition formulated by Roos, Pike and Fernström (2005, p.
19): “Intellectual capital (IC) can be defined as all nonmonetary and nonphysical
resources that are fully or partly controlled by the organization and that contribute to
the organization’s value creation”. Since monetary and physical resources are
 MMCKS
860
tangible, it results that the definition refers to the intangible resources. That is
emphasized also by Stewart (1999, p. XI): “Intellectual capital is intellectual material –
knowledge, information, intellectual property, experience – that can be put to use to
create wealth”.
Although the definition of the intellectual capital looks well-formulated, its
interpretation remains difficult due to the fuzzy nature of its semantic field which is
composed of two different semantic fields associated to the concepts of capital and
intellectual (see Figure 1). Also, interpretation and understanding the deep meaning of
this integrated concept depends on our metaphorical thinking (Andriessen, 2004,
2006, 2008; Andriessen and Boom, 2007; Boroditsky, 2000; Gentner et al., 2001;
Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, 1999).

Tangible

Capital

Intellectual
Capital

Intangible

Intellectual

Intangible

Figure 1. The composition of the semantic field

Source: Author’s research.

Metaphors play a vital role in developing our knowledge field by initiating new
perspectives of meaning associations and of using them in the decision making
process. Andriessen (2004; 2006; 2008), and Andriessen and Boom (2007) have
shown that knowledge management and intellectual capital theories developed in
these last decades have been based primarily on using metaphors. “Knowledge is an
abstract concept. It has no referent in the real world. We use metaphor to map
elements of things we are familiar with in the real world (organisms, resources,
products) onto the concept of knowledge to make it comprehensible. Knowledge is
not a concept that has a clearly delineated structure. Whatever structure it has it gets
through metaphor” (Andriessen, 2006, p.96).
The same statement can be made about the concept of intellectual capital.
According to Andriessen (2006), the concept of intellectual capital is a result of three
metaphors focused on the following ideas: knowledge as a resource, knowledge as
Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
861
capital, and being intellectual. The “knowledge as a resource” metaphor reveals one of
the most popular strategic views of a company: the resource-based viewed (RBV).
According to this view, a company is considered as a bundle of resources and
capabilities which contribute decisively to the competitive advantage. According to
Barney and Hesterly (2012, p. 84), “The RBV is a model of firm performance that
focuses on the resources and capabilities controlled by a firm as sources of
competitive advantage”. Capabilities are those capacities of a firm which enable it to
process efficiently its resources to create value for society. The “knowledge as capital”
metaphor is developed from the previous metaphor with some new attributes
mapped onto the concept of intellectual capital. These attributes reflect the meaning
of the capital which is basically a resource, but with the property of generating
interest in the economic process of the firm. Thus, this metaphor induces the ideas
that “capital is valuable and important”, “having more capital is better”, “capital can be
valued financially”, and “capital allows for a return” (Andriessen, 2006; Marr, 2005).
The third metaphor based on the attribute of “being intellectual” introduces the idea
of intangibility, which is essential for understanding the nature of the new concept.
The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the way in which the concept
of “intellectual capital” has been understood and used in practice by both researchers
and practitioners. Having in mind the difficulties created by the conflicting semantics
illustrated in figure 1 and by the different interpretations resulted from the
metaphorical approach, we shall identify seven myths concerning the concept of
intellectual capital and how they shaped its understanding and implementation in
operational management. Unfortunately, all of these myths constitute limitations of
our understanding and due to these limitations many results obtained in
implementing the concept of intellectual capital have been flawed. Researchers and
practitioners should overcome these limitations by creating a better understanding of
the intellectual capital and its semantic attributes.

Methodology
This is a conceptual paper based on a critical analysis of literature dedicated to
intellectual capital, coming from both researchers and practitioners and on re-
considering the metaphorical approach used in explaining the semantic attributes of
the new concept. It is a qualitative research into the realm of intellectual capital based
mostly on analysing the semantic fields used for defining and explaining the concept
of intellectual capital, as well as contrasting them with the practical results of using
this concept in measuring and reporting the intellectual capital of organizations.
Metaphorical thinking is fundamental in performing our research since it gives the
overall framework of our analysis. As Pinker (2008, p. 241) explains, “Conceptual
metaphors point to an obvious way in which people could learned to reason about
new, abstract concepts. They would notice or have pointed out to them, a parallel
between a physical realm they already understand and conceptual realm they don’t
yet understand”. Metaphorical thinking means to analyse the attributes and
relationships from the source domain and to compare them with the situation from
the target domain trying to identify which of these elements can be transferred from
the source domain into the target domain. Theoretically, we perform a structural

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
862
mapping of the known attributes and relationships from the source domain onto the
target domain (see Figure2).

Source Target
Domain Domain

Mapping

Figure 2. The structure of a conceptual metaphor

Source: Adaptation after Andriessen (2006).

Since knowledge is the dominant component of intellectual capital, metaphors

used for knowledge have been used also for understanding intellectual capital
(Andriessen, 2006, 2008). We shall make use of some of these knowledge metaphors
in discussing the seven myths and their consequences on shaping our understanding
of both concepts.

Myth #1: Intellectual capital is linear

One of the most frequently used definition of the intellectual capital is that formulated
by Stewart (1999, p. XI): “Intellectual capital is the sum of everything everybody in a
company knows that gives it a competitive advantage [...] Intellectual capital is
intellectual material, knowledge, experience, intellectual property, information [...]
that can be put to use to create wealth” (our emphasis). Dumay (2016, p. 169)
reformulates this definition changing the concept of “wealth” with that of “value”, but
keeping the idea that intellectual capital is “the sum of everything everybody in a
company knows that gives it a competitive advantage”. The key concept of this
definition is the concept of sum which emphasizes the property of linearity for the
intellectual capital.
In Mathematics, the concept of sum and the operation of summation or addition
belong to the complex concept of linear space. By definition, “A vector (linear) space is
where all linear combinations of elements are also elements of the space. This is easy
for spaces of numbers but not for a space of functions. Roughly, this is to say that
multiplication by numbers, and addition of elements is defined in the space” (The Free
Online Dictionary of Computing). Thus, a vector (linear) space is a set V together with
two operations, + and x. The following are the mathematical requirements for a space
to be a linear space, containing for simplicity a field of scalars representing numbers
(Bratianu, 2009, p. 416):

 If a and b are scalars in S, then a + b is also a scalar in S.

 If c is a scalar in S, then ca is also a scalar in S.
 The scalar addition is commutative: a + b = b + a.
 The scalar addition is associative: (a + b) + c = a + (b + c).
 There is an identity element such that: a + 0 = 0 + a.
Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
863
 There is an inverse element such that: a + (- a) = 0.
 There is distributivity over scalar addition: (a + b)c = ac + bc.

The economic Capital is a measurable concept, and it can be expressed in

numbers. The easy way to evaluate the source domain is to consider the money metric,
which means to play with simple numbers. Let us consider three arbitrary numbers
representing money: a = 3; b = 5; c = 10. Let N be the set of all natural numbers. Then,
let us apply the scalar requirements:

 If 3 and 5 are numbers in N, then 3 + 5 is also a number in N.

 If 10 is a number in N, then 10x3 is also a number in N.
 The number addition is commutative: 3 + 5 = 5 + 3.
 The number addition is associative: (3 + 5) + 10 = 3 + (5 + 10).
 There is an identity element such that: 3 + 0 = 0 + 3.
 There is an inverse element such that: 3 + (- 3) = 0.
 There is distributivity over number addition: (3 + 5)x10 = 3x10 + 5x10.

As it can be seen the semantic field of the economic capital concept placed in
the source domain of the metaphor “intellectual capital is capital” (Figure 3) is linear
since all properties of the scalar linear space are satisfied. Unfortunately, this property
has been mapped onto the target domain of the intellectual capital, and many
researchers and practitioners make use of it in measuring the value of the intellectual
capital in a given organization (Federal Law Gazette, 2006; Habersam et al., 2013,
2018; Ricceri, 2008).

Capital Intellectual
Capital
Mapping

Figure 3. The structure of the intellectual capital metaphor

Source: The author’ research.

Linearity is a generic approach for people to reduce complexity of any problem

by approximating it with a simpler, linear problem for which a solution can be found
in a faster and easier way. The key correlation in a linear problem is the
proportionality between the output and input variables. For instance, measuring
physical objects attributes like mass, volume, or temperature can be done by using
measuring systems based on linear properties of those attributes. Also, time is
linearized when measured by a clock since the biological time is nonlinear. Many
people receive linear salary, since the monthly payment is proportional with the total
number of working hours. It is a paradox the fact that a university professor in a state
university in Europe is paid for what he is not doing! The linearity of his salary is far
Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
864
away from the nonlinearity of the teaching process. In such a cultural mindset, there is
no wonder that many researchers considered almost naturally to use linearity in
defining and measuring intellectual capital.
Intellectual capital and knowledge are two semantic entities for which the
rules of linear spaces cannot be applied. Let us consider a semantic field S containing
all the words in a given natural language, and two words taken randomly, like
computer and cheese. By applying the first rule, the addition rule, it results: computer +
cheese = computercheese. However, such a word does not exist and thus, the semantic
space is not linear. Looking further into the linear space properties one remarks the
absence of a “zero” element in the semantic field, since each element belonging to such
a field has got a certain significance. Also, it would be difficult to prove the existence of
an “inverse” element which will cancel the “normal” one. For instance, if one considers
the normal element the expression “John is tall”, then the inverse element will be
“John is not tall”, and their addition to yield zero: (John is tall) + (John is not tall) = 0.
However, such a statement cannot exist. Instead of “zero” the final result is ambiguity.
All of these examples come to demonstrate that knowledge expressed into a natural
language cannot be treated as a linear space and the idea of knowledge summation is
flawed. The same can be said for the intellectual capital, which cannot be considered a
sum of everything everyone knows in a company. Knowledge and intellectual capital
are nonlinear entities, and for such entities one must use the idea of integration
instead of summation.

Myth #2: Intellectual capital is static

When researchers use the first generation metaphors for knowledge based on objects
or stocks, the resulting idea for the intellectual capital is that of a stock. The stock idea
is related also with the resource-based view of the company, where the focus is on the
strategic dimension of deploying resources (Andriessen, 2004; Barney, 1991; Hadad,
2017; Mouritsen and Larsen, 2005; Ricceri, 2008; Spender, 2015; Wernerfelt, 1984).
Since a stock is a static entity, it results that the intellectual capital is static. “The static
asset approach adheres to the cognitivist perspective on knowledge, which assumes
knowledge can be managed with tight procedures, policies and defined action. It is
also closer to the resource-based view of the firm, where the main interest is in
acquisition and protection of valuable, rare, inimitable and nonsubstitutable
resources” (Kianto, 2007, p. 346). The static view of intellectual capital has been
adopted mostly by those involved in accounting research and practice (Bontis, 1999).
The new wave of knowledge metaphors focus on the fluids, flows, and stocks-
and-flows entities as source semantic domains. Knowledge and intellectual capital
become dynamic entities. Using a mechanical analogy, Nissen (2006, p. XX) conceives
knowledge as a fluid flowing through the whole organization: “To the extent that
organizational knowledge does not exists in the form needed for application or at the
place and time required to enable work performance, then it must flow from how it
exists and where it is located to how and where it is needed. This is the concept
knowledge flows”. Moreover, knowledge flow is related directly to the managerial
performance: “Rapid and reliable flows of knowledge across people, organizations,
times, and places are critical to enterprise performance” (Nissen, 2006, p. IX). The
knowledge metaphor stocks-and flows integrates both static and dynamic properties.
Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
865
The concept of stock suggests the level of knowledge which exists at a given moment
in a specific place in organization. The concept of flow suggests the transfer of
knowledge from one person to another, in a social context. According to this
interpretation, the metaphor reflects much better the organizational knowledge
dynamics (Bolisani and Oltramari, 2012).
It is interesting to note that in the static approach knowledge is understood
mostly in its explicit form, while in the dynamic approach knowledge appear in both
explicit and tacit modes. Kianto (2007, p. 344) explains that in the dynamic
interpretation “knowledge is understood as emerging from the ongoing interactions
between the organizational members, and the focus is not on the intangible assets per
se but on the organizational capabilities to leverage, develop and change intangible
assets for value creation”. Organizational capabilities are managerial capacities for
processing information and knowledge resources and incorporating them into the
products and services delivered on the market (Grant, 1996; Teece et al., 1997).
Kianto (2007) identifies three different interpretations for intellectual capital
dynamics:
 Dynamics resulted from intangibles interactions in the process of value
creation.
 Dynamics resulted from the dynamics of organizational activities and
processes.
 Dynamics resulted from the organizational change processes.
For Kianto (2007), intellectual capital dynamics results from a deductive logic:
if there are interactions and processes which lead to variations and motions in time
and space within the organization, which means that the intellectual capital involved
in them display a dynamic behaviour. In a recent research, Kianto et al. (2017) raised
the question of intellectual capital behaviour during a longer period of time for a
company, introducing the idea of the temporality. That means to evaluate the
intellectual capital of a company at different moments in time (i.e. years) and analyse
its variation.
A new perspective on the intellectual capital dynamics in organizations
presents Bratianu (2011) based on the knowledge as energy metaphor (Bratianu and
Andriessen, 2008). This perspective is further developed in creating the entropic
intellectual capital model (Bratianu and Orzea, 2013a), and knowledge strategies
(Bolisani and Bratianu, 2017; Bratianu and Bolisani, 2015). The basic idea of this new
perspective is to overcome the limitations of the Nonaka’s knowledge dynamics model
(Bratianu, 2010) by introducing a new paradigm for knowledge understanding based
on thermodynamics. The organizational knowledge is conceived as a multifield
composed of rational knowledge, emotional knowledge and spiritual knowledge. Each
form of knowledge can be transformed into another form of knowledge which creates
an entropic knowledge dynamics (Bratianu and Orzea, 2013a, 2013b). Thus, the
mechanical model used in explaining knowledge dynamics is substituted with the
thermodynamic model which is much more advanced. Knowledge dynamics means
much more than knowledge flows through organization; it means knowledge
transformation in time and space from one form into another one: rational knowledge
into emotional knowledge and vice versa, emotional knowledge into spiritual
knowledge and vice versa, and spiritual knowledge into rational knowledge and vice
Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
866
versa. From this point of view we agree with Kianto et al. (2017, p. 135) who posit that
“Knowledge, in essence, is fundamentally dynamic. A socially constructed issue,
knowledge is crafted and disseminated through interpersonal interactions and
negotiations, where it is continuously re-interpreted and modified, and thus related to
learning and change”.

Myth #3 Intellectual capital is rational

Since knowledge is the basic ingredient of the intellectual capital, we should start with
it and recognize that most of the researchers are interested in explicit knowledge,
which is rational. Rational knowledge has got a long tradition coming from the ancient
Greek. Plato (Russell, 1972) was one of the first philosophers to consider knowledge
as being rational, and then Descartes (1997, p. 147) developed this idea concluding
that “Even bodies are not properly speaking known by the senses or by the faculty of
imagination, but by the understanding only, and since they are not known from the
fact that they are seen or touched, but only because they are understood, I see clearly
that there is nothing which is easier for me to know than my mind”. Thus, “knowledge
consists in reflection, not in impressions, and perception is not knowledge” (Russell,
1972, p, 153).
However, tacit knowledge shows the importance of emotions, insights,
intuitions, hunches and values (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) which are not rational.
They are non-rational, having emotional and spiritual roots (Damasio, 1999, 2012;
Ekman, 2003; Gardner, 1983; Gladwell, 2005; Zohar and Marshall, 2000, 2004).
Emotional knowledge is the hidden part of the iceberg, but its role in organizational
knowledge becomes more and more important (Bratianu and Orzea, 2013b).
Emotional knowledge is wordless knowledge reflecting emotions and feelings, and
having an important contribution in the decision-making process: “Breakthroughs in
brain science have revealed that people are primarily emotional decision makers”
(Hill, 2008, p. 2). Moreover, the entropic knowledge dynamics is a driving force of the
managerial decision-making (Bejinaru, 2017; Bratianu and Vatamanescu, 2018). In
any organization, emotional knowledge is used for motivating employees and
constitutes a basic component of the organizational culture (Ghinea and Bratianu,
2012; Schein, 2004).
Spiritual knowledge integrates values and beliefs about life, work, and our
existence. All of these determine the essence of the spiritual capital (Zohar and
Marshall, 2004, p. 27): “Our spiritual capital is our shared meaning, our shared
purpose, our shared vision of what most deeply matters in life – and how these are
implemented in our lives and in our behavioural strategies. It is the capital that is
increased by drawing on the resources of the human spirit”. Spiritual capital is about
shared values, but in any organization there are positive and negative cultural values.
While positive values contribute to performance and well-being for company and
society, negative values lead to an exaggerated focus on profit maximization and
destruction of the environment. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been
developed in the last decades as a driving force oriented to limit the greedy attitude of
some shareholders and managers who base their decisions only on the principle of
profit maximization (Basu and Palazzo, 2008; Devinney, 2009; Porter and Kramer,
2011). Spiritual knowledge and spiritual intelligence could have a direct influence on
Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
867
changing the business process focused on negative values. “The focus on profit being
king has caused significant negative, unintended consequences. For over a century
and a half cheap labour, damaged lives, a destroyed planet and polluted seas were all
irrelevant when set against the need for profit. But this is changing” (Branson, 2011,
p.21).
Starting with the three fundamental fields of organizational knowledge –
rational, emotional, and spiritual – we may consider three basic entities of intellectual
capital: rational capital, emotional capital, and spiritual capital. Thus, human capital,
structural capital and relational capital appear as meta-constructs in the whole
organizational framework and not as basic components of the intellectual capital. That
will change the canonical model of the intellectual capita, as will be shown in the next
section of this paper.

Myth #4 The building blocks of the intellectual capital are: human

capital, structural capital, and relational capital
After some variations on the basic structure of the intellectual capital initiated by
Stewart (1997), Sveiby (1997), Edvinsson and Malone (1997), most researchers
agreed upon the canonical model of the intellectual capital illustrated in Figure 4
(Andriessen, 2004; MERITUM, 2002; Ricceri, 2008).

Intellectual
Capital

Structural Relational
Human Capital
Capital Capital

Figure 4. The canonical model of the intellectual capital

Source: Andriessen (2004)

Human capital contains all the knowledge employees have, including their
experience, skills, and abilities. Examples are their explicit and tacit knowledge,
innovation capacity, creativity, teamwork spirit, motivation, learning capacity,
flexibility and tolerance. Many researchers consider human capital as being the most
important component of the intellectual capital since knowledge is generated at the
individual level, by people interactions with other people and with the environment.
Structural capital is defined as knowledge that remains in the firm after all
employees live for home, by the end of the working day. It contains organizational
knowledge which is embedded in the organization’s governance, regulations,
Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
868
procedures, documentation, databases, patents, and organizational culture. Some
authors call this component organizational capital, in order to underline the
importance of organizational knowledge in its definition. In practice, structural capital
may create some restrictions or limitations in leveraging efficiently the human and
relational capital.
Relational capital is defined as all resources linked to the external
relationships of the firms, including suppliers, customers, investors, and any business
partners. Relational capital is focused mostly on customers and the business
environment, containing the image of the firm, customers’ loyalty, customers’
satisfaction, and all information obtained through business intelligence.
The canonical model presented in Figure 4 is great as much as we would like to
see the big picture of the intellectual capital at the organizational level. However, the
three entities in this model – human capital, structural capital, and relational capital –
are not independent entities and they are not the fundamental components of the
organizational intellectual capital. As a logical consequence, any evaluation will yield
wrong results since there are many indicators which may be considered associated to
any of these entities, or indicators which reflect the overlapping zones between these
three entities. The conclusion is that this canonical model is a meta-construct and we
should find a deeper level of decomposition, with some independent entities.

Intellectual
Capital

Human Structural Relational

Capital Capital Capital

Emotional
Rational Spiritual Capital
Capital
Capital

Figure 5. The new model for the intellectual capital

Source: Adaptation after Bratianu and Bejinaru (2017)

Rational knowledge, emotional knowledge and spiritual knowledge can be

found in each entity of the canonical model of the intellectual capital, which leads to
the idea of decomposing them in these basic ingredients and then re-structuring them
into three new fundamental components of the organizational intellectual capital:

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
869
rational capital, emotional capital and spiritual capital. The model of this new
intellectual capital view is illustrated in Figure 5.
The new basic building blocks of the intellectual capital are independent
entities and logically there are no overlapping zones between them. The new model of
the organizational intellectual capital can be evaluated by measuring rational capital,
emotional capital and spiritual capital by using specific metrics which can be
developed similarly with the metrics used for measuring rational intelligence (IQ),
emotional intelligence (EQ), and spiritual intelligence (SQ). These metrics should
consider the fact that intellectual capital is not tangible, is not linear, and is not static,
as shown above.

Myth #5 The critical component of the intellectual capital is human

capital
Knowledge is created in the minds of people as a result of their actions and
interactions, and only through a process of integrating all the employees’ knowledge it
is possible to obtain the intellectual capital of a given organization (Bontis, 1999;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Stewart, 1997). Since structural capital and relational
capital are built on the same knowledge, it is almost natural to consider that human
capital constitutes the critical component of the intellectual capital, which means that
it is the capital related directly to the power of decision makers. However, in practice
we see many organizations which have excellent human resources but no
performance. It is a paradox, but it is real. Moreover, intelligent human capital may
lead to a functional stupidity: “Intelligent people, when assembled into an
organization, will tend toward collective stupidity” (Albrecht, 2003, p. 4). Reflecting
on his own experience as a business consultant, Albrecht (2003, p. 3) remarks: “As an
organizational consultant, I’ve seen a remarkable array of failure patterns in a wide
variety of enterprises. I’ve seen many more businesses defeated by their own internal
maladjustments than beaten fair and square by worthy competitors”. In the same
direction point Alvesson and Spicer (2016, p. XI) who ask: “Why was it that
organizations which employed so many smart people could foster so much
stupidity?”. There is only one possible answer: due to the structural capital.
Structural capital embodies the managerial philosophy of the organization,
philosophy which contributes to the formation of the organizational culture and to all
written regulations and procedures. That means from the practical point of view that
structural capital represents the organizational framework of the decision-making.
Even if the human capital contains intelligent people, stupid regulations will lead
managers to stupid decisions and finally to business failure. According to Alvesson
and Spicer (2016, p. 71), “Most stupidity in corporate life takes the form of functional
stupidity. This involves narrow thinking rather than pure thoughtlessness, which is
normal (in the sense of commonplace), and has functional consequences – at least in
the short term”.

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
870

Figure 6. The Gordian Knot of the university intellectual capital

Source: Bratianu and Orzea (2013c)

Human capital is the only intellectual capital which is capable of knowledge

creation, and from this point of view is essential. However, the potential of the human
capital can be used only in the framework of structural capital, which transforms this
structural capital in a critical component of the organizational intellectual capital. In
other words, structural capital controls how much of the human capital potential is
transformed into operational capital and embedded into products and services. This
situation is typical not only for firms but also for universities (Bratianu and Orzea,
2013c; Dima and Ghinea, 2016). The performance of a university depends ultimately
on the capacity of the structural capital to use intelligently and creatively the human
capital (see Figure 6).

Myth #6 The performance of the firm depends on the intellectual

capital potential
Most authors consider that intellectual capital is a potential for value creation and that
firm’s performance is directly related to this potential (Goran, et al., 2005; Goran and
Jutur, 2005; Mauritsen and Larsen, 2005; Ricceri, 2008; Spender, 2015; Stewart,
1997). It is the approach of those researchers who design their investigations based
on the resource based view of the firm (Barney and Hesterly, 2012). However, the
conception of the intellectual capital as a potential is a static view which is in
contradiction with the real organizational processes and their performance. Bratianu
(2013) demonstrated based on the metaphorical thinking and thermodynamics
principles that the intellectual capital suffers a continuous transformation, within a
generic organization, from a potential state to an operational state, similarly to the
transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy. This process is illustrated in
Figure 7.
Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
871

Figure 7. The dynamics of intellectual capital

Source: Bratianu and Orzea (2013c)

The transformation process is done by nonlinear integrators (Bratianu, 2013).

The organizational nonlinear integrators are: technology and processes, management,
leadership, and organizational culture. As it can be seen, these integrators operate
within the structural capital framework and they can enable or constrain the
transformation of the potential intellectual capital into the operational intellectual
capital (Agoston and Dima, 2012; Bolisani and Bratianu, 2017). Finally, only the
operational intellectual capital can be used for value creation, which implies that only
the operational intellectual capital can be related to the firm’s performance. The
transformation is done in time and in a very well-defined organizational context.
Theoretically, two firms with comparable intellectual capital potential may have
different levels of operational intellectual capital and different performances.
Giuliani (2015) emphasizes the importance of time, of creation and destruction
in evaluating the intellectual capital. Also, he recognizes the importance of considering
the two different views on the intellectual capital: “Among the several perspectives
from which IC can be observed, two main approaches, one static and one dynamic, can
be identified. While the former focuses on the stock of IC resources, investigating how
they can be visualized and quantified by subscribing to the old adage ‘you can manage
what you can measure’, the latter is instead centred on flows, processes, rules,
activities, and connections, i.e. on the value creation process” (Giulinai, 2015, p. 4).
Thus, the dynamic view leads to the operational intellectual capital, or to the

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
872
intellectual capital-in-action as conceived by Cuganesan (2005), Cuganesan and
Dumay (2009).

Myth #7 Intellectual capital can be reported within the accounting

framework
Pioneers of the intellectual capital (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Stewart, 1997;
Sveiby, 1997) considered that evaluating and reporting intellectual capital will lead to
a better profitability for the firm. The grand theory (Dumay, 2012) behind this idea
has been explained by Bismuth and Tojo (2008, p. 242): “Providing the market with
sufficient and appropriate information about intellectual assets improves decision-
making by investors and helps discipline management and boards with positive
economic consequences. Ensuring that the non-financial information is consistent,
comparable over time and across companies, material and reliable would allow
investors to better assess future earnings and the risks associated with different
investment opportunities, thus reducing information asymmetry, reducing biased or
unfounded earnings estimates, unrealistic valuations and unjustified share price
volatility”. Despite this logic, the practice showed that many of the first firms
performing measurements of intellectual capital and producing reports on it,
abandoned that activity very soon. A good example is Skandia which was the first firm
to elaborate such an intellectual capital report and renounced at it in 1998 (Dumay,
2012).
The real problem with measuring IC is its complexity and nonlinear behaviour.
Any attempt to measure it by using linear metrics produced questionable results and
interpretations. Using the old managerial methods with ‘accounting’ metrics for the
new and complex phenomena leads to the misuse of the IC measurement frameworks.
As Dumay (2009, p. 205) remarks, “these contemporary IC measurement frameworks
are reifying IC in the same manner in which tangible assets are portrayed within
accounting, which is akin to attempting to make the intangible tangible. This is what
the author defines as an ‘accountingisation’ of IC”. Since accounting is based on the
linear thinking (Bratianu and Vasilache, 2010) the evaluation of IC according to this
metric cannot yield reasonable results.
In order to illustrate the paradox of measuring intellectual capital by using the
accounting logic, let us consider the case of the Knowledge Balance Sheets (KBS) in
Austrian public universities (Federal Law Gazette, 2006; Habersam et al., 2013, 2018).
As a result of developing a reform of higher education in Austria, universities received
in 2002 more autonomy by empowering the rectors with many decisions concerning
the life of their universities. From simple executives of the decisions coming from the
Ministry of Education, the rectors had to act now as top managers for their
universities, like top managers in firms. “The Ministry deliberately forced public
universities to become more like ‘enterprises’”(Habersam et al., 2013, p. 324). The
university autonomy has a twin dimension the accountability of the decision-makers.
In this new university governance model, the Ministry decided to request mandatory a
KBS from each state-funded university from 2007 onwards.
The Federal Law Gazette of the Republic of Austria, issued on 15 February
2006, Part II, published the 63rd Regulation of the Federal Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture on Intellectual Capital Reports (Intellectual capital Report Act –
Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
873
ICRA). The objectives of the ICR is presented in section 2 of this document: “The
intellectual capital report aims at presenting, evaluating and communicating
intangible assets, performance processes and their consequences and serves as a
qualitative and quantitative basis for generating and entering a performance
agreement”. The part II of the content of ICR – Intellectual property is structured as
follows: 1. Human capital; 2. Structural capital; and 3. Relational capital. It is clear that
the composition of this part is using the canonical model of the intellectual capital
discussed above. Then, the law indicates the indicators to be quantified within each of
these basic components of the intellectual capital. For Human capital, the law
considers the following indicators: staff per university, number of awarded teaching
qualifications (habilitations), number of appointments to the university, number of
appointments from the university, number of academic/art staff who have completed
a temporary stay abroad amounting to at least 5 days (outgoing), number of incoming
academic/art staff, and number of participants in programs for continuing education
and personnel development.
In the section concerning Structural capital there are similar indicators, like:
funding for measures promoting equal opportunities for men and women and
affirmative action for women (euro), funding for measures advancing gender specific
education and research/development and promotion of the arts (euro), number of
staff active at special institutions, and so on. The final indicator is “floor space” in
square meters. Regardless of the importance of these indicators considering the
evaluation of the resources of a given university, these indicators have nothing to do
with the idea of intellectual capital since they do not reflect intangible resources and
they are based on linear thinking which is typical for accounting procedures. In such a
situation we may ask how can somebody interpret data representing tangible
resources as value for the intellectual capital of that university? The whole process of
evaluation is flawed and there is no meaning of the final report. After many debates
and reactions coming from some universities, the 53 performance indicators have
been reduced to 26, and then to 24. However, the problem of using incorrectly
tangible indicators for measuring intangible resources and applying the accounting
logic remain. Thus, the reporting system introduced by this law is, in my view,
meaningless with respect to the concept of intellectual capital.

The golden rule for understanding the intellectual capital

“It is 21 years since I began in the pioneering job as the world’s first Director of
Intellectual Capital at Skandia, where I developed the Skandia Navigator to support
the strategic process of leveraging hidden assets… The Skandia Navigator model was
the basis for the first official publication of a corporate IC annual report in the world
in 1994. The origin of Skandia’s IC Navigator was an attempt to visualise the hidden
value, rather than account for, intangibles” (Edvinsson, 2013, p. 16). Reflecting on
these ideas coming from one of the pioneers of intellectual capital research and
practice, we may consider the following golden rule:

Keep the intellectual capital intellectual!

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
874
That means to forget about all kind of proxies used for evaluating and reporting
intellectual capital and to look to its intangible essence and its capacity to shape the
future growth of the organization. We should be able to go beyond accounting and
reporting the intellectual capital and understand its deep roots in the rational,
emotional and spiritual knowledge.

Conclusions
Intellectual capital research and practice is at cross-roads and many people ask
themselves about the future of this domain of study and management, especially due
to the failing project of integrating it within the accounting framework. This
accounting framework is built up on the linear logic and it cannot accommodate the
complexity, intangibility, and nonlinearity of the intellectual capital. Thus, intellectual
capital cannot be measured by using methods and techniques used for the tangible
assets. The present paper is focused on the mythology created around the intellectual
capital by all those researchers who could not understood these properties and the
main questions raised by the pioneers of this domain of study. By using critical
thinking and knowledge metaphors analysis the present paper identifies seven myths
and reveals the hidden hypotheses which support them. Thus, we can understand the
limitations introduced by these myths and possible errors in interpreting correctly
any research concerning intellectual capital.
Myth #1 is about the linearity property induced by the knowledge metaphor
based on tangible objects. The paper demystifies this approach and states clearly that
intellectual capital is nonlinear. Myth #2 refers to the static feature of intellectual
capital and its interpretation as a potential. In reality, intellectual capital is dynamic
and is transforming continuously from a potential into an operational form. Myth #3
discusses the rational attribute of the intellectual capital, attribute used by almost all
the researchers and practitioners. However, as much as knowledge is not only
rational, intellectual capital should have also emotional and spiritual dimensions.
Myth #4 refers to the canonical model of the intellectual capital which has been
accepted by the majority of researchers, and which is composed of human capital,
emotional capital and spiritual capital. Based on the discussion from the previous
myth it is anticipated the fact that intellectual capital model should be developed to
include the building blocks of rational, emotional and spiritual intangibles. Myth #5
shows the obsession with the critical importance of the human capital in knowledge
creation, sharing and usage. However, structural capital controls the human capital
such that no matter how smart are the employees in a generic organization, their
performance is limited by the framework of the structural capital. Myth #6 identifies
the error of creating a direct correlation between the potential of intellectual capital
and the firm’s performance. In reality, intellectual capital potential is transforming
under the force of the nonlinear integrators into an operational capital which leads to
the firm’s performance. Finally, myth #7 identifies the process of accountingisation of
the intellectual capita, an error with severe consequences on the evaluation and
reporting of the intellectual capital.
The paper closes with the golden rule of keeping intellectual capital
intellectual. The only way of deepening the research into intellectual capital is to
understand the intangible nature of the intellectual capital. The importance of present
Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
875
research for academics is in revealing the errors made in interpreting this complex
entity in terms of Newtonian logic and accounting framework. The importance for
practitioners results from showing that all the metrics based on the linearity property
used in intellectual capital evaluation and reporting should be abandoned and
replaced with new nonlinear metrics. The value of this paper results from the new
lenses used in seeing and interpreting the complexity of intellectual capital.

References
Agoston, S. and Dima, A.M. (2012),“Modelling intellectual capital using Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP)”, in Surakka, J. (ed.). Proceedings of the 4th European
Conference on Intellectual Capital, 23-24 April 2012, Lisbon, Portugal,
Academic Conference and Publishing International: Reading.
Albrecht, K. (2003), The power of minds at work: Organizational intelligence in action,
American Management Association, New York.
Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2016), The stupidity paradox: The power and pitfalls of
functional stupidity at work, Profile Books, London.
Andriessen, D. (2004), Making sense of intellectual capital: Design a method for
valuation of intangibles, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Andriessen, D. (2006),“On the metaphorical nature of intellectual capital: A textual
analysis”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 93-100.
Andriessen, D. (2008),“Stuff or love? How metaphors direct our efforts to manage
knowledge in organizations”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice,
Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 5-12.
Andriessen, D. and Van den Boom, M. (2007),“East is East and West is West, and
(n)ever its intellectual capital shall meet”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8,
No. 4, pp. 641-652.
Barney, J.B. (1991),“Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J.B. and Hesterly, W.S. (2012), Strategic management and competitive
advantage: Concepts and cases, International edition, Pearson, New York.
Basu, K. and Palazzo, G. (2008),“Corporate social responsibility: A process model of
sensemaking”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 122-136.
Bejinaru, R. (2017),“Universities in the knowledge economy”, Management Dynamics
in the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 251-271.
Bismuth, A. and Tojo, Y. (2008),“Creating value from intellectual assets”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 228-245.
Bolisani, E. and Bratianu, C. (2017),“Knowledge strategy planning: An integrated
approach to manage uncertainty, turbulence, and dynamics”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 233-253.
Bolisani, E. and Oltramari, A. (2012),“Knowledge as a measurable object in business
contexts: A stock-and-flow approach”, Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 275-286.
Bontis, N. (1999),”Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual
capital: framing and advancing the state of the field”, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 18, No. 5-8, pp. 433-462.

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
876
Boroditsky, L. (2000),”Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial
metaphors”, Cognition, Vol. 75, pp. 1-28.
Branson, R. (2011), Screw business as usual, Virgin Books, London.
Bratianu, C. (2009),”The frontier of linearity in the intellectual capital metaphor”,
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 415-424.
Bratianu, C. (2010),”A critical analysis of Nonaka’s model of knowledge dynamics”, in
Rodrigues, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Intellectual
Capital, ISCTE Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal, 29-30 March 2010,
pp. 115-120, Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading.
Bratianu, C. (2011),”A new perspective of the intellectual capital dynamics in
organizations”,in Vallejo-Alonso, B., Rodriguez-Castellanos, A. and Arregui-
Ayastuy, G. (eds.), Identifyi ng, measuring, and valuing knowledge-based
intangible assets, pp. 1-21, IGI Global, Hershey.
Bratianu, C. (2013),”Nonlinear integrators of organizational intellectual capital”, in
Fathi, M. (ed.), Integration of practice-oriented knowledge technology: Trends
and perspectives, pp. 3-17, Springer, Heidelberg.
Bratianu, C. and Andriessen, D. (2008),”Knowledge as energy: A metaphorical
analysis”, in Harorimana, D. and Watkins, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th
European Conference on Knowledge Management, pp. 75-82, Academic
Publishing Limited, Reading.
Bratianu, C. and Bejinaru, R. (2017),”Knowledge strategies for increasing IC of
universities”, in Lopez, I.T. and Serrasqueiro, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th
European Conference on Intellectual Capital, Instituto Universitario de Lisboa
(ISCTE), Portugal, 6-7 April 2017, pp. 34-42, Academic Conferences and
Publishing International, Reading.
Bratianu, C. and Bolisani, E. (2015),”Knowledge strategy: An integrated approach for
managing uncertainty”, in Massaro, M. and Garlatti, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the
16th European Conference on Knowledge Management, University of Udine,
Italy, 3-4 September 2015, pp. 169-177, Academic Conferences and Publishing
International, Reading.
Bratianu, C. and Orzea, I. (2013a),”The entropic intellectual capital model”, Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 133-141.
Bratianu, C. and Orzea, I. (2013b),”Emotional knowledge: The hidden part of the
iceberg”, in Janiunaite, B., Pundziene, A. and Petraite, M. (eds.), Proceedings of
the 14th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Kaunas University
of Technology, Lithuania, 5-6 September 2013, Vol.1, pp. 82-90, Academic
Conferences and Publishing International, Reading.
Bratianu, C. and Orzea, I. (2013c),”Unfolding the Gordian Knot of the university
intellectual capital”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11, No.
3, pp. 214-225.
Bratianu, C. and Vasilache, S. (2010),”A factorial analysis of the managerial linear
thinking model”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 8, No. 4,
pp. 393-407.
Bratianu, C. and Vatamanescu, E.M. (2018),”The entropic knowledge dynamics as a
driving force of the decision-making process”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.1-12.

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
877
Cuganesan, S. (2005),” Intellectual capital-in-action and value creation: A case study of
knowledge transformation in an innovation process”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 357-373.
Cuganesan, S. and Dumay, J. (2009),”Reflecting on the production of intellectual
capital visualisations”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 212-
226.
Damasio, A. (1999), The feelings of what happens: Body and emotions in the making
of consciousness, Harcourt, New York.
Damasio, A. (2012), Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain, Vintage
Books, New York.
Descartes, R. (1997), Key philosophical writings, Wordsworth Editions, Hertfordshire.
Devinney, T.M. (2009),”Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the
bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility”, The Academy of
Management Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 44-56.
Dima, A.M. and Ghinea, V. (2016),”A model of academic leadership”, in Pinzaru, F. and
Bratianu, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on
Management, Leadership, and Governance, 10-11 November 2016, SNSPA,
Bucharest, Romania, Academic Conferences and Publishing International,
Reading.
Dumay, J. (2012),”Grand theories as barriers to using IC concepts”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital”, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 4-15.
Dumay, J. (2016),”A critical reflection on the future of intellectual capital: from
reporting to disclosure”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 168-
184.
Edvinsson, L. (2013),”IC 21: Reflections from 21 years of IC practice and theory”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vo. 14, 1, pp. 163-172.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997), Intellectual capital: Realising your company’s
true value by finding its hidden brainpower, Harper Collins, New York.
Ekman, P.E. (2003), Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve
communication and emotional life, Times Books, New York.
Gartner, H. (1983), Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, Basic Books,
New York.
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, Ph. and Boronat, C. (2001), Metaphor is like analogy, in
Gentner, D., Holyoak, K.J. and Kokinov, B.N. (eds.), The analogical mind:
Perspectives from cognitive Science, pp. 199-254, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Ghinea, V.M. and Bratianu, C. (2012),”Organizational culture modelling”, Management
& Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 257-276.
Giuliani, M. (2015),”Rome wasn’t built in a day … reflecting on time, intellectual capital
and intellectual liabilities”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 2-
19.
Gladwell, M. (2005), Blink: The power of thinking without thinking, Back Bay Books,
New York.
Goran, R., Pike, S. and Fernstörm, L. (2005), Managing intellectual capital in practice,
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Goran, R. and Jutur, S. (2005), Intellectual capital management: A strategic
perspective, The ICFAI University Press, Hyderabad.

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
878
Grant, R. (1996),”Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments:
organizational capability as knowledge integration”, Organization Science, Vol.
7, No. 4, pp. 375-387.
Habersam, M., Piber, M. and Skoog, M. (2013),”Knowledge balance sheets in Austrian
universities: The implementation, use, and re-shaping of measurement and
management practices”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24, pp. 319-
337.
Habersam, M., Piber, M. and Skoog, M. (2018),”Ten years of using knowledge balance
sheets in Austrian public universities: A retrospective and prospective view”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 34-52.
Hadad, S. (2017),”Strategies for developing knowledge economy in Romania”,
Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 12, No.
3, pp. 416-430.
Hill, D. (2008), Emotionomics: Leveraging emotions for business, Revised edition,
Kogan Page, London.
Kianto, A. (2007),”What do we really mean by the dynamic dimension of intellectual
capital?”, International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4, No. 4,
pp. 342-356.
Kianto, A., Inkinen, H., Ritala, P. and Vanhala, M. (2017),”A temporal perspective to
intellectual capital dynamics: How has IC changed in Finnish firms from 2013
to 2017?”, in Tsui, E. and Cheung, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management &
Organizational Learning, pp. 134-138, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong, 7-8 December 2017, Academic Conferences and Publishing
International, Reading.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors we live by, Chicago University Press,
Chicago.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999), Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its
challenge to western thought. Basic Books, New York.
Marr, B. (Ed.)(2005), Perspectives on intellectual capital, Elsevier Butterworth
Heinemann, Boston.
MERITUM (2002), Guidelines for managing and reporting of intangibles, Fundacion
Airtel Movil, Madrid.
Mouritsen, J. and Larsen, H.T. (2005),”The 2nd wave of knowledge management: The
management control of knowledge resources through intellectual capital
information”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 16, pp. 371-394.
Nissen, M.E. (2006), Harnessing knowledge dynamics: Principled organizational
knowing & learning, IRM Press, London.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press, New
York.
Pinker, S. (2008), The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature,
Penguin Books, New York.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011),”Creating shared values: How to reinvent
capitalism – and unleash a wave of innovation and growth”, Harvard Business
Review, January-February 2011, pp. 63-77.

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society
 MMCKS
879
Ricceri, F. (2008), Intellectual capital and knowledge management: Strategic
management of knowledge resources, Routledge, London.
Roos, G., Pike, S. and Fernström, L. (2005), Managing intellectual capital in practice,
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Russell, B. (1972), A history of Western philosophy. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational culture and leadership, 3rd edition, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Spender, J.C. (2015),”The theory of management firm (TMF)”, Human Systems
Management, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 57-80.
Stewart, T.A. (1997), Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations,
Doubleday/Currency, New York.
Stewart, T. A. (1999), Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations, Nicholas
Brealey Publishing, London.
Sveiby, K.E. (1997), The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring
knowledge based assets, Berret Koehler, San Francisco.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997),”Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 509-533.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984),”A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 171-180.
Zack, M. (2005),”The strategic advantage of knowledge and learning”, International
Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Zohar, D. and Marshall, I. (2000), Spiritual intelligence: The ultimate intelligence,
Bloomsbury, London.
Zohar, D. and Marshall, I. (2004), Spiritual capital: Wealth we can live by, Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
*** The Free Online Dictionary of Computing, http://www.dictionary.die.net
(retrieved 18 May 2018).
*** Federal Law Gazette of the Republic of Austria, issued on 15 February 2006, Part
II, 63rd Regulation of the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture on
Intellectual Reports (Intellectual Capital Report Act – ICRA).

Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 859-879, ISSN 1842-0206 | Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society