ZeePedia buy college essays online


Human Resource Development

<<< Previous ASSESSING THE LINK BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL FORMATION AND PERFORMANCE OF A UNIVERSITY Next >>>
 
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Lesson 30
ASSESSING THE LINK BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL FORMATION AND
PERFORMANCE OF A UNIVERSITY
Introduction
The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm grew out of frustration with the structure-conduct-performance
paradigm of the industrial organization (IO) view of the firm and the early RBV theorists found the IO view ­
that a firm's success was wholly determined by its external environment ­ to be unrealistically limited and
turned to the seminal work of Penrose (1959) for motivation (Russo and Fouts, 1997). The biggest
contribution of Penrose (1959) is to provide base for understanding the causal links among resources,
capabilities and competitive advantage of a company, Penrose provides three key arguments concerning these
linkages (Kor and Mahoney, 2004). First of all Penrose (1959) asserts that firms cannot create economic value
for themselves merely by possessing resources, rather it's the effective and innovative management of these
resources that creates economic value for the firm. Secondly, Penrose highlights managers or human capital as
the main causal link in the conversion of firm's resources into firm capabilities and new product development.
Thirdly, through the use of the drivers of the rate and direction of firm growth, Penrose provides an
explanation of the link between resource-based view of the firm and its performance. Fourth key contribution
of Penrose is the stress on the importance of continuous maintenance of firm's existing capabilities in
protecting its competitive advantage from getting eroded. Penrose argues that if a firm keeps on investing in
renewing its capabilities through new resource combinations, then the firm's competitive advantage can be
sustained.
This paper attempts to apply the RBV of the firm to university settings and looks at the Intellectual Capital (IC)
formation of a university as the basis for its performance. The paper deals with the issues of IC formation, its
measurement, definition of a university's performance, its measurement and the association between the two.
This paper is divided into five sections. The first section provides an overview of the various RBV theories
along with a detailed discussion on the notions of strategy, resources, capabilities, competencies and creation of
competitive advantage of a firm with special emphasis on the role of human capital in sustaining this
competitive advantage. The second section briefly describes the evolution of RBV concepts over the years
while the third section discusses RBV application in the Education industry. Section four of the paper defines
university performance, its measurement and, performance of the three University of Management &
Technology (UMT) schools in the light of RBV. The fifth section highlights the limitations of the current study
along with some of the future research implications for the human capital-RBV link.
SECTION ONE
Resources & Capabilities
The RBV of a firm can be understood as a tradition emphasizing the company's internal competencies and
capabilities as the fundamental building blocks of strategy. Central to this theme is the idea that firms' posses
heterogeneous resources and capabilities, which account for difference in performance (Juga, 1999). But before
understanding the role of resources and capabilities in the creation of competitive advantage for the firms, it
will be worthwhile to differentiate between these two closely linked and subtly different constructs.
A number of definitions and classifications schemes of resources have been suggested (Hooley, Broderick and
Moller, 1998; Capron and Hulland, 1999) and following are some examples of these definitions:
Wernerfelt (1984): Anything that can be thought of as a strength or weakness of a firm.
Amit and Schoemaker (1993): Stocks of available factors that are owned or controlled by the firm.
Grant (1991): As inputs to the production process.
Barney (1991): As a bundle of assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information and
knowledge.
Day (1994): Assets are the resource endowments the business has accumulated e.g. investments in plant, brand
equity while capabilities are the glue that binds these assets together and enables them to be successfully
deployed to the advantage of the firm. Capabilities are complex bundles of skills and collective learning,
exercised through organizational processes that ensure superior coordination of functional activities.
Teece et al. (1992): Defines capabilities as the abilities of an enterprise to organize, manage, coordinate or
undertake specific sets of activities.
95
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Selznick (1957): Defines the notion of core or distinctive competencies as what a firm does particularly well in
relation to its competitors.
Wang and Lo (2004): Core competencies are the skills that enable a firm to deliver a fundamental customer
benefit by enabling the firm to establish, enhance, upgrade and utilize proprietary access to those resources that
lead to sustainable competitive advantage.
Prahalad and Hamel (1990): Core competencies are those competencies that make a disproportionate
contribution to ultimate customer value and provide a basis for entering new markets.
Teece et al. (1992): Also talk of "dynamic capabilities" referring to the capacity of a company to renew,
augment and adapt its core competence over time.
Grant (1991) suggests a key difference between resources and capabilities; on their own resources like capital
equipment, skills of individual employees, patents, brand names, finance and so on are not productive and it is
the firm's organizational capabilities ­ its abilities to assemble, integrate and manage these bundle of resources
which become crucial in understanding how competitive advantage is conferred upon firms (Russo and Fouts,
1997). According to Grant (1991) productivity requires coordination and cooperation among these resource or
asset teams and a capability is the capacity for a team of resources to perform some task or productive activity
and, "while resources are the source of a firms' capabilities, capabilities are the main source of its competitive
advantage". Recent researchers have strengthened this view by emphasizing firm capabilities' "as more
intangible and inimitable resources, which stem from the integration of resources that are more likely to
produce a competitive advantage, because such capabilities are often rare and socially complex" (Cui and Lui,
2005). According to other researchers, "the firm's capabilities constitute what it can do as a result of bundle of
resources working together...to effectively coordinate its complex human and non human resources in order
to achieve corporate performance" (Chan, 2005), these capabilities cannot be given monetary value and are so
deeply embedded in the organizational routines and practices that they cannot be traded or imitated easily
(Ozsomer and Genctiirk, 2002). Other researchers make the distinction between assets and capabilities where
they define capability or competence as `the know-how' needed to build assets and sometimes refer to it as
`dynamic capability' (Markides and Williamson, 1996). Since competitors cannot simply buy this `know-how'
(created over time in a path dependent process that makes it inextricably interwoven into the firm) without
acquiring the entire firm, it becomes theoretically impossible for the competitors to imitate completely (Pettus,
2001).
Classification of Competencies
According to Day (1994), functional competencies of a company are classified as outside-in, inside-out and
spanning capabilities (Hooley, Broderick and Moller, 1998).
Outside-in competencies are those skills and abilities which enable a company to understand its environment
and customers and create close links between the `outside' (environment) and `inside' (resources endowments)
of the company. These competencies create `market sensing' skills or the abilities of the company to assess and
foresee changes occurring in its markets.
Inside-out competencies are the internal capabilities of the firm and include;
1. Human resources and their management
2. Financial management
3. Cost controlling skills
4. Technological skills
5. Logistics management
6. Manufacturing process management
On similar lines Grant (1991) classifies resources into the following six categories:
1. Financial resources
2. Physical resources
3. Human resources
4. Technological resources
5. Reputation
6. Organizational resources
96
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Spanning or integrating competencies bring together the inside-out and outside-in competencies to ensure
delivery of products and services to the customers.
Strategy and RBV
Strategy is defined as, "the match an organization makes between its internal resources and skills...and the
opportunities and risks created by its external environment" (Grant, 2001). In recent times RBV has become
one of the most influential frameworks in the strategic management literature (Lavie, 2006; Dahan, 2005) and
the fundamental question in this field is how firms achieve and sustain competitive advantage (Juga, 1999). The
main theme of the resource-based theorists suggests that a sustainable firm strategy (and performance) is
strongly embedded in its resources and capabilities (Hooley, Broderick and Moller, 1998) and that these
diverse, hard to copy resources and capabilities provide the basis of strategic advantage and superior firm
performance (Lado, Boyd, Wright and Kroll, 2006). The resource-based literature strongly places a firm's
unique bundle of resources as the major antecedent of its strategy and performance (Chan, 2005).
But during 1980s, due to Michael porter's influence, the major developments in strategic area focused on the
link between strategy and external environment of a company and the link between strategy and internal firm
resources and skills suffered comparative neglect (Grant, 1991). It was towards the later half of 1980s that
increased interest in firm specific variables became apparent (Fahy, 2000; Fahy and Hooley, 2002) which then
resulted in positing a firm's resources as the foundation for firm strategy and Grant (1991) suggest the
following 5 step model to capture the importance of resources and capabilities in the formulation of a
company's strategy:
1. identification and classification of firm's resources
2. identification of a firm's capabilities and identification of resources inputs to each capability
3. appraising the rent generating potential of resources and capabilities in terms of their potential for
creating sustainable competitive advantage
4. selecting a strategy which best fits the firm's resources and capabilities relative to external
opportunities and
5. identification of resource gaps and investing to replenish and upgrade firm's resource base
RBV & its link with Competitive Advantage
RBV is not a brand new concept and one might suggest that it is mere common sense (O'Riordan, 2006). But
an awareness of how RBV can be applied to create competitive advantage in the companies has gained
popularity in recent times and key writers on the subject speak of VRIO (Value, Rarity, Imitability and
Organization) framework which started gaining strength from researchers like Barney, grant and Lado.
According to Barney (1991) a resource will create sustained competitive advantage if it is inimitable, valuable,
rare and no substitutable (Lado et al., 2006; Cui and Lui, 2005; Carter and Ruefli, 2006). Grant (1991) points
towards four characteristics of resources and capabilities that determine the sustainability of the competitive
advantage of a firm. These characteristics include:
1. Durability: Firm capabilities have the potential to be more durable than the underlying resources. A
durable resource or capability would be capable of being maintained over a long period of time
(Carter and Ruefli, 2006) and would therefore be critical in creating and sustaining the competitive
advantage of a firm.
2. Transparency: If a firm wishes to imitate the strategy of a rival firm, it must first establish the
capabilities which underlie the rival's competitive advantage, and then it must determine what
resources are required to replicate these capabilities, this transparency of the competitive advantage
of a firm would be less obvious in cases of multiple competencies and capabilities interacting to
create competitive advantage.
3. Transferability: Since most resources and capabilities are not freely transferable among firms,
therefore the rivals find it difficult to acquire exactly the same resources and capabilities needed to
replicate the competitive advantage of an incumbent firm. This imperfection in transferability of
resources and capabilities help protect the competitive advantage acquired by a firm over a period of
time.
4. Replicability: When the capabilities are less easy to replicate then the resulting competitive
advantage would be more difficult to imitate.
These above mentioned characteristics of resources and capabilities are captured by Barney (1991) as ­ value,
rarity, imperfect Imitability and imperfect substitutability (Ray et al., 2005; O'Riordan, 2006).
97
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
A key concept in explaining the sustainability of competitive advantage through the RBV is the `isolating
mechanism' or resource-position barriers (Lavie, 2006; Poppo and Weigelt, 2000) which are in essence the
strategies developed by the firms to reduce other firms' abilities to compete directly with them and the firms
discourage, delay, or thwart other firms' attempts to compete by erecting isolating mechanisms such as
favorable corporate reputations that are unlikely to be imitated or substituted (Carter and Ruefli, 2006). Indeed,
imitability is perhaps the most important predictor of organizational performance as a firm can obtain unusual
returns only when other firms are unable to imitate its resources and capabilities, otherwise these resources and
capabilities would be less rare or valuable, and substitutability would become irrelevant (Miller and Shamsie,
1996).
Some researchers strongly connect firm capabilities with its strategy and Stalk et al. (1992) define a capability,
"as a set of business processes strategically understood; hence, the company's competitive success depends on
transforming a company's key processes into strategic capabilities that consistently provide superior value to
the customer" (Juga, 1999). It is interesting to note that capabilities and competencies enables the activities in a
business process to be carried out which in turn creates the `isolating mechanisms' ensuring that the resulting
competitive advantage is sustainable over time and does not get eroded ­ as it is based on capabilities which are
valuable, hard to copy, relatively rare and difficult to transfer and adopt. Research suggests that resources that
are valuable, but can be imitated, can only serve as the basis for a short-term competitive advantage but for this
advantage to be sustainable over time, the resources must also be inimitable and no substitutable (Sarason and
Tegarden, 2003).
The following analogy will further clarify some concepts of RBV:
"A firm's tangible resources are analogous to the vast number of genes (in a human cell). The business and
process backbones within the firm are like the helix...they support strategic assets through decisions,
organizational policies, procedures, and practices to create products and services. Capabilities, competencies
and routines are knowledge assets and are analogous to the gene's hydrogen bonds. They hold the tangible
resource genes together and are crucial in creating strategic assets. Akin to cells protecting their genomes
through cellular structures and processes, firms protect their assets through isolating mechanisms such as
history and causal ambiguity. The strategic assets are equivalent to the chromosomes. Strategic assets are as
unique to each firm as a genetic blueprint for reproduction is to each person" (Jugdev, 2004).
Role of Human Capital in the creation of Competitive Advantage
According to Penrose (1959), managers' experience with their firm resources produces firm-specific knowledge
about the productive opportunities that are unique for that firm (Kor and Mahoney, 2004). This experience
based knowledge is crucial as it is proprietary and cannot be transferred to new managers quickly, and also
cannot be purchased readily from the market. She also notes that firm-specific shared experience in the top
management team produces tacit knowledge and that this collective knowledge at top ranks strongly influences
managers' abilities to function as a team and serves as a competitive advantage (since this collective knowledge
serves as an isolating mechanism as compared to those firms who do not possess this brand of knowledge) for
the company.
The relevance of top management team (TMT) in the field of pioneering - the capacity of the firm to develop
new products ahead of rivals ­ has been proved empirically and it is shown that TMT represents one particular
human capital resource that potentially differentiates between pioneering and non-pioneering firms (Flood,
Fong, Smith, O'Regan, Moore and Morley, 1997).
Strategic human resource management (SHRM) is a means of gaining competitive advantage through one of a
company's most important asset: its people (Richard, 2000), the other sources of competitive advantage like
technological and physical resources are comparatively easier to emulate and transfer. Therefore, the crucial
differentiating factor between companies can be how human resources are developed and nurtured in a
particular organization. The notion of human capital is based on the theme that people have skills, experience,
and knowledge ­ all hard to copy and imitate ­ that provide superior performance and competitive advantage
to that company. If the human capital creates value, remains hard to imitate and is rare, then it certainly
contributes as the main source of competitive advantage and superior firm performance (Saa-Perez and Garcia-
Falcon, 2002; Lee, Phan and Chan, 2005). Researchers have pointed out that women and racio-ethnic
minorities bring diverse (and hard to copy) insights and cultural sensitivities, which in turn creates competitive
advantage for companies pursuing different and new markets (Cox, 1994).
98
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Human capital has long been argued as a critical resource in most companies and recent research suggests that
human capital attributes like education, experience and skills and, particularly the attributes of TMT affect firm
performance and the empirical relationship between human capital and performance is documented by many
writers (Hitt et al., 2001).
SECTION TWO
Evolution of RBV
This section briefly describes evolution of the RBV concept over the years along with some lacunas identified
in the research.
The traditional view of RBV is based on the assumption that resources that create competitive advantage for
firms, must be owned and controlled by the firms. However, in recent years, evidence suggests that resources
of alliance partners transferred through direct inter firm interactions have a considerable impact on firm
performance. The fundamental assumption of the RBV, according to which firms must own or at least fully
control the competitive advantage conferring resources, turns out to be incorrect (Lavie, 2006).
Traditionally, RBV was developed to understand the conditions under which firms gain and sustain a
competitive advantage, more recent researcher have however, shown RBV to be also applicable at the firm's
process-level to be effective in creating advantage for the firms and many studies in the IT industry have
confirmed this view (Ray, Muhanna and Barney, 2005).
The RBV has also been applied to understand why family firms are in better position than non-family firms to
understand the entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. Research shows that organizational culture, in case of
family firms, becomes an important strategic resource and helps firms gain a better and deeper understanding
of the entrepreneurial issues (Zahra, Hayton and Salvato, 2004).
The literature points out one lacuna in the RBV, it is said that RBV is essentially a static theory as it
concentrates on identifying resources at one point in time. However, a recent extension of RBV, the dynamic
capabilities view (DCV) focuses on the capacity an organization facing a rapidly changing environment has to
create new resources. Current strategic management literature incorporates the DCV perspective in showing
that RBV could be extended to apply to corporate-level strategy in addition to its traditional application at the
SBU level (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2003).
Lado et al. points out that critics view RBV logic as paradoxical, and "the ability to measure a resource means
that this resource will be less likely to be a source of sustained competitive advantage" (Lado et al., 2006).
Another paradox highlighted by them is that if the basic ambit of RBV that there cannot be `rules for riches' is
to believed, then how it (RBV) can be used to generate managerial prescriptions to achieve competitive
advantage? Similarly, causal ambiguity ­ the relative difficulty of understanding causal links between
organizational resources and performance also implicates that managers are limited in their ability to
understand the sources of sustained competitive advantage. But Lado et al. (2006) exonerate the RBV and
declare that, "taking the view that paradox is embedded in scientific epistemology, we have argued that
researchers can work within and through the RBV paradoxes to advance understanding, rather than insist on
theoretical purity via Popperian falsification........RBV paradoxes might reflect scientific anomalies that should
be tolerated, as long as this theoretical perspective continues to produce interesting insights".
SECTION THREE
RBV, Firm Performance and its application in the Education Imparting Institutions
Empirical studies of firm performance using the RBV have found differences not only between firms in the
same industry but also within the narrower confines of groups within the industries, suggesting that the effects
of individual, firm-specific resources on performance are significant (Wade and Hulland, 2004).
According to resource-based view of the firm, a firm's competitive strategies and performance depend
significantly on its organizational resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991). Recent researchers are
now extending the traditional RBV towards a natural-resource-based view of firms (NRVF) to develop firm-
specific competitive advantage by tactfully managing firm's relationship with natural environment and it is
theorized that due to increasingly stringent constraints imposed by the natural environment, the firm's ability to
deal with these constraints is valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable organizational capabilities, and
consequently lead to superior economic and social outcomes (Chan, 2005).
99
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
The literature on diversification of businesses also relies on RBV to create competitive advantage and superior
performance for the diversified firms. The following paragraph highlights this issue:
"The fact that superior performance of diversification depends on opportunities to share strategic assets
has...important implication....The longevity of the competitive advantage (superior performance) will be
greater the less substitutable the asset and the more its replication suffers from impediments to
accumulation...or from Rumelt's `isolating mechanisms'" (Markides and Williamson, 1996; Knott, Bryce and
Posen, 2003).
Researchers have also highlighted link between RBV and performance in companies relying on Total Quality
Management (TQM) techniques to gain superiority than their competitors. The basic argument is that TQM
can contribute to the improvement of performance by encouraging the development of assets that are specific,
produce socially complex relationships, are embedded in the company history and culture and generate tacit
knowledge (Tena, Llusar and Puig, 2001).
RBV Applied to Education Imparting Institutions
Recent researchers have focused on applying RBV paradigm to knowledge-intensive industries like schools,
colleges and universities and they have noticed that, "for many organizations working within knowledge-
intensive industries, perhaps the most critical asset they posses never appears on the balance sheet, namely
intellectual capital (IC). This intangible asset represents organizational processes, human know-how, and
relationships that support or create wealth for the company...the RBV constitutes.... inside-out model where
strategic planning begins through the identification of internal resources that fit a matching external
environment" (Herremans and Issac, 2004).
While applying RBV to Britain's higher education institutions (HEIs), researchers at Middlesex University
Business School (UK) note, "When a university's resources are analyzed from an application-based RBV
perspective, it becomes clear that the people component of its resource base becomes fundamental...if a
university fails to invest in developing its staff, particularly in capacity building in research teams, it will not
succeed in developing knowledge to which it can then claim unique ownership through copyrights or patents"
(Lynch and Baines, 2004).
The importance of human resources as the main strategic asset of a university is further highlighted by focusing
on the following paradigms about `university culture' from various regions and countries of the world:
According to the Chinese perspective the ultimate objective of university education is the creation of the "new
person who surpasses former generations and pushes human civilization forward" by pursuing brilliant
traditions of university, people as its foundation, creation (educational) as main task, discipline, moral excellence,
tenacity of purpose, high aiming ideals, seeking genuineness or truth, distinction of right from wrong,
rectification of one's heart, cultivation of lofty personality, observation of standards or traditional spirit, virtue
of the teaching staff, creation in the study and research of teachers and students alike and by creating a school spirit
(Xu Jian Pei, 2002).  Historically the Japanese universities have been undergraduate school oriented
organizations (Ogawa, 2002) but inspite of that the core elements of importance are considered as teachers, their
research orientation and their expertise. The core Nordic university values are considered to be inspired teaching,
unique talent and researcher's integrity (Sondergaard, 2001).
The preceding paragraphs clearly depict the following attributes required for the universities to sustain and
maintain their competitive advantage:
 Intellectual capital (human resources)
 Teaching staff (human resources)
 Research orientation of teachers (capability)
 Teachers' expertise/knowledge (capability)
 Unique talent of teachers (capability)
What follows from the above discussion is that it's the human assets and their capabilities and competencies
which are recognized as the main source of competitive advantage for universities across the globe. Since
competitive advantage conferred by assets and capabilities leads to performance, therefore, this paper suggests
the following broad proposition:
"The performance of a university will be positively associated with its intellectual capital or human resources (teaching staff) and
their capabilities".
100
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
SECTION FOUR
Application of RBV at the Three Schools of University of Management and Technology (UMT):
Intellectual Capital and University Performance Data Analysis
UMT, a Lahore based university founded as Institute of Leadership and Management (ILM) in 1990, has three
schools under its jurisdiction and following is a brief description of these schools.
1. School of Business & Economics (SBE), offers MBA Professional and Executive, BBA, B.Com,
Masters' in Banking & Finance (MSBF), Bachelors' in IT (BBIT) and PhD in Management
2. School of Science & Technology (SST), offers Masters' in Computer Sciences (MCS), Bachelors' in
Computer Sciences (BCS), and MS.
3. School of Social Sciences & Humanities (SSSH), offers Masters' in Education and English
Language Teaching along with a PhD program
A total of about 2000 students are enrolled in these three schools (as per Fall 2006) with the following breakup
as presented in Table 1:
Table 1
School Name
Students Enrolled as a Percent of Total Students
SBE
55%
SST
37%
SSSH
8%
These three schools have their own full-time faculty and other organizational resources. Since this paper is only
considering the impact of human resources (intellectual capital) on the performance of the respective school,
the measuring instrument as shown in Table 2, attempts only to measure the capabilities and competencies of
senior full-time faculty of the school.
Table 2
Intellectual Capital Measuring Instrument
1. School:
2. With UMT since:
3. Designation:
4. Gender:
5. Number of years experience as university teacher:
6. Number of years experience in industry:
7. Number of consulting projects completed as consultant:
8. Highest level of education attained:
9. University where enrolled as a student:
10. Number of research papers written:
11. Number of research papers accepted for publication:
12. Journals where these papers are accepted or published:
13. Number of papers presented in conferences/seminars:
14. Where were these conferences/seminars held:
15. Did you sponsor yourself or did your organization sponsor you for conferences:
16. Number of teaching cases written:
17. Where were these cases published:
18. Number of projects conducted as corporate trainer:
19. Where were these projects conducted:
20. Number of MS/MPhil/Doctoral thesis/dissertations supervised:
The measuring instrument is now discussed in some detail.
The Intellectual Capital Measuring Instrument (ICMI) is developed as a result of literature review and
discussions with senior faculty members of all the three schools of UMT. A total of 20 items are used to
measure the Intellectual Capital (IC), the single independent variable of this study for each school of UMT.
101
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
The sample for this study included all senior faculty members of the schools. Senior faculty members, for the
purpose of this study, are defined as those with a designation of Assistant Professor or above and who are with
UMT for at least one year.
During literature review and discussions with the senior faculty members of the UMT schools, the following
themes emerged around which the IC of the schools is measured:
1. Teaching Experience: defined in terms of total number of years' experience as university
teacher (item#5).
2. Industrial Experience: the discussion with the senior faculty revealed that an important
indicator of the effectiveness of a university teacher is considered to be his exposure to
industry. This is because teachers having direct exposure to industry (not as consultants but
as full time employees) equips them better to relate students' academic questions/queries
with real life situations and hence they can prepare students more effectively to take up the
challenges of future than those teachers who are not exposed to industry (item#6).
3. Consulting/Training Experience: consulting, training and teaching are interrelated processes
and a multiple experience of consulting and training is considered an important attribute of
the teaching skills of the faculty (item#7,18&19).
4. Research Orientation: the most crucial aspect of university teaching is the creation of unique
knowledge and that largely stems from the research experience of the senior faculty
(item#10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17&20).
5. Educational Background: of the faculty member was also pointed out to be an important
indicator of a teacher's uniqueness and effectives for the university (item#8&9).
So far human resources (intellectual capital) have been identified as a main source of generating competitive
advantage or performance of a university and teaching, industrial, consulting/training experience, research
orientation and educational background of the IC captures the unique capabilities and competencies which the
faculty has developed over the years.
Factor analysis (principal components) was used to assess the dimensionality of the scale items and as Table 3
shows, 61.8% of the total variance is accounted for by three components:
Table 3
Total Variance
Component#
% of Variance Explained
Cummulative %
1
32.09
32.09
2
18.83
50.92
3
10.35
61.28
The following scree plot (Figure 1) also points towards a three factor solution:
Figure 1
Scree Plot
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Component Number
Following is the component matrix showing extractation of 6 components.
102
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Table 4
Component Matrix
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
School Category
.229
-.674
.224
.018
-.339
.230
Faculty Designation
.647
.272
.204
.419
-.314
-.166
No. of years with UMT
-.143
.061
.785
.078
-.147
.224
Gender
.057
.024
-.692
.498
.107
.000
No.
of
Years
as
.464
.476
.444
.005
-.166
-.270
University Teacher
No. of years Experience
-.582
.495
.053
.338
.198
-.236
in Industry
No.
of
Consulting
-.560
.531
-.053
.023
.039
-.368
Projects Conducted
Highest
Level
of
.820
-.166
-.168
.260
-.243
-.109
Education
University enrolled in as
.284
-.244
-.548
-.349
.109
-.094
student
No. of Research Papers
.831
.296
.220
-.101
.178
-.159
Written
No. of Papers Accepted
.852
.212
.145
-.155
.205
-.269
for Publication
Journals where Published
.795
.063
.084
-.051
.261
-.060
No. of Papers presented
.857
.203
-.016
.014
.215
.008
in Seminars/Conferences
Where
the
Seminar/Conference was .767
.361
-.187
-.002
.191
.386
held?
Who  Sponsored  for
.674
.399
-.071
.096
-.016
.493
Seminars/Conferences?
No. of Cases Written
-.236
.707
-.146
.229
-.107
.244
Were
the
Cases
.068
.474
-.165
-.666
-.313
-.023
Published?
No.
of
Projects
conducted as Corporate -.353
.799
-.057
-.059
-.087
.021
Trainer
Where were the Trainings
-.187
.729
-.202
-.142
-.301
.180
conducted?
Thesis/Dissertation
-.509
.172
.380
-.067
.600
.275
Supervised
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
6 components extracted.
The above Table and the loading scores isolate three factors or dimensions of the measuring instrument:
1. Research Orientation
2. Corporate Training
3. Teaching Experience
This factor solution is consistent with the underlying themes (teaching experience, industry/consulting/training
exposure, research orientation and educational background) of the measuring instrument.
103
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Reliability
The questionnaire shown in Table 2 is an outcome of the five themes identified in the face-to-face discussions
with senior faculty members and the resulting questionnaire was pre tested with 3 deans of the three schools
before finalizing. Another important factor adding to the reliability of the questionnaire is the fact that the
responses to questions are not based on perceptions of the respondents instead they are actual and can be
verified from records.
Validity
Convergent validity: The outcome of the face-to-face discussions with senior faculty and the above mentioned
literature review present very similar themes/issues around which the human capital of a university is measured
(reference to be made in the literature review from where these five themes are coming from). Therefore it can
be said that the requirement for dissimilar methods is met to some extent.
Discriminant validity: This validity is tested following the method used by Kleinsorge and Koeing (1991).
Among the scale items, the highest correlations are .949 between number of research papers written and
number of research papers accepted, .611 between school category and number of years experience in industry
and, .605 between faculty designation and number of years experience as university teacher. These correlations
are no doubt high but the scales are quite different in content so it does not appear that the same issue is
measured again and again.
Data Analysis for the IC of the three schools of UMT
All the interviews were conducted by the writer himself either face-to-face or on telephone. A total of 35 senior
faculty members were interviewed from the three schools of UMT, following is a school-wise breakup of the
respondents surveyed:
SBE
51.4%
SST
34.3%
SSSH
14.3%
The IC scores for each school of UMT, based on the information gained from the measuring instrument, is
now calculated. Table 5 represents the summary of the results of cross tabulation analysis.
Table 5
Cross Tabulation Analysis (All figures as % of total, in decimal forms)
Measuring Item
SBE
SST
SSSH
10 years+ experience .371
.115
.029
as university teacher
7  years+  industry .315
.115
0
experience
10+
consulting .229
.029
0
projects conducted
Education (post-grad, .2
.286
.115
PhD or MPhil/MS)
Research
papers .287
.2
.058
written
Papers accepted for .172
.172
.057
publication
Journals
where .172
.172
.058
accepted
(Pakistan+outside
Pakistan+both)
Papers presented in .257
.172
.086
conferences
Conference sponsored .114
.029
.057
(self and both self &
organization)
Cases written
.258
.029
0
Cases published
.086
0
0
104
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Corporate
training .314
0
0
conducted
Thesis/Dissertations
.143
.229
.057
supervised
Total IC Score
2.918
1.548
.517
Summation of the measuring items scores (as percent of total expressed in decimals) generates the IC score for
the school. According to the above analysis of IC scores, the three schools of UMT show the following
rankings:
SBE
2.918 (Rank 1)
SST
1.548 (Rank 2)
SSSH
.517 (Rank 3)
SBE has 1.88 and 5.6 times higher IC scores respectively as compared to SST and SSSH. SST has about 3 times
higher IC score than SSSH. Figure 2 depicts this comparison in graphical form.
Figure 2
IC Scores of the Three UMT
Schools
4000
Series1
2000
0
SBE
SST
SSSH
Schools
Since we now have the basis for IC measurement of each school of UMT, the next step in this study is to relate
the level of IC formation with the performance of the schools.
School Performance
The definition of university performance for this paper is derived from an interpretation of quality adopted
from the Baldrige 2004 Education Criteria for Performance Excellence (Table 3) modified for universities
(Carr, Hamilton and Meade, 2005).
Table 6
Strategic planning
Student, stakeholder and market focus
Knowledge management
Education, training and development of academic staff
Quality systems
Teaching, learning and assessment
Research and postgraduate study
Community service
Support process
Adapted from Baldrige National Quality Programme 2004
Based on the Baldrige Education Criteria for Excellence and a study conducted to evaluate the performance of
the University of Otago (Meade et al., 2005), the following performance indicators are used in assessing the
performance of each school of UMT:
1. Improved Teaching Effectiveness is captured through number of student enrollments per year
(student enrollment can be an indirect way of assessing students' feedback on the learning outcomes
105
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
and teaching effectiveness) and the funds generated through enrollments. Other indicators include
number of degree programs initiated and number of courses developed.
2.
Teaching and Learning Grants are a representation of a university's ongoing commitment to
performance/quality improvements.
3.
External Consulting Income measures the capacity of the university to contribute to the development
of the corporate sector.
4.
Internal Research activities are measured through number of research papers/articles and teaching
cases produced by the school.
5.
Number of students placed (through the placement department of UMT) in the industry would
indicate the coordination and impact a school makes on the corporate sector. This indicator is taken as
a proxy for `employability' criteria; one of the four criterions published by The Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the other three being access and participation, retention and
progression and research (Bratti, McKnight, Naylor and Smith, 2004).
Data Analysis
Based on the above criterion of a university performance, secondary data spanning the last 3 years (2002 to
2005) was collected from all the three schools of UMT, concerning the following indicators:
1. Student enrollment
2. Revenue generated through tuition fees
3. Number of degree programs initiated
4. Number of courses developed
5. Teaching/Learning grants issued to faculty
6. External consulting income
7. Number of research papers produced
8. Number of students placed in the industry
Table 7 summarizes the data collected.
Table 7
UMT Schools Performance Indicators (Year 2002 ­ 2005)
(All figures as % of total, in decimal forms)
Measuring Item
SBE
SST
SSSH
Student enrollment
.53
.38
.09
Tuition fee revenue
.65
.32
.03
Degree
programs .47
.3
.23
initiated
Courses developed
.66
.21
.13
Teaching/learning
.72
.28
0
grants
External
consulting 1
0
0
income
Research
papers .53
.47
0
produced
Student  placed  in .72
.28
0
industry
Total  Performance 5.28
2.24
0.48
Score
Summation of the measuring items scores (as percent of total expressed in decimals) generates the Performance
score for the school. According to the above analysis of Performance scores, the three schools of UMT show
the following rankings:
SBE
5.28 (Rank 1)
SST
2.24 (Rank 2)
SSSH
0.48 (Rank 3)
106
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
SBE has 2.35 and 11 times higher Performance Score respectively as compared to SST and SSSH. SST has
about 4.67 times higher Performance Score than SSSH. Figure 3 depicts this comparison in graphical form.
Figure 3
Performance Scores of the Three
UMT Schools
6
4
Series1
2
0
SBE
SST
SSSH
Schools
Discussion
A cursory comparison of figures 2 and 3 and the school rankings in terms of IC formation and school
performance clearly indicates that SBE with the best IC score (2.918) is also placed as the most performing
school and has the highest Performance Score (5.28). Similarly, SST is ranked 2 in both the IC score (1.548)
and Performance score (2.24) while SSSH has the lowest IC score (0.512) and is also the lowest performing
school with a Performance Score of only 0.48. One can, therefore, conclude that IC and performance of a
school move in the same direction and are positively related with each other so that a high IC formation will
yield high performance. It will be worth remembering here that the IC score is a reflection of the unique,
inimitable, non transferable and non substitutable capabilities and competencies of the senior faculty members
of each school. The school with more of these capabilities and competencies embedded in its faculty, SBE in
this study, has performed better over the years as compared to the two other schools.
The data collected from Table 2 measuring items (IC measuring items) was subjected to One Way ANOVA to
assess the differences across three school categories in terms of the other variables measured. Results are
shown in Table 8.
Table 8
ANOVA
Sum
of
Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
No. of years with Between Groups
3.727
2
1.863
1.405
.260
UMT
Within Groups
42.444
32
1.326
Total
46.171
34
No.  of  Years  as Between Groups
5.077
2
2.538
.729
.490
University Teacher
Within Groups
111.494
32
3.484
Total
116.571
34
No.
of
years Between Groups
57.877
2
28.938
8.217
.001
Experience
in Within Groups
112.694
32
3.522
Industry
Total
170.571
34
No. of Consulting Between Groups
14.822
2
7.411
4.493
.019
Projects Conducted
Within Groups
52.778
32
1.649
Total
67.600
34
Highest  Level  of Between Groups
3.015
2
1.508
2.350
.112
Education
Within Groups
20.528
32
.641
Total
23.543
34
University enrolled in Between Groups
2.965
2
1.483
1.785
.184
107
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
as student
Within Groups
26.578
32
.831
Total
29.543
34
No.  of  Research
Between Groups
4.169
2
2.085
.900
.417
Papers Written
Within Groups
74.117
32
2.316
Total
78.286
34
No.
of
Papers
Between Groups
5.015
2
2.508
1.060
.358
Accepted
for
Within Groups
75.728
32
2.366
Publication
Total
80.743
34
Journals
where
Between Groups
.958
2
.479
.338
.716
Published
Within Groups
45.328
32
1.416
Total
46.286
34
No.
of
Papers
Between Groups
1.165
2
.583
.392
.679
presented
in
Within Groups
47.578
32
1.487
Seminars/Conference
Total
48.743
34
s
Where
the
Between Groups
1.994
2
.997
.580
.566
Seminar/Conference
Within Groups
54.978
32
1.718
was held?
Total
56.971
34
Who Sponsored for
Between Groups
.283
2
.142
.114
.892
Seminars/Conference
Within Groups
39.717
32
1.241
s?
Total
40.000
34
No. of Cases Written
Between Groups
6.048
2
3.024
4.264
.023
Within Groups
22.694
32
.709
Total
28.743
34
Were
the
Cases
Between Groups
.243
2
.121
1.554
.227
Published?
Within Groups
2.500
32
.078
Total
2.743
34
No.
of
Projects
Between Groups
49.706
2
24.853
7.744
.002
conducted
as
Within Groups
102.694
32
3.209
Corporate Trainer
Total
152.400
34
Where  were  the
Between Groups
7.269
2
3.635
3.284
.050
Trainings conducted?
Within Groups
35.417
32
1.107
Total
42.686
34
Thesis/Dissertation
Between Groups
2.265
2
1.133
4.275
.023
Supervised
Within Groups
8.478
32
.265
Total
10.743
34
These results show that a statistically significant difference exists among the three UMT school categories on
 Number of years experience in industry F(2,32)= 8.217, p = .001
 Consulting projects conducted F(2,32)= 4.493, p = .019
 Cases written F(2,32)= 4.264, p = .023
 Projects conducted as corporate trainer F(2,32)= 7.744, p = .002 and
 Student dissertations/thesis supervised F(2,32)= 4.275, p = .027
The post hoc Tukey comparisons were conducted to determine the source of differences and the results are
shown in the following Tables 9 to 13.
108
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Table 9: No. of years Experience in Industry
Tukey HSD
Subset for alpha = .05
School Category  N
1
2
SSSH
5
.00
SST
12
1.75
1.75
SBE
18
3.56
Sig.
.138
.123
Table 10: No. of Consulting Projects Conducted
Tukey HSD
Subset for alpha = .05
School Category  N
1
2
SSSH
5
.00
SST
12
.83
.83
SBE
18
1.78
Sig.
.371
.283
Table 11: No. of Cases Written
Tukey HSD
Subset for
alpha  =
.05
School Category
N
1
SSSH
5
.00
SST
12
.08
SBE
18
.89
Sig.
.083
Table 12: No. of Projects conducted as Corporate Trainer
Tukey HSD
Subset for alpha = .05
School Category  N
1
2
SSSH
5
.00
SST
12
.25
SBE
18
2.56
Sig.
.954
1.000
Table 13: Thesis/Dissertation Supervised
Tukey HSD
Subset for
alpha  =
.05
School Category
N
1
SST
12
1.17
SSSH
5
1.60
SBE
18
1.72
Sig.
.075
109
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 8.852.
b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.
The Tukey HSD Tests show that the
 Mean number of years experience in industry is 1.75 for SST and 3.56 for SBE
 Mean number of consulting projects conducted is 0.83 for SST and 1.78 for SBE
 Mean number of cases written is 0.08 for SST and 0.89 for SBE
 Mean number of projects conducted as corporate trainer is 0.25 for SST and 2.56 for SBE
 Mean number dissertations/thesis supervised is 1.17 for SST, 1.6 for SSSH and 1.72 for SBE
These post hoc Tukey HSD tests indicate that the three schools differ significantly in terms of industrial
experience, consulting and training experience, case writing and students' dissertations supervised (p value less
than .05).
SECTION FIVE
Limitations of the Study
This study does not test the relationship between IC formation and school performance on the basis of
regression analysis. The main impediment in this regard was the difference in the level of analysis; IC formation
was measured through summating the individualized responses from the senior faculty but in case of the
performance data, the responses were aggregates of the different performance criterion as mentioned earlier,
and therefore, direct statistical testing between the two was not possible using the SPSS version 12. The study
therefore is non conclusive when it comes to determining the causality of the association between IC and
school performance. But the study definitely provokes some food for thought for future research in this area.
Future Research Implications
Following are some of the implications of this study which need to be addressed from a futuristic research
point of view:
1. There is a need for developing reliable and valid instruments to measure IC formation and
Performance of a university.
2. The study needs to be replicated across other educational institutions, both public and private and
national and international, so that the link between human capital formation and educational
institutions' become more vivid and transparent.
3. Longitudinal studies exploring the link between human capital and performance would shed more light
on the causal relationship between these two variables.
References
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firms Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 17, 99 ­ 120.
Bowman, Cliff; Ambrosini, Veronique. (2003). How the Resource-Based and the Dynamic Capability View of
the Firm Inform Corporate-Level Strategy, British Journal of Management, 14, 289 ­ 303.
Bratti, Massimiliano; McKnight, Abigail; Naylor, Robin; Smith, Jeremy. (2004). Higher Education Outcomes,
Graduate Employment and University Performance Indicators, Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 167, 475 ­ 496.
Capron, Laurence; Hulland, John. (1999). Redeployment of Brands, Sales Forces, and General Marketing
Management Expertise Following Horizontal Acquisitions: A Resource-Based View, Journal of Marketing, 63, 41
­ 54.
Carr, Sarah; Hamilton, Emma; Meade, Phil. (2005). Is It Possible? Investigating the Influence of External
Quality Audit on University Performance, Quality in Higher Education, 11, 195 ­ 211.
Carter, Suzanne M; Ruefli, Timothy W. (2006). Intra-Industry Reputation Dynamics under A Resource-Based
Framework: Assessing the Durability Factor, Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 3 ­ 25.
Chan, Ricky Y.K. (2005). Does the Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm Apply in an Emerging
Economy? A Survey of Foreign Invested Enterprises in China, Journal of Management Studies, 42, 625 ­ 672.
Cox, T. (1994). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice, San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Cui, Geng; Lui, Hon-Kwong. (2005). Order of Entry and Performance of multinational Corporations in an
Emerging Market: A Contingent Resource Perspective, Journal of International Marketing, 13, 28 ­ 56.
110
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Dahan, Nicolas. (2005). Can There be a Resource-Based View of Politics? International Studies of Management and
Organizations, 35, 8 ­ 27.
Day, G. (1994). The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations, Journal of Marketing, 58, 37 ­ 52.
Fahy, John. (2000). The Resource-Based View of the Firm: Some Stumbling-Blocks on the Road to
Understanding Sustainable Competitive Advantage, Journal of European Industrial Training, 24/2/3/4, 94 ­ 104.
Fahy, John; Hooley, Graham. (2002). Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Electronic Business: Towards a
Contingency Perspective on the Resource-Based View, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 10, 241 ­ 253.
Flood, Patrick C; Fong, Cher-Min; Smith, Ken G; O'Regan, Philip; Moore, Sarah; Morley, Michael. (1997). Top
Management Teams and Pioneering: A Resource-Based View, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 8:3, 291 - 306.
Grant, Robert M. (1991). The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy
Formulation, California Management Review, 33, 114 ­ 134.
Herremans, Irene M; Issac, Robert G. (2004). The Intellectual Capital Realization Process (ICRP): An
Application of the Resource-Based View of the Firm, Journal of Managerial Issues, XVI, 217 ­ 231.
Hitt, Michael A; Bierman, Leonard; Shimizu, Katshuiko; Kochhar, Rahul. (2001). Direct and Moderating
Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Professional Service Firms: A Resource-Based
Perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 13 ­ 28.
Hooley, Graham; Broderick, Amanda. (1998). Competitive Positioning and the Resource-Based View of the
Firm, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6, 97 ­ 115.
Juga, Jari. (1999). Generic Capabilities: Combining Positional and Resource-Based View for Strategic
Advantage, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7, 3 ­ 18.
Jugdev, Kam. (2004). Through the looking Glass: Examining Theory Development in Project Management
with the Resource-Based View Lens, Project Management Journal, 35, 15 ­ 26.
Kleinsorge, Hene K; Koeing, Harold F. (1991). The Silent Customers: Measuring Customer Satisfaction in
Nursing Homes, JHCM, 11, 2 ­ 13.
Knott, Anne Marie; Bryce, David J; Posen, Hart E. (2003). On the Strategic Accumulation of Intangible Assets,
Organization Science, 14, 192 ­ 207.
Kor, Yasemin Y; Mahoney, Joseph T. (2004). Edith Penrose's (1959) Contributions to the Resource-Based
View of Strategic Management, Journal of Management Studies, 41, 183 ­ 191.
Lado, Augustine A; Boyd, Nancy G; Wright, Peter; Kroll, Mark. (2006). Paradox and Theorizing within the
Resource-Based View, Academy of Management Review, 31, 115 ­ 131.
Lavie, Dovev. (2006). The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: An Extension of the Resource-
Based View, Academy of Management Review, 31, 638 ­ 658.
Lee, Soo Hoon; Phan, Phillip H; Chan, Elaine. (2005). The Impact of HR Configuration on Firm Performance
in Singapore: A Resource-Based Explanation, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1740 ­ 1758.
Lynch, Richard; Baines, Paul. (2004). Strategy Development in UK Higher Education: Towards Resource-
Based Competitive Advantages, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26, 171 ­ 187.
Markides, Constantinos C; Williamson, Peter J. (1996). Corporate Diversification and Organizational Structure:
A Resource-Based View, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 340 ­ 367.
Miller, Danny; Shamsie, Jamal. (1996). The Resource-Based View of the Firm in Two Environments: The
Hollywood Film Studios from 1936 to 1965, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 519 ­ 543.
Ogawa, Yoshikazr. (2002). Challenging the Traditional Organization of Japanese Universities, Higher Education,
43, 85 ­ 108.
O'Riordan, Chris. (2006). Using the VRIO Framework in Practicing Firms Taking the Resource-Based View
(RBV), Accountancy Ireland, 38, 42 ­ 43.
Ozsomer, Aysegul; Gencturk, Esra. (2001). A Resource-Based Model of Market Learning in the Subsidiary: The
Capabilities of Exploration and Exploitation, Journal of International Marketing, 11, 1 ­ 29.
Pettus, Michael L. (2001). The Resource-Based View as a Developmental Growth Process: Evidence from the
Deregulated Trucking Industry, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 878 ­ 896.
Poppo, Laura; Weigelt, Keith. (2000). A Test of the Resource-Based Model using Baseball Free Agents, Journal
of Economics and Management Strategy, 9, 585 - 614.
Ray, Gautam; Muhanna Waleed A; Barney, Jay B. (2005). Information Technology and the Performance of the
Customer Service Process: A Resource-Based Analysis, MIS Quarterly, 29, 625 ­ 652.
Richard, Orlando C. (2000). Racial Diversity, Business Strategy, and Firm Performance: A Resource-Based
View, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 164 ­ 177.
111
img
Human Resource Development (HRM-627)
VU
Russo, Michael V; Fotus, Paul A. (1997). A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental
Performance and Profitability, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534 ­ 559.
Saa-Perez, Petra De; Garcia-Falcon, Juan Manuel. (2002). A Resource-Based View of Human Resource
Management and Organizational Capabilities Development, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
13, 123 ­ 140.
Sarason, Yolanda; Tegarden, Linda F. (2003). The Erosion of the Competitive Advantage of Strategic Planning:
A Configuration Theory and Resource Based View, Journal of Business and Management, 9, 1 ­ 20.
Sondergaard, Dorte Marie. (2001). Consensual and Disensual University Culture: Gender and Power in
Academia, NORA: Nordic Journal of Women's Studies, 9, 143.
Stalk, G; Evans, P; Shulman, L.E. (1992). Competing on Capabilities: The New Rules of Corporate Strategy,
Harvard Business Review, 70, 57 ­ 69.
Teece, D.J; Pisano, G; Shuen, A. (1992). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Berkeley: University
of California.
Tena, Ana Belen Escrig; Llusar, Juan Carlos Bou; Puig, Vicente Roca. (2001). Measuring the Relationship
between Total Quality Management and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View, Total
Quality Management, 12, 932 ­ 938.
Wade, Michael; Hulland, John. (2004). Review: The Resource-Based View and Information Systems Research:
Review, Extension, and Suggestions for Future Research, MIS Quarterly, 28, 107 ­ 142.
Wang, Yonggui; Lo, Hing-Po. (2004). Customer-Focused Performance and its Key Resource-Based
Determinants: An Integrated Framework, CR, 14, 34 ­ 59.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). The Resource-Based View of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171 ­ 180.
Xu Jian Pei. (2002). The Cultivation of University Culture in the New Century, Journal of Public Affairs, 6, 1.
Zahra, Shaker A; Hayton, James C; Salvato, Carlo. (2004). Entrepreneurship in Family vs. Non-Family Firms: A
Resource-Based Analysis of the Effects of Organizational Culture, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042-
2587, 363 ­ 381.
112
Table of Contents:
  1. INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT:The Concept and its Dimensions, Targets of Development
  2. FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR:Attitudes, Personality, Emotional Intelligence
  3. PERCEPTION:Attribution Theory, Shortcuts Frequently Used in Judging Others
  4. INTRINSIC MOTIVATION:Why Choose Big Five Framework?, THE OUTCOME OF FIVE FACTOR MODEL
  5. FIVE FACTOR MODEL:The Basis of Intrinsically Motivated Behavior, Intrinsic Motivation and Values
  6. MOTIVATION:EARLY THEORIES OF MOTIVATION, Designing Motivating Jobs
  7. The Motivation Process:HOW TO MOTIVATE A DIVERSE WORKFORCE?,
  8. INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION:PRINCIPLES OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
  9. THE WORLD BEYOND WORDS:DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VERBAL AND NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION, MINDFUL LISTENING
  10. TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS:EGO STATES, Parent Ego State, Child Ego State
  11. TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS:Complementary Transactions, Crossed Transactions, Ulterior Transactions
  12. NEURO-LINGUISTIC-PROGRAMMING
  13. CREATE YOUR OWN BLUEPRINT
  14. LEADERSHIP:ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOCRACY
  15. LEADERSHIP:Environment and Strategic Leadership Link, Concluding Remarks
  16. UNDERSTANDING GROUP BEHAVIOR:Stages of Group Development, Advantages of Group Decision Making
  17. UNDERSTANDING TEAM BEHAVIOR:TYPES OF TEAMS, Characteristics of Effective Teams,
  18. EMOTIONAL FACET:PHYSICAL FACET
  19. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT & THE ROLE OF GOVERNACE:Rule of Law, Transparency,
  20. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT:The Concept and Its Dimensions, Targets of Development
  21. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (HDI):Methodology,
  22. REPORTS:Criticisms of Freedom House Methodology, GROSS NATIONAL HAPPINESS
  23. SECTORS OF A SOCIETY: SOME BASIC CONCEPTS:PUBLIC SECTOR, PRIVATE SECTOR
  24. NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOS):Types, Methods, Management, Citizen organization
  25. HEALTH SECTOR:Health Impact of the Lebanon Crisis, Main Challenges,
  26. A STUDY ON QUALITY OF PRIMARY EDUCATION BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
  27. ADULT EDUCATION:Lifelong learning
  28. THE PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ADULT EDUCATION:Problems of Adult Literacy, Strategies for Educating Adults for the Future
  29. TECHNICAL & VOCATIONAL EDUCATION:VET Internationally, Technical Schools
  30. ASSESSING THE LINK BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL FORMATION AND PERFORMANCE OF A UNIVERSITY
  31. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION:Social responsibility, Curriculum content
  32. ENVIRONMENT:Dark Greens and Light Greens, Environmental policy instruments
  33. HDI AND GENDER SENSITIVITY:Gender Empowerment Measure
  34. THE PLIGHT OF INDIAN WOMEN:
  35. ENTREPRENEURSHIP:Characteristics of entrepreneurship, Advantages of Entrepreneurship
  36. A REVISIT OF MODULE I & II
  37. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT & ECONOMIC GROWTH (1975 TO 2003):
  38. PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP:Origins, The Desired Outcomes of PPPs
  39. PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (PPP):Situation in Pakistan,
  40. DEVOLUTION REFORMS A NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT:
  41. GOOD GOVERNANCE:Participation, Rule of law, Accountability
  42. MACROECONOMIC PROFILE OF A COUNTRY: EXAMPLE ECONOMY OF PAKISTAN
  43. COORDINATION IN GOVERNANCE: AN EXAMPLE OF EU, The OMC in Social Inclusion
  44. MOBILIZING REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES: THE ASEAN UNIVERSITY NETWORK, A CASE STUDY
  45. GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES AND POLICIES:Role of Government, Socio Cultural Factors in Implementing HRD Programs