The Impact of Employee Development Practices on Human Capital and Social Capital: The Mediating Contribution of Knowledge Management

Comments

Modifications

1.The relationships between Knowledge Management (KM) and Intellectual Capital (IC) are very complex and hard to understand if the basic concepts of KM and IC are not well-understood. The present paper demonstrates that the authors do not understand the basic concepts with which they operate. That can be explained looking at their references. Although the number of references is rather high, they are not the most representative ones for IC and KM. I strongly recommend the authors to read some basic books on KM, like: 

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating-company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

Davenport, T.H. & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press.

Massingham, P. (2020). Knowledge management: Theory in practice. SAGE.

Thanks for this advice.

2.The definition of IC is not clear: "IC can be defined as a collective value of the most precious assets of terms an organization of its human, relations, and structure" (p. 2, L 66-68). It must be reviewed completely.

The statement was deleted

3."Human capital has been regarded as a key organizational asset consists of employee skills, employee knowledge, employee attitudes and commitment as well as employee characteristics and experience".(p. 2. L 75-77). First, what kind of characteristics? Second, experience is embedded in tacit knowledge, which means overlap** with previous terms. This text must be reformulated.

“as well as employee characteristics and experience” was deleted

4."Innovation means the ability to create innovation" (p. 2 L 80-82).  Innovation is a process not an ability. 

Done

The ability has been replaced by process

5." McCallum and O'Connel [44] indicated that social capital refers to relational competencies like self-management, trust, .." Self-management refers to an individual not to a certain relationship. It is wrong interpretation.

“Self-management” was deleted

6. The definition of KM is totally wrong. It is taken from a paper published in a journal that is not focused on KM. Here, the authors show superficiality in their documentation and understanding basic concepts.

The definition of KM was added from (Massingham, 2020). AND (Davenport,. & Prusak, 2000).

7.Having these fuzzy ideas about KM and IC it is really difficult to construct a serious research model and valuable research process. In reality the variables considered in the research model are in a complex and dynamic relationships system such that we can argue that the influence can be as well from the IC toward EDP. Accepting the order and the structure of proposed model, we ask what is the meaning of H6 and H7 because they are overlap** with H3+H4 and H3+H5, respectively. 

H6 and H7,

These hypotheses measure the indirect relationship between the independent variable EDP and the dependent variable HC, but the H3+H4 and H3+H5, its measure the direct relationship.

8.Looking at the items in Table 1- Research variables (p. 7), we have serious questions concerning the significance of some items in measuring the constructs. For instance, EDP3 says "Employee participates in the decision-making process to enrich his or her knowledge" - The decision-making is based on knowledge and not the reverse. How to measure KM having 2 items on knowledge sharing (KM1 and KM2) and no items on other basic processes of KM? HC3 - "My work experience increased my salary" has nothing to do with measuring HC in the context of the present research model. With these wrong formulation of the research model we ask very seriously about what actually was measured?

- The items of instrument develop according to the instrument used in many previous studies.

- And the items were measured every dimension as separately.

- I measure the KM as concepts, and I am not measure all processes

- There is wrong “salary” the correct is “skills”

9. The conclusion that KM has no mediating role in the influence of employee developmental practices on social capital cannot be supported by real life. It is a wrong conclusion that can be explained by wrong formulations for the measuring items.

Of course, it’s not supported by real life. But it’s explained by the actual of organizations not by formulations for the measuring items.

So, to solve the problem according to your points (7 and 9), the H7 was deleted from all sections of the paper.

Comments

Modifications

1.The relationships between Knowledge Management (KM) and Intellectual Capital (IC) are very complex and hard to understand if the basic concepts of KM and IC are not well-understood. The present paper demonstrates that the authors do not understand the basic concepts with which they operate. That can be explained looking at their references. Although the number of references is rather high, they are not the most representative ones for IC and KM. I strongly recommend the authors to read some basic books on KM, like: 

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating-company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

Davenport, T.H. & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press.

Massingham, P. (2020). Knowledge management: Theory in practice. SAGE.

Thanks for this advice.

2.The definition of IC is not clear: "IC can be defined as a collective value of the most precious assets of terms an organization of its human, relations, and structure" (p. 2, L 66-68). It must be reviewed completely.

The statement was deleted

3."Human capital has been regarded as a key organizational asset consists of employee skills, employee knowledge, employee attitudes and commitment as well as employee characteristics and experience".(p. 2. L 75-77). First, what kind of characteristics? Second, experience is embedded in tacit knowledge, which means overlap** with previous terms. This text must be reformulated.

“as well as employee characteristics and experience” was deleted

4."Innovation means the ability to create innovation" (p. 2 L 80-82).  Innovation is a process not an ability. 

Done

The ability has been replaced by process

5." McCallum and O'Connel [44] indicated that social capital refers to relational competencies like self-management, trust, .." Self-management refers to an individual not to a certain relationship. It is wrong interpretation.

“Self-management” was deleted

6. The definition of KM is totally wrong. It is taken from a paper published in a journal that is not focused on KM. Here, the authors show superficiality in their documentation and understanding basic concepts.

The definition of KM was added from (Massingham, 2020). AND (Davenport,. & Prusak, 2000).

7.Having these fuzzy ideas about KM and IC it is really difficult to construct a serious research model and valuable research process. In reality the variables considered in the research model are in a complex and dynamic relationships system such that we can argue that the influence can be as well from the IC toward EDP. Accepting the order and the structure of proposed model, we ask what is the meaning of H6 and H7 because they are overlap** with H3+H4 and H3+H5, respectively. 

H6 and H7,

These hypotheses measure the indirect relationship between the independent variable EDP and the dependent variable HC, but the H3+H4 and H3+H5, its measure the direct relationship.

8.Looking at the items in Table 1- Research variables (p. 7), we have serious questions concerning the significance of some items in measuring the constructs. For instance, EDP3 says "Employee participates in the decision-making process to enrich his or her knowledge" - The decision-making is based on knowledge and not the reverse. How to measure KM having 2 items on knowledge sharing (KM1 and KM2) and no items on other basic processes of KM? HC3 - "My work experience increased my salary" has nothing to do with measuring HC in the context of the present research model. With these wrong formulation of the research model we ask very seriously about what actually was measured?

- The items of instrument develop according to the instrument used in many previous studies.

- And the items were measured every dimension as separately.

- I measure the KM as concepts, and I am not measure all processes

- There is wrong “salary” the correct is “skills”

9. The conclusion that KM has no mediating role in the influence of employee developmental practices on social capital cannot be supported by real life. It is a wrong conclusion that can be explained by wrong formulations for the measuring items.

Of course, it’s not supported by real life. But it’s explained by the actual of organizations not by formulations for the measuring items.

So, to solve the problem according to your points (7 and 9), the H7 was deleted from all sections of the paper.

Comments

Modifications

1.The relationships between Knowledge Management (KM) and Intellectual Capital (IC) are very complex and hard to understand if the basic concepts of KM and IC are not well-understood. The present paper demonstrates that the authors do not understand the basic concepts with which they operate. That can be explained looking at their references. Although the number of references is rather high, they are not the most representative ones for IC and KM. I strongly recommend the authors to read some basic books on KM, like: 

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating-company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

Davenport, T.H. & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press.

Massingham, P. (2020). Knowledge management: Theory in practice. SAGE.

Thanks for this advice.

2.The definition of IC is not clear: "IC can be defined as a collective value of the most precious assets of terms an organization of its human, relations, and structure" (p. 2, L 66-68). It must be reviewed completely.

The statement was deleted

3."Human capital has been regarded as a key organizational asset consists of employee skills, employee knowledge, employee attitudes and commitment as well as employee characteristics and experience".(p. 2. L 75-77). First, what kind of characteristics? Second, experience is embedded in tacit knowledge, which means overlap** with previous terms. This text must be reformulated.

“as well as employee characteristics and experience” was deleted

4."Innovation means the ability to create innovation" (p. 2 L 80-82).  Innovation is a process not an ability. 

Done

The ability has been replaced by process

5." McCallum and O'Connel [44] indicated that social capital refers to relational competencies like self-management, trust, .." Self-management refers to an individual not to a certain relationship. It is wrong interpretation.

“Self-management” was deleted

6. The definition of KM is totally wrong. It is taken from a paper published in a journal that is not focused on KM. Here, the authors show superficiality in their documentation and understanding basic concepts.

The definition of KM was added from (Massingham, 2020). AND (Davenport,. & Prusak, 2000).

7.Having these fuzzy ideas about KM and IC it is really difficult to construct a serious research model and valuable research process. In reality the variables considered in the research model are in a complex and dynamic relationships system such that we can argue that the influence can be as well from the IC toward EDP. Accepting the order and the structure of proposed model, we ask what is the meaning of H6 and H7 because they are overlap** with H3+H4 and H3+H5, respectively. 

H6 and H7,

These hypotheses measure the indirect relationship between the independent variable EDP and the dependent variable HC, but the H3+H4 and H3+H5, its measure the direct relationship.

8.Looking at the items in Table 1- Research variables (p. 7), we have serious questions concerning the significance of some items in measuring the constructs. For instance, EDP3 says "Employee participates in the decision-making process to enrich his or her knowledge" - The decision-making is based on knowledge and not the reverse. How to measure KM having 2 items on knowledge sharing (KM1 and KM2) and no items on other basic processes of KM? HC3 - "My work experience increased my salary" has nothing to do with measuring HC in the context of the present research model. With these wrong formulation of the research model we ask very seriously about what actually was measured?

- The items of instrument develop according to the instrument used in many previous studies.

- And the items were measured every dimension as separately.

- I measure the KM as concepts, and I am not measure all processes

- There is wrong “salary” the correct is “skills”

9. The conclusion that KM has no mediating role in the influence of employee developmental practices on social capital cannot be supported by real life. It is a wrong conclusion that can be explained by wrong formulations for the measuring items.

Of course, it’s not supported by real life. But it’s explained by the actual of organizations not by formulations for the measuring items.

So, to solve the problem according to your points (7 and 9), the H7 was deleted from all sections of the paper.