Predicción del capital intelectual basada
en componentes del liderazgo del conocimiento
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares
Natalia Chepeleva 1
, Maryna Smulson2
, Svitlana Rudnytska3
, Olena Shylovska4
,
Kyrylo Hutsol5
1
G.S. Kostiyk Institute of Psychology of the NAES of Ukraine, Ukraine.
E-mail: chepelevan@gmail.com; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2085-4148.
2
G.S. Kostiyk Institute of Psychology of the NAES of Ukraine, Ukraine.
E-mail: smulson@ukr.net; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9563-3390.
3
G.S. Kostiyk Institute of Psychology of the NAES of Ukraine, Ukraine.
E-mail: rudnsvit@gmail.com; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0141-6337.
4 G.S. Kostiyk Institute of Psychology of the NAES of Ukraine, Ukraine.
E-mail: elenashilovska@gmail.com; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7256-9365.
5 G.S. Kostiyk Institute of Psychology of the NAES of Ukraine, Ukraine.
E-mail: kvgutsol@gmail.com; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2820-2590.
Resumen. La presente investigación expone la relación entre el liderazgo del
conocimiento y el capital intelectual en las escuelas. En cuanto a su finalidad es de
tipo aplicada y descriptiva-correlacional. La población fueron todos los maestros de
primaria de X, (n= 325 personas), de los cuales se seleccionó una muestra de 176 per-
sonas mediante un método de muestreo aleatorio simple basado en la tabla de tamaños
de muestra de Morgan. Para medir la variable liderazgo en conocimiento se utilizó
el cuestionario de Viitala (2004) y para el capital intelectual se utilizó el modelo de
Bontis. La validez formal y de contenido de las herramientas se calculó mediante opi-
niones de expertos, y la confiabilidad obtenida mediante el método alfa de Cronbach
para liderazgo en conocimiento y capital intelectual fue de 0,95 y 0,88, respectiva-
mente. Para analizar los datos se utilizaron la prueba del coeficiente de correlación de
Pearson, la T de una muestra y el análisis de regresión. Los resultados indican que el
estado actual del liderazgo del conocimiento y el capital intelectual está por encima
del promedio, y los componentes del liderazgo del conocimiento (tendencia a apren-
der, atmósfera de apoyo al aprendizaje y apoyo al proceso de aprendizaje individual y
grupal) tienen un efecto positivo y significativo en relación con el capital intelectual; y
entre los componentes del liderazgo en conocimiento, sólo el de tendencia a aprender
es un predictor significativo del capital intelectual. Los resultados de esta investigación
pueden utilizarse para desarrollar el capital humano de las organizaciones.
Palabras clave: liderazgo en conocimiento, capital intelectual, sistema educativo, escuelas,
docentes escolares.
Recibido: 22/06/2024 ~ Aceptado: 10/10/2024
INTERACCIÓN Y PERSPECTIVA
Revista de Trabajo Social
ISSN 2244-808X ~ Dep. Legal pp 201002Z43506
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14031191
Vol. 15 (1): 109 - 122 pp, 2025
en componentes del liderazgo del conocimiento
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares
Natalia Chepeleva 1
, Maryna Smulson2
, Svitlana Rudnytska3
, Olena Shylovska4
,
Kyrylo Hutsol5
1
G.S. Kostiyk Institute of Psychology of the NAES of Ukraine, Ukraine.
E-mail: chepelevan@gmail.com; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2085-4148.
2
G.S. Kostiyk Institute of Psychology of the NAES of Ukraine, Ukraine.
E-mail: smulson@ukr.net; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9563-3390.
3
G.S. Kostiyk Institute of Psychology of the NAES of Ukraine, Ukraine.
E-mail: rudnsvit@gmail.com; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0141-6337.
4 G.S. Kostiyk Institute of Psychology of the NAES of Ukraine, Ukraine.
E-mail: elenashilovska@gmail.com; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7256-9365.
5 G.S. Kostiyk Institute of Psychology of the NAES of Ukraine, Ukraine.
E-mail: kvgutsol@gmail.com; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2820-2590.
Resumen. La presente investigación expone la relación entre el liderazgo del
conocimiento y el capital intelectual en las escuelas. En cuanto a su finalidad es de
tipo aplicada y descriptiva-correlacional. La población fueron todos los maestros de
primaria de X, (n= 325 personas), de los cuales se seleccionó una muestra de 176 per-
sonas mediante un método de muestreo aleatorio simple basado en la tabla de tamaños
de muestra de Morgan. Para medir la variable liderazgo en conocimiento se utilizó
el cuestionario de Viitala (2004) y para el capital intelectual se utilizó el modelo de
Bontis. La validez formal y de contenido de las herramientas se calculó mediante opi-
niones de expertos, y la confiabilidad obtenida mediante el método alfa de Cronbach
para liderazgo en conocimiento y capital intelectual fue de 0,95 y 0,88, respectiva-
mente. Para analizar los datos se utilizaron la prueba del coeficiente de correlación de
Pearson, la T de una muestra y el análisis de regresión. Los resultados indican que el
estado actual del liderazgo del conocimiento y el capital intelectual está por encima
del promedio, y los componentes del liderazgo del conocimiento (tendencia a apren-
der, atmósfera de apoyo al aprendizaje y apoyo al proceso de aprendizaje individual y
grupal) tienen un efecto positivo y significativo en relación con el capital intelectual; y
entre los componentes del liderazgo en conocimiento, sólo el de tendencia a aprender
es un predictor significativo del capital intelectual. Los resultados de esta investigación
pueden utilizarse para desarrollar el capital humano de las organizaciones.
Palabras clave: liderazgo en conocimiento, capital intelectual, sistema educativo, escuelas,
docentes escolares.
Recibido: 22/06/2024 ~ Aceptado: 10/10/2024
INTERACCIÓN Y PERSPECTIVA
Revista de Trabajo Social
ISSN 2244-808X ~ Dep. Legal pp 201002Z43506
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14031191
Vol. 15 (1): 109 - 122 pp, 2025
110 Chepeleva, Smulson, Rudnytska, Shylovska, HutsolInteracción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social V ol. 1 5 ( 1 ) : 2 0 2 5
Prediction of intellectual capital based on knowledge
leadership components from the perspective of school
teachers
Abstract. The present research was conducted with the aim of investigating the
relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital in the schools. In
terms of purpose, this research is of applied type, and descriptive correlation in terms
of data collection method. The statistical population of this research is all the primary
school teachers of X, (n= 325 people), from which a sample of 176 people was selected
using a simple random sampling method based on Morgan’s sample size table, and the
required data was collected. Viitala questionnaire (Viitala, 2004) was used to measure
the knowledge leadership variable, and the Bontis model was used for intellectual capi-
tal. The formal and content validity of the tools was calculated using experts’ opinions,
and the obtained reliability using Cronbach’s alpha method for knowledge leadership
and intellectual capital was 0.95 and 0.88, respectively. Pearson’s correlation coefficient
test, one-sample T, and regression analysis were used to analyze the data. The results
of the research indicate that the current state of knowledge leadership and intellectual
capital is above average, and the components of knowledge leadership (tendency to
learn, supportive atmosphere of learning and support for the individual and group
learning process) have a positive and significant relationship with intellectual capital;
and among the components of knowledge leadership, only the component of tendency
to learn is a significant predictor of intellectual capital. The results of this research can
be used to develop the human capital of organizations.
Key words: knowledge leadership, intellectual capital, education system schools, school
teachers.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of capital is one of the richest explanatory frameworks in contemporary sociologi-
cal, economic and managerial considerations. This category has undergone changes in recent de-
cades, through which we witness the emergence of new theories of organizational, intellectual, hu-
man and cultural capital. In the last two decades, there has been a move towards an economy where
investment in human resources, information technology, research and development, and advertising
seems necessary to maintain the competitive position, and guarantee the growth and development
of organizations, among which intellectual capital is the one that has attracted more and more at-
tention. Because the business environment based on factors such as human resource knowledge
and competence, innovation, customer relations, organizational culture, organizational system and
structure, etc. (Lam et al., 2021). In today’s leading organizations, the share of knowledge com-
pared to other resources has been increasing day by day, so that today the continuity of activity and
profitability of most organizations and companies is dependent on knowledge. Therefore, the more
organizations and companies are rich in terms of intangible assets and intellectual capital, the better
and faster they can achieve high levels of growth and development. Knowledge management helps
organizations to identify and use their capabilities and abilities in order to achieve a knowledge-
based economy (Stoilkova et al., 2022).
Prediction of intellectual capital based on knowledge
leadership components from the perspective of school
teachers
Abstract. The present research was conducted with the aim of investigating the
relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital in the schools. In
terms of purpose, this research is of applied type, and descriptive correlation in terms
of data collection method. The statistical population of this research is all the primary
school teachers of X, (n= 325 people), from which a sample of 176 people was selected
using a simple random sampling method based on Morgan’s sample size table, and the
required data was collected. Viitala questionnaire (Viitala, 2004) was used to measure
the knowledge leadership variable, and the Bontis model was used for intellectual capi-
tal. The formal and content validity of the tools was calculated using experts’ opinions,
and the obtained reliability using Cronbach’s alpha method for knowledge leadership
and intellectual capital was 0.95 and 0.88, respectively. Pearson’s correlation coefficient
test, one-sample T, and regression analysis were used to analyze the data. The results
of the research indicate that the current state of knowledge leadership and intellectual
capital is above average, and the components of knowledge leadership (tendency to
learn, supportive atmosphere of learning and support for the individual and group
learning process) have a positive and significant relationship with intellectual capital;
and among the components of knowledge leadership, only the component of tendency
to learn is a significant predictor of intellectual capital. The results of this research can
be used to develop the human capital of organizations.
Key words: knowledge leadership, intellectual capital, education system schools, school
teachers.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of capital is one of the richest explanatory frameworks in contemporary sociologi-
cal, economic and managerial considerations. This category has undergone changes in recent de-
cades, through which we witness the emergence of new theories of organizational, intellectual, hu-
man and cultural capital. In the last two decades, there has been a move towards an economy where
investment in human resources, information technology, research and development, and advertising
seems necessary to maintain the competitive position, and guarantee the growth and development
of organizations, among which intellectual capital is the one that has attracted more and more at-
tention. Because the business environment based on factors such as human resource knowledge
and competence, innovation, customer relations, organizational culture, organizational system and
structure, etc. (Lam et al., 2021). In today’s leading organizations, the share of knowledge com-
pared to other resources has been increasing day by day, so that today the continuity of activity and
profitability of most organizations and companies is dependent on knowledge. Therefore, the more
organizations and companies are rich in terms of intangible assets and intellectual capital, the better
and faster they can achieve high levels of growth and development. Knowledge management helps
organizations to identify and use their capabilities and abilities in order to achieve a knowledge-
based economy (Stoilkova et al., 2022).
Predicción del capital intelectual basada en componentes del liderazgo del conocimiento
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 111Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
In the current era, which is called the knowledge revolution, knowledge has become more
important compared to other factors of production such as land, and machines, and it is known as
the most important factor of production; the movement of organizations towards knowledge-based
organizations is defined as the basic necessity of today’s organizations. Hence, intellectual capital is
particularly important as knowledge that can be converted into value for organizations (Hamzah
& Ismail, 2008). Knowledge sharing help employees to learn at work, therefore effects on develop-
ment of the knowledge economy in organizations, and will be important to lifelong learning (Erdi,
2021). According to the abovementioned information, the current research seeks to answer this
basic question: Is there a relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital from
the perspective of schoolteachers?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Intellectual capital
In the knowledge-based economy, intellectual capital is used to create value for the organiza-
tion, and in today’s world, the success of any organizations depends on the ability to manage these
assets. The decade to come is the decade of value creation through intellectual capital for organiza-
tions and countries. Therefore, paying attention to the issue of intellectual capital at the global and
regional level and the novelty of this discussion can be considered as an advantage for any country.
Intellectual capital or intellectual property is relevant at the level of society, industry and university,
and their accumulation constitutes the country’s intellectual property (Alkhateeb et al., 2018).
In the information age, organizations have intellectual capital and capital management, which
is the key to success in a turbulent and challenging environment. Intellectual capital is related to
acquired knowledge and ability created in employees. Intellectual capital is the knowledge stock of
an organization that exists in it at a certain point in time (Oliveira et al., 2020). Intellectual capital
includes all knowledge-based resources that generate value for organizations but are not included
in financial statements (Pablos, 2002). For intellectual capital, Bontis mentioned three components
(human capital, structural capital, relational capital) (Abdullah, 2012). Human capital is defined as
individual knowledge and skills, abilities and experiences in the employees of an organization to cre-
ate value and solve business problems (Bontis, 2000). Human capital refers to the cumulative value
of investing in education and training the future capabilities of employees, which takes place in two
forms (formal education and learning through others and experientially) (Bollen et al., 2005) and
human capital as a source of strategic innovation and restructuring is important for organizations.
Structural capital is defined as learning and knowledge in daily activities. This capital is considered
the supporting infrastructure of human capital and includes all the non-human reserves of knowl-
edge in organizations such as strategies, procedures, organizational culture, etc., which create value
for the organization. Relational capital indicates the formal and informal relations of an organiza-
tion with external stakeholders and their perceptions about the organization, as well as the exchange
of information between the organization and them. Relational capital by connecting human capital
and structural capital with other external stakeholders acts as an era of increasing value creation for
organizations (Merino et al., 2014).
Various factors affect intellectual capital management in organizations. Knowledge leadership
is one of the factors affecting intellectual capital in organizations (Kucharska, 2021).
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 111Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
In the current era, which is called the knowledge revolution, knowledge has become more
important compared to other factors of production such as land, and machines, and it is known as
the most important factor of production; the movement of organizations towards knowledge-based
organizations is defined as the basic necessity of today’s organizations. Hence, intellectual capital is
particularly important as knowledge that can be converted into value for organizations (Hamzah
& Ismail, 2008). Knowledge sharing help employees to learn at work, therefore effects on develop-
ment of the knowledge economy in organizations, and will be important to lifelong learning (Erdi,
2021). According to the abovementioned information, the current research seeks to answer this
basic question: Is there a relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital from
the perspective of schoolteachers?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Intellectual capital
In the knowledge-based economy, intellectual capital is used to create value for the organiza-
tion, and in today’s world, the success of any organizations depends on the ability to manage these
assets. The decade to come is the decade of value creation through intellectual capital for organiza-
tions and countries. Therefore, paying attention to the issue of intellectual capital at the global and
regional level and the novelty of this discussion can be considered as an advantage for any country.
Intellectual capital or intellectual property is relevant at the level of society, industry and university,
and their accumulation constitutes the country’s intellectual property (Alkhateeb et al., 2018).
In the information age, organizations have intellectual capital and capital management, which
is the key to success in a turbulent and challenging environment. Intellectual capital is related to
acquired knowledge and ability created in employees. Intellectual capital is the knowledge stock of
an organization that exists in it at a certain point in time (Oliveira et al., 2020). Intellectual capital
includes all knowledge-based resources that generate value for organizations but are not included
in financial statements (Pablos, 2002). For intellectual capital, Bontis mentioned three components
(human capital, structural capital, relational capital) (Abdullah, 2012). Human capital is defined as
individual knowledge and skills, abilities and experiences in the employees of an organization to cre-
ate value and solve business problems (Bontis, 2000). Human capital refers to the cumulative value
of investing in education and training the future capabilities of employees, which takes place in two
forms (formal education and learning through others and experientially) (Bollen et al., 2005) and
human capital as a source of strategic innovation and restructuring is important for organizations.
Structural capital is defined as learning and knowledge in daily activities. This capital is considered
the supporting infrastructure of human capital and includes all the non-human reserves of knowl-
edge in organizations such as strategies, procedures, organizational culture, etc., which create value
for the organization. Relational capital indicates the formal and informal relations of an organiza-
tion with external stakeholders and their perceptions about the organization, as well as the exchange
of information between the organization and them. Relational capital by connecting human capital
and structural capital with other external stakeholders acts as an era of increasing value creation for
organizations (Merino et al., 2014).
Various factors affect intellectual capital management in organizations. Knowledge leadership
is one of the factors affecting intellectual capital in organizations (Kucharska, 2021).
112 Chepeleva, Smulson, Rudnytska, Shylovska, HutsolInteracción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social V ol. 1 5 ( 1 ) : 2 0 2 5
The results of Kok’s research (2007) indicate that the status of knowledge leadership and
intellectual capital management in the university is above the average level. Also, Pearson’s
correlation coefficient showed that there is a positive and significant relationship between
knowledge leadership and intellectual capital management, and the results of multiple regres-
sion analysis indicate that among the components of knowledge leadership, the component
of supporting the individual and group learning process has the greatest impact in predict-
ing intellectual capital management. The results of Kucharska’s research (2021) showed that
knowledge leadership, intellectual capital and social capital of human resources of the studied
organization are at the optimal level. There is a significant relationship between social capital
and knowledge leadership, intellectual capital and knowledge leadership, intellectual capital
and social capital, and knowledge leadership and intellectual capital and social capital. The
results of Asiaei et al.’s research (2018) indicate that there is a difference between the amount
of intellectual capital in public and private universities, and while the score of human capital
in private universities is lower than the average, the structural capital is at a suitable level;
in public universities, on the other hand, the score of human capital and relationship (cus-
tomer) has been above average. The results of Mishra and Pandey research (2019) showed
that the effects of knowledge-based leadership on professional development, knowledge shar-
ing and teamwork were positive and significant, and the effects of teamwork and knowledge
sharing on professional development were also positive and significant. Moreover, knowledge
sharing and teamwork have a significant moderating role in the impact of knowledge-based
leadership on professional development. The results of Kucharska’s research (2021) aimed at
investigating the relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital manage-
ment among teachers indicate that there is a positive and significant relationship between
all components of knowledge leadership and intellectual capital management. The research
results of Jiang et al. (2023) show that spiritual leadership has a significant positive effect on
mental health. Mental health has a positive effect on knowledge sharing and knowledge shar-
ing has a positive effect on intellectual capital. In addition, mental health has a mediating and
moderating role between spiritual leadership and knowledge sharing. In their study Ibarra et
al. (2023) show that organizational culture and leadership significantly affect the knowledge
management process. In addition, the knowledge management process significantly affects
intellectual capital and innovation.
The research results of Prastio et al. (2024) showed that transformational leadership has no
effect on organizational learning and organizational agility. But intellectual capital affects organiza-
tional learning and organizational agility, and organizational learning plays a mediating role in the
impact of intellectual capital on organizational agility. The results of Khan et al.’s research (2024)
showed that two dimensions of intellectual capital, i.e. human capital at the individual level and
relational capital at the individual level, moderate the relationship between servant leadership and
innovative work behavior, while structural capital at the individual level of the relationship does not
mediate the two variables. According to the abovementioned information and in line with the main
question, the following sub-questions can be asked:
a) What is the current state of intellectual capital in the schools?
b) Is there a significant relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital in the
schools?
The results of Kok’s research (2007) indicate that the status of knowledge leadership and
intellectual capital management in the university is above the average level. Also, Pearson’s
correlation coefficient showed that there is a positive and significant relationship between
knowledge leadership and intellectual capital management, and the results of multiple regres-
sion analysis indicate that among the components of knowledge leadership, the component
of supporting the individual and group learning process has the greatest impact in predict-
ing intellectual capital management. The results of Kucharska’s research (2021) showed that
knowledge leadership, intellectual capital and social capital of human resources of the studied
organization are at the optimal level. There is a significant relationship between social capital
and knowledge leadership, intellectual capital and knowledge leadership, intellectual capital
and social capital, and knowledge leadership and intellectual capital and social capital. The
results of Asiaei et al.’s research (2018) indicate that there is a difference between the amount
of intellectual capital in public and private universities, and while the score of human capital
in private universities is lower than the average, the structural capital is at a suitable level;
in public universities, on the other hand, the score of human capital and relationship (cus-
tomer) has been above average. The results of Mishra and Pandey research (2019) showed
that the effects of knowledge-based leadership on professional development, knowledge shar-
ing and teamwork were positive and significant, and the effects of teamwork and knowledge
sharing on professional development were also positive and significant. Moreover, knowledge
sharing and teamwork have a significant moderating role in the impact of knowledge-based
leadership on professional development. The results of Kucharska’s research (2021) aimed at
investigating the relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital manage-
ment among teachers indicate that there is a positive and significant relationship between
all components of knowledge leadership and intellectual capital management. The research
results of Jiang et al. (2023) show that spiritual leadership has a significant positive effect on
mental health. Mental health has a positive effect on knowledge sharing and knowledge shar-
ing has a positive effect on intellectual capital. In addition, mental health has a mediating and
moderating role between spiritual leadership and knowledge sharing. In their study Ibarra et
al. (2023) show that organizational culture and leadership significantly affect the knowledge
management process. In addition, the knowledge management process significantly affects
intellectual capital and innovation.
The research results of Prastio et al. (2024) showed that transformational leadership has no
effect on organizational learning and organizational agility. But intellectual capital affects organiza-
tional learning and organizational agility, and organizational learning plays a mediating role in the
impact of intellectual capital on organizational agility. The results of Khan et al.’s research (2024)
showed that two dimensions of intellectual capital, i.e. human capital at the individual level and
relational capital at the individual level, moderate the relationship between servant leadership and
innovative work behavior, while structural capital at the individual level of the relationship does not
mediate the two variables. According to the abovementioned information and in line with the main
question, the following sub-questions can be asked:
a) What is the current state of intellectual capital in the schools?
b) Is there a significant relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital in the
schools?
Predicción del capital intelectual basada en componentes del liderazgo del conocimiento
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 113Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
Knowledge leadership
In management literature, leadership has been examined in four approaches, which are: leader-
ship characteristics approach, behavioral approach, contingent approach, and charismatic and trans-
formational approach. The leadership characteristics approach introduces knowledge as one of the
important characteristics of effective leaders and considers the knowledge acquired by leaders as one
of the important components of leadership. The behavioral and contingency approach suggests that
leadership should search for information, then obtain and use it. The role of knowledge and infor-
mation in the effectiveness of the organization is emphasized in behavioral approach. Charismatic
and transformational approach involves the acquisition and analysis of information that is impor-
tant for the development of insight in organizations (Mittal, 2015). Studies show that information
and knowledge management is effective on leadership performance, and it has been emphasized in
different leadership approaches that knowledge management and knowledge acquired by leaders is
important for realizing the functions of the organization (Lakshman & Parenti, 2008).
Educational and research organizations in today’s era, which is known as the era of informa-
tion and knowledge explosion, should choose to move towards knowledge-centeredness and use
the knowledge management system as their main approach. Of course, considering that knowledge
and information are scattered throughout the organization and cannot be recognized by everyone,
it is necessary to pay attention to the urgent need of employees for this knowledge and informa-
tion to make progress; moreover, it is important in development and managing knowledge in the
organization, which is more important and vital than the knowledge itself; on the other hand, it em-
phasize the design and implementation of knowledge management, which aims to produce, share
and expand knowledge in the organization and maintain its dynamics (Loyer, 2012). Knowledge
leadership is one of the knowledge management skills. Knowledge leadership is a social process in
which leaders support organization members in the learning processes needed to achieve the orga-
nization’s goals. This leads to the improvement of group thinking and joint activities (López, 2013).
In other words, any attitude or action (group or individual, objective and implicit) that stimulates
new knowledge in ways that cause collective thinking and consequences to create, share and use
knowledge, is called knowledge leadership (Manzoor, 2011). Sarabia (2007) mentioned four com-
ponents for knowledge leadership: leadership, knowledge, culture and learning. Alzghoul (2023)
have mentioned five dimensions: tendency to learn, supportive atmosphere of learning, knowledge
perspective, strategic emphasis and search for knowledge leadership. As a result of his studies, Viitala
(2004) has mentioned three components for knowledge leadership: learning orientation, supportive
learning atmosphere, supporting the learning process at the individual and group level (Kok, 2007).
In the direction of learning, leaders determine the need for knowledge and abilities needed in the
future and try to identify the vision and goals of the organization and work units, customer feedback
and needs, tools and quality indicators, and determine the direction of employees’ learning. Awada
emphasized on knowledge management and the importance of knowledge transfer on organiza-
tional effectiveness (Awada, 2019). The supportive dimension of learning includes the activities that
leaders try to develop a supportive atmosphere in their work environment with prior knowledge and
intention. This includes trust in the work environment, and leaders deal with employees’ possible
mistakes with a positive attitude. In this dimension, the ability and willingness of leaders to receive
feedback from subordinates is very important, and leaders must listen and respect the thoughts and
opinions of subordinates.
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 113Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
Knowledge leadership
In management literature, leadership has been examined in four approaches, which are: leader-
ship characteristics approach, behavioral approach, contingent approach, and charismatic and trans-
formational approach. The leadership characteristics approach introduces knowledge as one of the
important characteristics of effective leaders and considers the knowledge acquired by leaders as one
of the important components of leadership. The behavioral and contingency approach suggests that
leadership should search for information, then obtain and use it. The role of knowledge and infor-
mation in the effectiveness of the organization is emphasized in behavioral approach. Charismatic
and transformational approach involves the acquisition and analysis of information that is impor-
tant for the development of insight in organizations (Mittal, 2015). Studies show that information
and knowledge management is effective on leadership performance, and it has been emphasized in
different leadership approaches that knowledge management and knowledge acquired by leaders is
important for realizing the functions of the organization (Lakshman & Parenti, 2008).
Educational and research organizations in today’s era, which is known as the era of informa-
tion and knowledge explosion, should choose to move towards knowledge-centeredness and use
the knowledge management system as their main approach. Of course, considering that knowledge
and information are scattered throughout the organization and cannot be recognized by everyone,
it is necessary to pay attention to the urgent need of employees for this knowledge and informa-
tion to make progress; moreover, it is important in development and managing knowledge in the
organization, which is more important and vital than the knowledge itself; on the other hand, it em-
phasize the design and implementation of knowledge management, which aims to produce, share
and expand knowledge in the organization and maintain its dynamics (Loyer, 2012). Knowledge
leadership is one of the knowledge management skills. Knowledge leadership is a social process in
which leaders support organization members in the learning processes needed to achieve the orga-
nization’s goals. This leads to the improvement of group thinking and joint activities (López, 2013).
In other words, any attitude or action (group or individual, objective and implicit) that stimulates
new knowledge in ways that cause collective thinking and consequences to create, share and use
knowledge, is called knowledge leadership (Manzoor, 2011). Sarabia (2007) mentioned four com-
ponents for knowledge leadership: leadership, knowledge, culture and learning. Alzghoul (2023)
have mentioned five dimensions: tendency to learn, supportive atmosphere of learning, knowledge
perspective, strategic emphasis and search for knowledge leadership. As a result of his studies, Viitala
(2004) has mentioned three components for knowledge leadership: learning orientation, supportive
learning atmosphere, supporting the learning process at the individual and group level (Kok, 2007).
In the direction of learning, leaders determine the need for knowledge and abilities needed in the
future and try to identify the vision and goals of the organization and work units, customer feedback
and needs, tools and quality indicators, and determine the direction of employees’ learning. Awada
emphasized on knowledge management and the importance of knowledge transfer on organiza-
tional effectiveness (Awada, 2019). The supportive dimension of learning includes the activities that
leaders try to develop a supportive atmosphere in their work environment with prior knowledge and
intention. This includes trust in the work environment, and leaders deal with employees’ possible
mistakes with a positive attitude. In this dimension, the ability and willingness of leaders to receive
feedback from subordinates is very important, and leaders must listen and respect the thoughts and
opinions of subordinates.
114 Chepeleva, Smulson, Rudnytska, Shylovska, HutsolInteracción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social V ol. 1 5 ( 1 ) : 2 0 2 5
The dimension of supporting learning processes refers to the active role of the leader as a supporter of
learning processes (both individual-oriented and group-oriented). This leadership role is similar to that of a
coach or teacher, and leaders, with the help of subordinates, write the plan to develop their knowledge and
capabilities. In this dimension, leaders emphasize the importance of continuous learning and monitoring
progress and giving positive feedback. Increasing the self-confidence of subordinates in this dimension is
the key task of leadership (Viitala, 2004), as well as concern for their professional well-being (Voitenko et
al., 2024). The results of López’s research (2013) showed that the current state of knowledge leadership in
the studied universities is above average. The results of Cheng’s research (2015) showed that the current
state of knowledge leadership and intellectual capital in the studied schools is higher than the average; and
there is a positive and significant relationship between the components of knowledge leadership (support-
ive atmosphere for learning, tendency to learn, and support for the individual and group learning process)
and intellectual capital. In research on employee knowledge leadership, Depoo and Urbancova (2015)
concluded that managers in the Czech Republic have knowledge leadership techniques and skills and
manage scholarly employees. In their research entitled “the study of the relationship between knowledge
leadership of principals and the competitive advantage of primary schools” Chang et al. (2010) indicates
that principals with knowledge leadership are of high competitive advantage, and knowledge leadership
has a positive and significant correlation with competitive advantage and predicts competitive advantage
significantly. In research entitled “the role of leadership in the transfer of knowledge in a creative organiza-
tion”, Lina and Asta (2012) came to the conclusion that leadership has an effect in transferring knowl-
edge in a creative organization. In addition, transformational leadership, informally, has a greater effect
on knowledge transfer, while exchange leadership has little effect on knowledge transfer in the organiza-
tion. Banmairuroy et al. (2021) conducted research entitled the effect of knowledge-based leadership and
human resource development on sustainable competitive advantage through organizational innovation
component factors: evidence from Thailand’s new industries. The results showed that knowledge-based
leadership directly affects sustainable competitive advantage, while human resource development does not
have a significant direct impact on sustainable competitive advantage.
The quantitative and qualitative growth of the education system of the countries, the
content of the courses, the complexity of school organizational issues, the professional growth
of teachers, and the expectations of other institutions and parents from the education system,
have made it necessary to pay attention to effective management and leadership. In the edu-
cational system of our country, it is necessary to study and examine the components of intel-
lectual capital, including human capital (knowledge and skills and professional expertise of
teachers), communication capital (students, parents,...) and structural capital (hardware and
software knowledge in the structure) schools) (Kelly et al., 2004), and on the other hand, the
importance of knowledge and its leadership is felt in the age of information and knowledge-
based economy; hence, by directing knowledge effectively in the organization and using the
potential of the intellectual capital of schools and the educational system, we can pave the
way for effective leadership and management of this system. Pointing to the serious lack of
research related to the Asian context in the field of leadership, researchers point out that more
work should be done in Asia (Park et al., 2019). According to the abovementioned informa-
tion and in line with this main question, the following sub-questions can be asked:
a) What is the current state of knowledge leadership in the schools?
b) Do knowledge leadership components predict intellectual capital?
The dimension of supporting learning processes refers to the active role of the leader as a supporter of
learning processes (both individual-oriented and group-oriented). This leadership role is similar to that of a
coach or teacher, and leaders, with the help of subordinates, write the plan to develop their knowledge and
capabilities. In this dimension, leaders emphasize the importance of continuous learning and monitoring
progress and giving positive feedback. Increasing the self-confidence of subordinates in this dimension is
the key task of leadership (Viitala, 2004), as well as concern for their professional well-being (Voitenko et
al., 2024). The results of López’s research (2013) showed that the current state of knowledge leadership in
the studied universities is above average. The results of Cheng’s research (2015) showed that the current
state of knowledge leadership and intellectual capital in the studied schools is higher than the average; and
there is a positive and significant relationship between the components of knowledge leadership (support-
ive atmosphere for learning, tendency to learn, and support for the individual and group learning process)
and intellectual capital. In research on employee knowledge leadership, Depoo and Urbancova (2015)
concluded that managers in the Czech Republic have knowledge leadership techniques and skills and
manage scholarly employees. In their research entitled “the study of the relationship between knowledge
leadership of principals and the competitive advantage of primary schools” Chang et al. (2010) indicates
that principals with knowledge leadership are of high competitive advantage, and knowledge leadership
has a positive and significant correlation with competitive advantage and predicts competitive advantage
significantly. In research entitled “the role of leadership in the transfer of knowledge in a creative organiza-
tion”, Lina and Asta (2012) came to the conclusion that leadership has an effect in transferring knowl-
edge in a creative organization. In addition, transformational leadership, informally, has a greater effect
on knowledge transfer, while exchange leadership has little effect on knowledge transfer in the organiza-
tion. Banmairuroy et al. (2021) conducted research entitled the effect of knowledge-based leadership and
human resource development on sustainable competitive advantage through organizational innovation
component factors: evidence from Thailand’s new industries. The results showed that knowledge-based
leadership directly affects sustainable competitive advantage, while human resource development does not
have a significant direct impact on sustainable competitive advantage.
The quantitative and qualitative growth of the education system of the countries, the
content of the courses, the complexity of school organizational issues, the professional growth
of teachers, and the expectations of other institutions and parents from the education system,
have made it necessary to pay attention to effective management and leadership. In the edu-
cational system of our country, it is necessary to study and examine the components of intel-
lectual capital, including human capital (knowledge and skills and professional expertise of
teachers), communication capital (students, parents,...) and structural capital (hardware and
software knowledge in the structure) schools) (Kelly et al., 2004), and on the other hand, the
importance of knowledge and its leadership is felt in the age of information and knowledge-
based economy; hence, by directing knowledge effectively in the organization and using the
potential of the intellectual capital of schools and the educational system, we can pave the
way for effective leadership and management of this system. Pointing to the serious lack of
research related to the Asian context in the field of leadership, researchers point out that more
work should be done in Asia (Park et al., 2019). According to the abovementioned informa-
tion and in line with this main question, the following sub-questions can be asked:
a) What is the current state of knowledge leadership in the schools?
b) Do knowledge leadership components predict intellectual capital?
Predicción del capital intelectual basada en componentes del liderazgo del conocimiento
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 115Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
In this way, the conceptual framework of the research is as follows:
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In terms of purpose, this research is of applied type, and descriptive-correlation in terms of data
collection method; while it is a quantitative research based on the nature of the data. The statistical
population of this research is all the teachers of the schools, (n= 325). A sample of 176 people was
selected from this statistical population by simple random sampling and based on Morgan’s sample
size table to collect the required data. The number of statistical population and sample is shown in
the following table separately:
TABLE 1. Number of community and statistical sample
SampleStatistical populationEmployeesRow
103190Male1
73135Female2
1763252Total
To collect the required data and information, first the theoretical foundations of the research
were collected using various printed and electronic books and articles. Then the required field data
was collected using two questionnaires. The characteristics of the two questionnaire tools used are
as follows:
The knowledge leadership questionnaire is from the Viitala (2004) questionnaire, which has
26 questions and three components (tendency to learn, supportive atmosphere for learning, support
for the individual and group learning process) and 5 point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree,
neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree) are used in the questionnaire.
Intellectual capital evaluation questionnaire, which was created by Bontis (2000) and has 38
closed-ended questions with three components of human capital, structural capital and relational
capital (customer). The response range to the questionnaire items was based on a five-point Likert
scale (very high, high, medium, low, very low) (Maditinos, 2010).
The face and content validity of both tools were confirmed using the opinions of profes-
sors and experts. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to calculate reliability. The reliability of
the questionnaires in this research is shown in the table below, which was calculated using SPSS
software version 21.
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 115Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
In this way, the conceptual framework of the research is as follows:
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In terms of purpose, this research is of applied type, and descriptive-correlation in terms of data
collection method; while it is a quantitative research based on the nature of the data. The statistical
population of this research is all the teachers of the schools, (n= 325). A sample of 176 people was
selected from this statistical population by simple random sampling and based on Morgan’s sample
size table to collect the required data. The number of statistical population and sample is shown in
the following table separately:
TABLE 1. Number of community and statistical sample
SampleStatistical populationEmployeesRow
103190Male1
73135Female2
1763252Total
To collect the required data and information, first the theoretical foundations of the research
were collected using various printed and electronic books and articles. Then the required field data
was collected using two questionnaires. The characteristics of the two questionnaire tools used are
as follows:
The knowledge leadership questionnaire is from the Viitala (2004) questionnaire, which has
26 questions and three components (tendency to learn, supportive atmosphere for learning, support
for the individual and group learning process) and 5 point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree,
neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree) are used in the questionnaire.
Intellectual capital evaluation questionnaire, which was created by Bontis (2000) and has 38
closed-ended questions with three components of human capital, structural capital and relational
capital (customer). The response range to the questionnaire items was based on a five-point Likert
scale (very high, high, medium, low, very low) (Maditinos, 2010).
The face and content validity of both tools were confirmed using the opinions of profes-
sors and experts. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to calculate reliability. The reliability of
the questionnaires in this research is shown in the table below, which was calculated using SPSS
software version 21.
116 Chepeleva, Smulson, Rudnytska, Shylovska, HutsolInteracción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social V ol. 1 5 ( 1 ) : 2 0 2 5
TABLE 2. Reliability of variables
Cronbach’s alpha coefficientVariablesRow
94/0Knowledge leadership1
91/0Intellectual capital2
The collected data were analyzed using SPSS software. First, the normality of the distribution
of the collected data was tested through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and after determining the
normality of the data distribution, parametric tests such as Pearson’s correlation coefficient, one-
sample T, and regression were used to analyze the data and respond to research questions. Regarding
the observance of ethical principles in the present research, it should be mentioned that the respon-
dents to the questionnaire voluntarily completed the questionnaire. Also, in data collection and
analysis, the researcher has entered all the data into the software in accordance with the principle of
accuracy and honesty and has analyzed the data with the utmost precision.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Descriptive findings:
From the total number of respondents, 56.6% are women and 43.4% are men. In terms of
age, 25.3 percent are between 25 and 35 years old; 49.3% aged between 35 and 45 years; 25.4% are
over 45 years old. In terms of education, 11.6% have an associate degree, 74.7% have a bachelor’s
degree and 11% have a postgraduate degree or higher. In terms of service history, 38.1% have 1 to
10 years of experience; 49.4% have experience of 11 to 20 years; and 12.5% have experience of 20
to 30 years.
Inferential findings:
Before analyzing the data and answering the research questions, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
was used to check the normality of the distribution of the collected data, the results of which are
shown in the following table:
TABLE 3. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results to determine the normality
of the research data distribution
Knowledge leadershipIntellectual capitalStatistics
58/342/3Average
84/048/0Standard deviation
964/0726/0Kolmogorov-Smirnov z value
342/0721/0Significant level
According to the table above and since the significance level of the test error for the confidence
level of 0.95 is more than 0.05, it can be said that the distribution of the collected data is normal,
and parametric tests can be used to analyze the data.
First question: What is the current state of intellectual capital in the primary schools?
TABLE 2. Reliability of variables
Cronbach’s alpha coefficientVariablesRow
94/0Knowledge leadership1
91/0Intellectual capital2
The collected data were analyzed using SPSS software. First, the normality of the distribution
of the collected data was tested through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and after determining the
normality of the data distribution, parametric tests such as Pearson’s correlation coefficient, one-
sample T, and regression were used to analyze the data and respond to research questions. Regarding
the observance of ethical principles in the present research, it should be mentioned that the respon-
dents to the questionnaire voluntarily completed the questionnaire. Also, in data collection and
analysis, the researcher has entered all the data into the software in accordance with the principle of
accuracy and honesty and has analyzed the data with the utmost precision.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Descriptive findings:
From the total number of respondents, 56.6% are women and 43.4% are men. In terms of
age, 25.3 percent are between 25 and 35 years old; 49.3% aged between 35 and 45 years; 25.4% are
over 45 years old. In terms of education, 11.6% have an associate degree, 74.7% have a bachelor’s
degree and 11% have a postgraduate degree or higher. In terms of service history, 38.1% have 1 to
10 years of experience; 49.4% have experience of 11 to 20 years; and 12.5% have experience of 20
to 30 years.
Inferential findings:
Before analyzing the data and answering the research questions, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
was used to check the normality of the distribution of the collected data, the results of which are
shown in the following table:
TABLE 3. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results to determine the normality
of the research data distribution
Knowledge leadershipIntellectual capitalStatistics
58/342/3Average
84/048/0Standard deviation
964/0726/0Kolmogorov-Smirnov z value
342/0721/0Significant level
According to the table above and since the significance level of the test error for the confidence
level of 0.95 is more than 0.05, it can be said that the distribution of the collected data is normal,
and parametric tests can be used to analyze the data.
First question: What is the current state of intellectual capital in the primary schools?
Predicción del capital intelectual basada en componentes del liderazgo del conocimiento
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 117Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
TABLE 4. One sample t-test results of intellectual capital (N=176)
significance levelvalue of the T-statisticStdMean
00/061/856/045/3Structural capital
00/070/755/034/3Human capital
00/091/954/048/3Relational capital
00/071/948/042/3Total intellectual capital
The data in the above table shows that the current state of intellectual capital components is
higher than the theoretical average (3 out of 5) and the result of the single group t-test also shows
that this difference is significant.
Second question: What is the current state of knowledge leadership in elementary schools?
TABLE 5. One sample t-test results of knowledge leadership (N=176)
Sig.tStdMean
00/089/784/056/3Tendency to learn
00/006/986/069/3Supportive learning atmosphere
00/039/689/048/3Individual and group learning process
00/034/884/058/3Total knowledge leadership
According to the results of the above table, the mean of knowledge leadership is 3.58. More-
over, the above table shows that the current status of knowledge leadership components is higher
than the theoretical average (3 out of 5) and the result of the single group t-test also shows that this
difference is significant.
Third question: Is there a significant relationship between knowledge leadership and intellec-
tual capital components in the elementary schools?
TABLE 6. Pearson correlation coefficient results between knowledge leadership
and intellectual capital components
4321SDMeanVariables
-56/045/31. Structural capital
-**597/055/034/32. Human capital
-**738/0**685/054/048/33. Relational capital
-**682/0**674/0**638/048/042/34. Total intellectual capital
**731/0**734/0**738/0**713/084/03/585. Knowledge leadership
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tail).
The data in the above table shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between
knowledge leadership and its components with intellectual capital from the point of view of primary
school teachers in city x with confidence of 99%; and among the components of intellectual capital,
human capital has the highest correlation with the leadership.
Fourth question: Does knowledge leadership predict the components of intellectual capital?
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 117Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
TABLE 4. One sample t-test results of intellectual capital (N=176)
significance levelvalue of the T-statisticStdMean
00/061/856/045/3Structural capital
00/070/755/034/3Human capital
00/091/954/048/3Relational capital
00/071/948/042/3Total intellectual capital
The data in the above table shows that the current state of intellectual capital components is
higher than the theoretical average (3 out of 5) and the result of the single group t-test also shows
that this difference is significant.
Second question: What is the current state of knowledge leadership in elementary schools?
TABLE 5. One sample t-test results of knowledge leadership (N=176)
Sig.tStdMean
00/089/784/056/3Tendency to learn
00/006/986/069/3Supportive learning atmosphere
00/039/689/048/3Individual and group learning process
00/034/884/058/3Total knowledge leadership
According to the results of the above table, the mean of knowledge leadership is 3.58. More-
over, the above table shows that the current status of knowledge leadership components is higher
than the theoretical average (3 out of 5) and the result of the single group t-test also shows that this
difference is significant.
Third question: Is there a significant relationship between knowledge leadership and intellec-
tual capital components in the elementary schools?
TABLE 6. Pearson correlation coefficient results between knowledge leadership
and intellectual capital components
4321SDMeanVariables
-56/045/31. Structural capital
-**597/055/034/32. Human capital
-**738/0**685/054/048/33. Relational capital
-**682/0**674/0**638/048/042/34. Total intellectual capital
**731/0**734/0**738/0**713/084/03/585. Knowledge leadership
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tail).
The data in the above table shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between
knowledge leadership and its components with intellectual capital from the point of view of primary
school teachers in city x with confidence of 99%; and among the components of intellectual capital,
human capital has the highest correlation with the leadership.
Fourth question: Does knowledge leadership predict the components of intellectual capital?
118 Chepeleva, Smulson, Rudnytska, Shylovska, HutsolInteracción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social V ol. 1 5 ( 1 ) : 2 0 2 5
TABLE 7
Significance test of the linear relationship of the effect of knowledge leadership
components on intellectual capital
Sig.F valuemean of squaresdfsum of squaresmodelVariable
000/0
59/3749/4493/17Regression
Remainder
Total
intellectual
capital 121/013154/15
17547/33
F-test was used to check the existence of a linear relationship between the criterion variable
and the predictor variables. Given that the significance level of the F-test is 0.00, hence, there is
a significant linear relationship between the criterion variable and the predictor variables, and the
knowledge leadership components are capable of predicting intellectual capital. The regression re-
sults are shown in the following table:
TABLE 8. Summary of intellectual capital regression model based
on knowledge leadership components
SigTBComponents of knowledge leadership
006/065/228/0Tendency to learn
89/0061/0-004/0-Supportive atmosphere
74/014/0-009/0-Learning process
29/081/0163/0Total knowledge leadership
The results of above regression analysis show that only the component of tendency to learn is
a significant predictor of intellectual capital and the other components of knowledge leadership are
not significant predictors.
DISCUSSION
Using a correlational descriptive method, the present research was conducted with the aim
of investigating the relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital from the
perspective of elementary school teachers in X, and the results show that there is a positive and sig-
nificant relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital.
The finding of the first question of the research indicates that the current state of intellectual
capital in schools is higher than the average, which is in line with the results of Kok (2007), Kuchar-
ska (2021) and Cheng (2015). The existence of appropriate intellectual capital in schools provides
the basis for the growth and development of schools and managers can use this existing potential
to improve the quality of school performance. Intellectual capital is vital and sensitive for the com-
petitiveness of organizations with the advent of the industrial age into the information age and at-
tributed to knowledge management (Ahangar, & Ardabili, 2017); furthermore, intellectual capital
improves the level of competence of employees, the problem solving ability as well as the ability to
solve problems caused by employees, and creates personal trust among employees (Ahmed et al.,
2021); and it plays an essential role in empowering employees and realizing the organization’s goals
(Yasin et al., 2023).
TABLE 7
Significance test of the linear relationship of the effect of knowledge leadership
components on intellectual capital
Sig.F valuemean of squaresdfsum of squaresmodelVariable
000/0
59/3749/4493/17Regression
Remainder
Total
intellectual
capital 121/013154/15
17547/33
F-test was used to check the existence of a linear relationship between the criterion variable
and the predictor variables. Given that the significance level of the F-test is 0.00, hence, there is
a significant linear relationship between the criterion variable and the predictor variables, and the
knowledge leadership components are capable of predicting intellectual capital. The regression re-
sults are shown in the following table:
TABLE 8. Summary of intellectual capital regression model based
on knowledge leadership components
SigTBComponents of knowledge leadership
006/065/228/0Tendency to learn
89/0061/0-004/0-Supportive atmosphere
74/014/0-009/0-Learning process
29/081/0163/0Total knowledge leadership
The results of above regression analysis show that only the component of tendency to learn is
a significant predictor of intellectual capital and the other components of knowledge leadership are
not significant predictors.
DISCUSSION
Using a correlational descriptive method, the present research was conducted with the aim
of investigating the relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital from the
perspective of elementary school teachers in X, and the results show that there is a positive and sig-
nificant relationship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital.
The finding of the first question of the research indicates that the current state of intellectual
capital in schools is higher than the average, which is in line with the results of Kok (2007), Kuchar-
ska (2021) and Cheng (2015). The existence of appropriate intellectual capital in schools provides
the basis for the growth and development of schools and managers can use this existing potential
to improve the quality of school performance. Intellectual capital is vital and sensitive for the com-
petitiveness of organizations with the advent of the industrial age into the information age and at-
tributed to knowledge management (Ahangar, & Ardabili, 2017); furthermore, intellectual capital
improves the level of competence of employees, the problem solving ability as well as the ability to
solve problems caused by employees, and creates personal trust among employees (Ahmed et al.,
2021); and it plays an essential role in empowering employees and realizing the organization’s goals
(Yasin et al., 2023).
Predicción del capital intelectual basada en componentes del liderazgo del conocimiento
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 119Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
The findings of the second research question show that the current state of knowledge lead-
ership and its components is above average. This research finding is consistent with the research
results of Kok (2007), López (2013), Banmairuroy et al. (2021). In their research, these researchers
have come to the conclusion that knowledge leadership in organizations is in a good state. Accord-
ing to the information age, the existence of knowledge leadership can be considered a competitive
advantage for today’s organizations, because managers can use this existing potential to improve the
productivity of their organizations. Moreover, considering the impact of knowledge leadership on
organizational effectiveness (Mittal, 2015; Lakshman, 2009) and organizational learning (Alzghoul,
2023) and the capacity to absorb knowledge (Banmairuroy et al., 2021), school administrators can
use this advantage of high knowledge leadership to provide the basis for improving the effectiveness
and efficiency in schools and consequently achieve the goals of schools.
The findings of the third research question show that there is a positive and significant rela-
tionship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital and its components. This finding is
consistent with the research results of Kok (2007), Kucharska (2021), Asiaei et al. (2018), Kuchar-
ska (2021), Zia (2020), Mishra and Pandey (2019) and Ibarra et al. (2023). Based on this research
finding, school administrators can pave the way for improving the intellectual capital status of
teachers with appropriate leadership of knowledge in schools. For this purpose, it is suggested that
the officials of the educational system plan and implement courses for school principals to learn
about and apply knowledge leadership in schools, and in this way, provide opportunities to improve
intellectual capital in schools.
The findings of the fourth question of the research indicate that knowledge leadership is not
a significant predictor of intellectual capital and among the components of knowledge leadership,
only the component of tendency to learn with a beta value of 0.29 is a significant predictor of intel-
lectual capital and the rest of the knowledge leadership components are not significant predictors.
This research finding is consistent with the research results of Cheng (2015) and Khan et al. (2024),
but it is inconsistent with the research results of Kok (2007), and Kucharska (2021). One of the
reasons for this disparity can be pointed to the difference of the statistical population studied in
this research. Also, due to the fact that this research was conducted in schools and in a small area,
another reason is the possibility of inconsistent results. According to this research finding, it is sug-
gested that the current research be conducted in different schools and educational areas to increase
the accuracy of the research findings. It is also suggested that the current research be conducted with
qualitative methods and interview tools to obtain more accurate and deeper results. Based on the
findings of the research, it is suggested that in-service courses under the title of intellectual capital
and knowledge leadership be held in schools for managers to familiarize them with new manage-
ment concepts and provide the basis for improving the current state of intellectual capital of their
organization.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the current research were associated with limitations that affect the results of the
research. Among other things, this research was conducted only from the teachers’ point of view,
and also the current research is only limited to the schools and the generalization of its results to
other schools has limitations; another limitation of the current research was the data collection tool,
which is a self-report questionnaire, and it is possible that the responses were biased.
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 119Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
The findings of the second research question show that the current state of knowledge lead-
ership and its components is above average. This research finding is consistent with the research
results of Kok (2007), López (2013), Banmairuroy et al. (2021). In their research, these researchers
have come to the conclusion that knowledge leadership in organizations is in a good state. Accord-
ing to the information age, the existence of knowledge leadership can be considered a competitive
advantage for today’s organizations, because managers can use this existing potential to improve the
productivity of their organizations. Moreover, considering the impact of knowledge leadership on
organizational effectiveness (Mittal, 2015; Lakshman, 2009) and organizational learning (Alzghoul,
2023) and the capacity to absorb knowledge (Banmairuroy et al., 2021), school administrators can
use this advantage of high knowledge leadership to provide the basis for improving the effectiveness
and efficiency in schools and consequently achieve the goals of schools.
The findings of the third research question show that there is a positive and significant rela-
tionship between knowledge leadership and intellectual capital and its components. This finding is
consistent with the research results of Kok (2007), Kucharska (2021), Asiaei et al. (2018), Kuchar-
ska (2021), Zia (2020), Mishra and Pandey (2019) and Ibarra et al. (2023). Based on this research
finding, school administrators can pave the way for improving the intellectual capital status of
teachers with appropriate leadership of knowledge in schools. For this purpose, it is suggested that
the officials of the educational system plan and implement courses for school principals to learn
about and apply knowledge leadership in schools, and in this way, provide opportunities to improve
intellectual capital in schools.
The findings of the fourth question of the research indicate that knowledge leadership is not
a significant predictor of intellectual capital and among the components of knowledge leadership,
only the component of tendency to learn with a beta value of 0.29 is a significant predictor of intel-
lectual capital and the rest of the knowledge leadership components are not significant predictors.
This research finding is consistent with the research results of Cheng (2015) and Khan et al. (2024),
but it is inconsistent with the research results of Kok (2007), and Kucharska (2021). One of the
reasons for this disparity can be pointed to the difference of the statistical population studied in
this research. Also, due to the fact that this research was conducted in schools and in a small area,
another reason is the possibility of inconsistent results. According to this research finding, it is sug-
gested that the current research be conducted in different schools and educational areas to increase
the accuracy of the research findings. It is also suggested that the current research be conducted with
qualitative methods and interview tools to obtain more accurate and deeper results. Based on the
findings of the research, it is suggested that in-service courses under the title of intellectual capital
and knowledge leadership be held in schools for managers to familiarize them with new manage-
ment concepts and provide the basis for improving the current state of intellectual capital of their
organization.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the current research were associated with limitations that affect the results of the
research. Among other things, this research was conducted only from the teachers’ point of view,
and also the current research is only limited to the schools and the generalization of its results to
other schools has limitations; another limitation of the current research was the data collection tool,
which is a self-report questionnaire, and it is possible that the responses were biased.
120 Chepeleva, Smulson, Rudnytska, Shylovska, HutsolInteracción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social V ol. 1 5 ( 1 ) : 2 0 2 5
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
• Abdullah, D. F., & Sofian, S. (2012). The Relationship between Intellectual Capital and
Corporate Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 537-541. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.227
• Ahmed, S. S., Khan, M. M., Khan, E., Sohail, F., & Mahmood, N. (2021). Enhancing Inte-
llectual Capital and Organizational Performance Through Talent Management. In Shahbaz,
M., Mubarik, M. S., Mahmood, T. (eds.), The Dynamics of Intellectual Capital in Current Era.
Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1692-1_10
• Ahangar, A., & Ardabili, F. S. (2017). Evaluation of the Impressionability of Managerial Per-
formance and Risk Management from Intellectual Capital Strategies in the Companies Lis-
ted on the Tehran Stock Exchange Market. Marketing and Branding Research, Volume 4(1),
4-13, https://doi.org/10.33844/mbr.2017.60256
• Alkhateeb, A. N. A., Yao, L., & Cheng, J. (2018, March). Intellectual capital practices in univer-
sities. International Conference on Economy, Social and TechnologyAt: Copthorne Hotel Ca-
meron Highlands, Pahang, Malaysia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324122452_
INTELLECTUAL_CAPITAL_PRACTICES’_IN_UNIVERSITIES
• Alzghoul, A. (2023). Nexus of Strategic Thinking, Knowledge-Oriented Leadership, and Em-
ployee Creativity in Higher Education Institutes. International Journal of Professional Business
Review, 8(4), e01107. http://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i4.1107
• Asiaei, K., Jusoh, R., & Bontis, N. (2018). Intellectual capital and performance measurement
systems in Iran. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 294-320. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-
11-2016-0125
• Awada, H. (2019). An Investigation of the Relationship between Organizational Structure, Tie
Strength and Tacit Knowledge Sharing. International Journal of Behavior Studies in Organiza-
tions, 1, 25-36. https://doi.org/10.32038/JBSO.2019.01.03
• Banmairuroy, W., Kritjaroen, T., & Homsombat, W. (2021). The effect of knowledge-
oriented leadership and human resource development on sustainable competitive advanta-
ge through organizational innovation’s component factors: Evidence from Thailand’s new S-
curve industries. Asia Pacific Management Review, 27(3), 200-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apmrv.2021.09.001
• Bollen, L., Vergauwen, P., & Schnieders, S. (2005). Linking intellectual capital and intellec-
tual property to company performance. Management decision, 43(9), 1161-1185. http://doi.
org/10.1108/00251740510626254
• Bontis, N. (2000). Intellectual Capital Questionnaire, Institute for Intellectual Capital Re-
search (pp. 231-240). Hamilton, Canada.
• Chang. W. C., Fan. C. W., Chong. T. L. (2010). The Study on Relationship Principals
Knowledge Leadership and School Competitive Advantage of Elementary Schools. Educatio-
nal administration and evaluation, 9(11), 27-40.
• Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Knowledge Sharing for Creating School Intellectual Capital. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1455-1459. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.307
• Depoo, L., & Urbancova, H. (2015). Employee Turnover and Knowledge Management in the
Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63(1),
313-325. http://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201563010313
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
• Abdullah, D. F., & Sofian, S. (2012). The Relationship between Intellectual Capital and
Corporate Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 537-541. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.227
• Ahmed, S. S., Khan, M. M., Khan, E., Sohail, F., & Mahmood, N. (2021). Enhancing Inte-
llectual Capital and Organizational Performance Through Talent Management. In Shahbaz,
M., Mubarik, M. S., Mahmood, T. (eds.), The Dynamics of Intellectual Capital in Current Era.
Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1692-1_10
• Ahangar, A., & Ardabili, F. S. (2017). Evaluation of the Impressionability of Managerial Per-
formance and Risk Management from Intellectual Capital Strategies in the Companies Lis-
ted on the Tehran Stock Exchange Market. Marketing and Branding Research, Volume 4(1),
4-13, https://doi.org/10.33844/mbr.2017.60256
• Alkhateeb, A. N. A., Yao, L., & Cheng, J. (2018, March). Intellectual capital practices in univer-
sities. International Conference on Economy, Social and TechnologyAt: Copthorne Hotel Ca-
meron Highlands, Pahang, Malaysia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324122452_
INTELLECTUAL_CAPITAL_PRACTICES’_IN_UNIVERSITIES
• Alzghoul, A. (2023). Nexus of Strategic Thinking, Knowledge-Oriented Leadership, and Em-
ployee Creativity in Higher Education Institutes. International Journal of Professional Business
Review, 8(4), e01107. http://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i4.1107
• Asiaei, K., Jusoh, R., & Bontis, N. (2018). Intellectual capital and performance measurement
systems in Iran. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 294-320. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-
11-2016-0125
• Awada, H. (2019). An Investigation of the Relationship between Organizational Structure, Tie
Strength and Tacit Knowledge Sharing. International Journal of Behavior Studies in Organiza-
tions, 1, 25-36. https://doi.org/10.32038/JBSO.2019.01.03
• Banmairuroy, W., Kritjaroen, T., & Homsombat, W. (2021). The effect of knowledge-
oriented leadership and human resource development on sustainable competitive advanta-
ge through organizational innovation’s component factors: Evidence from Thailand’s new S-
curve industries. Asia Pacific Management Review, 27(3), 200-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apmrv.2021.09.001
• Bollen, L., Vergauwen, P., & Schnieders, S. (2005). Linking intellectual capital and intellec-
tual property to company performance. Management decision, 43(9), 1161-1185. http://doi.
org/10.1108/00251740510626254
• Bontis, N. (2000). Intellectual Capital Questionnaire, Institute for Intellectual Capital Re-
search (pp. 231-240). Hamilton, Canada.
• Chang. W. C., Fan. C. W., Chong. T. L. (2010). The Study on Relationship Principals
Knowledge Leadership and School Competitive Advantage of Elementary Schools. Educatio-
nal administration and evaluation, 9(11), 27-40.
• Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Knowledge Sharing for Creating School Intellectual Capital. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1455-1459. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.307
• Depoo, L., & Urbancova, H. (2015). Employee Turnover and Knowledge Management in the
Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63(1),
313-325. http://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201563010313
Predicción del capital intelectual basada en componentes del liderazgo del conocimiento
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 121Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
• Erdei, G. (2021). From Knowledge-Driven to Learning-Driven: The Importance of Work-
place Learning. Studies in Educational Management, 10, 34-47. https://doi.org/10.32038/
sem.2021.10.03
• Hamzah, N., & Ismail, M. N. (2008). The Importance of Intellectual Capital Management
in the Knowledge-based Economy. Contemporary Management Research, 4(3). http://doi.
org/10.7903/cmr.1045
• Ibarra-Cisneros, M. A., Reyna, J. B. V., & Hernández-Perlines, F. (2023). Interaction between
knowledge management, intellectual capital and innovation in higher education institutions.
Education and Information Technologies, 28, 9685-9708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-
11563-x
• Jiang, J., Ye, Z., Liu, J., Shah, W. U. H., & Shafait, Z. (2023). From “doing alone” to “working
together”—Research on the influence of spiritual leadership on employee morale. Frontiers in
Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.992910
• Kelly, A. (2004). The intellectual capital of schools: analysing government policy statements on
school improvement in light of a new theorization. Journal of Education Policy, 19(5), 609-629.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093042000269180
• Khan, M. M., Mubarik, M. S., Ahmed, S. S., Islam, T., & Rehman, S. U. (2024). Utilizing
every grain of intellect: exploring the role of individual-level intellectual capital in linking
servant leadership with innovative work behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 25(1), 23-37.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2021-0307
• Kucharska, W. (2021). Leadership, culture, intellectual capital and knowledge processes for or-
ganizational innovativeness across industries: the case of Poland. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
22(7), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2021-0047
• Kok, A. (2007). Intellectual Capital Management as Part of Knowledge Management Initiati-
ves at Institutions of Higher Learning. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2),
181-192. available online at www.ejkm.com
• Lakshman, C., & Parente, R. (2008). Supplier-focused knowledge management in the auto-
mobile industry and its implications for product performance. Journal of Management Studies,
45(2), 317-342. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00743.x
• Lakshman. C. (2009). Organizational knowledge leadership: An empirical examination of
knowledge management by top executive leaders. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 30(4), 338-364. http://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910961676
• Lam, L., Nguyen, P., Le, N., & Tran, K. (2021). The Relation among Organizational Cul-
ture, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Capability: Its Implication for Open Inno-
vation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 66. https://doi.
org/10.3390/joitmc7010066
• Lina, G., & Asta, S. (2012). Leadership role implementing knowledge transfer in creative or-
ganization: how does it work? Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41(5), 15-22. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.002
• Loyer, R. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Moving away from the obsession with best practices.
Journal of knowledge Management, 11(1), 20-32.
• Maditinos, D. I., Sevic, Z., & Tsairidis, C. (2010). Intellectual Capital and Business Perfor-
mance: An Empirical Study for the Greek Listed Companies. European research studies journal,
13(3), 145-168. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/291
desde la perspectiva de los docentes escolares 121Vol. 15(1) enero-marzo 2025/ 109 - 122
• Erdei, G. (2021). From Knowledge-Driven to Learning-Driven: The Importance of Work-
place Learning. Studies in Educational Management, 10, 34-47. https://doi.org/10.32038/
sem.2021.10.03
• Hamzah, N., & Ismail, M. N. (2008). The Importance of Intellectual Capital Management
in the Knowledge-based Economy. Contemporary Management Research, 4(3). http://doi.
org/10.7903/cmr.1045
• Ibarra-Cisneros, M. A., Reyna, J. B. V., & Hernández-Perlines, F. (2023). Interaction between
knowledge management, intellectual capital and innovation in higher education institutions.
Education and Information Technologies, 28, 9685-9708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-
11563-x
• Jiang, J., Ye, Z., Liu, J., Shah, W. U. H., & Shafait, Z. (2023). From “doing alone” to “working
together”—Research on the influence of spiritual leadership on employee morale. Frontiers in
Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.992910
• Kelly, A. (2004). The intellectual capital of schools: analysing government policy statements on
school improvement in light of a new theorization. Journal of Education Policy, 19(5), 609-629.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093042000269180
• Khan, M. M., Mubarik, M. S., Ahmed, S. S., Islam, T., & Rehman, S. U. (2024). Utilizing
every grain of intellect: exploring the role of individual-level intellectual capital in linking
servant leadership with innovative work behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 25(1), 23-37.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2021-0307
• Kucharska, W. (2021). Leadership, culture, intellectual capital and knowledge processes for or-
ganizational innovativeness across industries: the case of Poland. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
22(7), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2021-0047
• Kok, A. (2007). Intellectual Capital Management as Part of Knowledge Management Initiati-
ves at Institutions of Higher Learning. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2),
181-192. available online at www.ejkm.com
• Lakshman, C., & Parente, R. (2008). Supplier-focused knowledge management in the auto-
mobile industry and its implications for product performance. Journal of Management Studies,
45(2), 317-342. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00743.x
• Lakshman. C. (2009). Organizational knowledge leadership: An empirical examination of
knowledge management by top executive leaders. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 30(4), 338-364. http://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910961676
• Lam, L., Nguyen, P., Le, N., & Tran, K. (2021). The Relation among Organizational Cul-
ture, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Capability: Its Implication for Open Inno-
vation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 66. https://doi.
org/10.3390/joitmc7010066
• Lina, G., & Asta, S. (2012). Leadership role implementing knowledge transfer in creative or-
ganization: how does it work? Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41(5), 15-22. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.002
• Loyer, R. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Moving away from the obsession with best practices.
Journal of knowledge Management, 11(1), 20-32.
• Maditinos, D. I., Sevic, Z., & Tsairidis, C. (2010). Intellectual Capital and Business Perfor-
mance: An Empirical Study for the Greek Listed Companies. European research studies journal,
13(3), 145-168. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/291
122 Chepeleva, Smulson, Rudnytska, Shylovska, HutsolInteracción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social V ol. 1 5 ( 1 ) : 2 0 2 5
• Manzoor, Q. A. (2011). Impact of Employees Motivation on Organizational Effectiveness.
Business Management and Strategy, 3(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5296/bms.v3i1.904
• Merino, D. G., García-Zambrano, L., & Rodríguez-Castellanos, A. (2014). Impact of Rela-
tional Capital on Business Value. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 13(01),
1450002-1-1450002-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219649214500026
• Mishra, M., & Pandey, A. (2019). The impact of leadership styles on knowledge-sharing beha-
vior: a review of literature. Development and Learning in Organizations, 33(1), 16-19. https://
doi.org/10.1108/DLO-06-2018-0067
• Mittal, R. (2015). Charismatic and Transformational Leadership Styles: A Cross-Cultural Pers-
pective. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/
ijbm.v10n3p26
• Norma, A. joma. (2005). The relationship between intellectual capital and new venture perfor-
mance: an empirical investigation of the moderating role of the environment. PH. D dissertation,
Texas state university.
• Oliveira, M., Curado, C., Balle, A., & Kianto, A. (2020). Knowledge sharing, intellectual ca-
pital and organizational results in SMES: are they related? Journal of Intellectual Capital ahead-
of-print, 21(6), 893-911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-04-2019-0077
• Pablos, P. (2002). Evidence of intellectual capital measurement from asia, europe and the middle
east. Journal of intellectual capital, 3(3), 287-303. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930210435624
• Park, S., Han, S. J., Hwang, A. J., & Park, C. K. (2019). Comparison of leadership styles in
Confucian Asian countries. Human Resource Development International, 22(1), 91-100. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2018.1425587
• Prastio, A. P., Nurhayati, M., & Mindarti, C. S. (2024). The Influence of Transformational
Leadership and Intellectual Capital on Organizational Agility with Organizational Learning as
a Mediating Variable. International Journal of Management and Business Applied, 3(1), 43-61.
https://doi.org/10.54099/ijmba.v3i1.883
• López, V. M. (2013). Leadership in organization knowledge to Mexico. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 73, 661-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.103
• Sarabia, M. (2007). Knowledge leadership cycles: An approach from Nonaka’s viewpoint. Jour-
nal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710752072
• Stoilkova, J., Selimi, S., & Uraguchi, Z. B. (2022, October 31). Role of Knowledge Management
in Knowledge Economies. HELVETAS. https://www.helvetas.org/en/switzerland/how-you-can-
help/follow-us/blog/inclusive-systems/knowledge-management-knowledge-economies
• Viitala, R. (2004). Towards knowledge leadership. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 25(6), 528-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410556761
• Voitenko, E., Zazymko, O., Myronets, S., Staryk, V., & Kushnirenko, K. (2024). The mediat-
ing role of values in the relationship between needs and professional well-being of university
academic staff. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 13(1), 102-116. https://doi.
org/10.33844/ijol.2024.60401
• Yasin, R., Yang, S., Huseynova, A., & Atif, M. (2023). Spiritual leadership and intellectual
capital: mediating role of psychological safety and knowledge sharing. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 24(4), 1025-1046. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2022-0067
• Zia, N. U. (2020). Knowledge-oriented leadership, knowledge management behaviour and in-
novation performance in project-based SMEs. The moderating role of goal orientations. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1819-1839. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2020-0127
• Manzoor, Q. A. (2011). Impact of Employees Motivation on Organizational Effectiveness.
Business Management and Strategy, 3(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5296/bms.v3i1.904
• Merino, D. G., García-Zambrano, L., & Rodríguez-Castellanos, A. (2014). Impact of Rela-
tional Capital on Business Value. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 13(01),
1450002-1-1450002-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219649214500026
• Mishra, M., & Pandey, A. (2019). The impact of leadership styles on knowledge-sharing beha-
vior: a review of literature. Development and Learning in Organizations, 33(1), 16-19. https://
doi.org/10.1108/DLO-06-2018-0067
• Mittal, R. (2015). Charismatic and Transformational Leadership Styles: A Cross-Cultural Pers-
pective. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/
ijbm.v10n3p26
• Norma, A. joma. (2005). The relationship between intellectual capital and new venture perfor-
mance: an empirical investigation of the moderating role of the environment. PH. D dissertation,
Texas state university.
• Oliveira, M., Curado, C., Balle, A., & Kianto, A. (2020). Knowledge sharing, intellectual ca-
pital and organizational results in SMES: are they related? Journal of Intellectual Capital ahead-
of-print, 21(6), 893-911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-04-2019-0077
• Pablos, P. (2002). Evidence of intellectual capital measurement from asia, europe and the middle
east. Journal of intellectual capital, 3(3), 287-303. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930210435624
• Park, S., Han, S. J., Hwang, A. J., & Park, C. K. (2019). Comparison of leadership styles in
Confucian Asian countries. Human Resource Development International, 22(1), 91-100. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2018.1425587
• Prastio, A. P., Nurhayati, M., & Mindarti, C. S. (2024). The Influence of Transformational
Leadership and Intellectual Capital on Organizational Agility with Organizational Learning as
a Mediating Variable. International Journal of Management and Business Applied, 3(1), 43-61.
https://doi.org/10.54099/ijmba.v3i1.883
• López, V. M. (2013). Leadership in organization knowledge to Mexico. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 73, 661-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.103
• Sarabia, M. (2007). Knowledge leadership cycles: An approach from Nonaka’s viewpoint. Jour-
nal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710752072
• Stoilkova, J., Selimi, S., & Uraguchi, Z. B. (2022, October 31). Role of Knowledge Management
in Knowledge Economies. HELVETAS. https://www.helvetas.org/en/switzerland/how-you-can-
help/follow-us/blog/inclusive-systems/knowledge-management-knowledge-economies
• Viitala, R. (2004). Towards knowledge leadership. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 25(6), 528-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410556761
• Voitenko, E., Zazymko, O., Myronets, S., Staryk, V., & Kushnirenko, K. (2024). The mediat-
ing role of values in the relationship between needs and professional well-being of university
academic staff. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 13(1), 102-116. https://doi.
org/10.33844/ijol.2024.60401
• Yasin, R., Yang, S., Huseynova, A., & Atif, M. (2023). Spiritual leadership and intellectual
capital: mediating role of psychological safety and knowledge sharing. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 24(4), 1025-1046. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2022-0067
• Zia, N. U. (2020). Knowledge-oriented leadership, knowledge management behaviour and in-
novation performance in project-based SMEs. The moderating role of goal orientations. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1819-1839. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2020-0127