Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Ruxandra Bejinaru and Stefan Iordache
as well as on <strong>the</strong> links between <strong>the</strong>m. From our perspective, we would state that intellectual capital is
a strong integrator within <strong>the</strong> learning organization. The organization’s intellectual capital supports its
employees’ orientation to simultaneously collaborate and engage to sustain <strong>the</strong> achievement <strong>of</strong>
objectives in business. The force comes out <strong>of</strong> a trust relationship based on ethics and reciprocity <strong>of</strong>
help among members, as well as on a strong team felling fed within <strong>the</strong> organization. These are <strong>the</strong>
company’s fundaments, values and vision, on <strong>the</strong> primary level or shared vision and team learning on
a fur<strong>the</strong>r level.
The matter is <strong>of</strong> choosing <strong>the</strong> right perspective: ei<strong>the</strong>r regarding intellectual capital as a stock or as a
flow. It is not an easy task to perceive <strong>the</strong> dynamics <strong>of</strong> reality it is something that needs a lot <strong>of</strong>
learning, practice and a special kit. Our research led us to <strong>the</strong> answer that a mature learning
organization represents that kit. The full kit, to which intellectual capital relates, contains – <strong>the</strong>
personal mastery, <strong>the</strong> mental models, <strong>the</strong> shared vision, <strong>the</strong> team learning and <strong>the</strong> system’s thinking.
Intellectual capital needs <strong>the</strong> discipline <strong>of</strong> personal mastery because you can’t make use <strong>of</strong> something
if you don’t concentrate on comprehending its’ dimension, on controlling its’ spreading resonance and
finally on fur<strong>the</strong>r modelling its’ trajectory. Personal mastery means to know what you have done and
to push fur<strong>the</strong>r your work in order to accomplish what you have been able to, but “have never arrived
to” (Senge, 1990).
Fur<strong>the</strong>r speaking, having <strong>the</strong> mental models is nei<strong>the</strong>r so difficult nor enough but working through
<strong>the</strong>m is a start. This is how <strong>the</strong> organization’s intellectual capital will be always under <strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> mental models, or name it ‘action’. The shared vision within a learning organization is <strong>the</strong> affair
that keeps everyone and everything toge<strong>the</strong>r. To reality, <strong>the</strong> shared vision is not an idea as it is to us,
but an impressive force. We believe that intellectual capital will generate <strong>the</strong> competitive advantage
through its power as a function <strong>of</strong> factors like how it is perceived and what it is used for. A shared
vision keeps <strong>the</strong> team toge<strong>the</strong>r and <strong>of</strong>fers commitment to <strong>the</strong> same cause and this represents ano<strong>the</strong>r
strong integrator within <strong>the</strong> learning organization. (Bratianu, 2008) The phrase -team learning- seems
much easier to approach but <strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> concept does not reduce itself to <strong>the</strong> translation.
Team learning means alignment and not <strong>of</strong> individuals to something but <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group to <strong>the</strong> common
something. We approached <strong>the</strong> above concepts under <strong>the</strong> aegis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learning organization and
<strong>the</strong>re is one more to discuss. Senge talks about systems thinking as being <strong>the</strong> right option for our
perception. He says that <strong>the</strong> right way to solve a problem is to look at <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>of</strong> it and not at parts
<strong>of</strong> it. Splitting <strong>the</strong> whole into pieces will degenerate truth and results. We realize that systems thinking
is like <strong>the</strong> vital law for <strong>the</strong> learning organization and that it can’t function o<strong>the</strong>rwise.
Social capital affects both human capital and knowledge dynamics, increasing <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization. Intellectual capital according to Stewart (1999) is “<strong>the</strong> sum <strong>of</strong> everything inside <strong>the</strong>
company that confers intellectual and/or material competitive advantage: knowledge, information,
intellectual property, experience that may be used to create wealth.” Intellectual capital regards <strong>the</strong>
permanent supervision and evaluation <strong>of</strong> knowledge within an organization, and it is fundamentally
different from creation and utilization <strong>of</strong> knowledge (that being knowledge management). Knowledge
management works for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> creating intellectual capital to <strong>the</strong> organization. In o<strong>the</strong>r words,
knowledge management is <strong>the</strong> basic level <strong>of</strong> forming and developing competitive advantage,
consciously and pr<strong>of</strong>essionally. “What a company knows, <strong>the</strong> way that uses what it knows and how
fast something new and important can be obtained are part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new perspectives generation
processes, <strong>of</strong> developing and using forecast, <strong>of</strong> engaging to competences and action based
capacities, and <strong>of</strong> learning from feedback. This is <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital.” (Rastogi, 2000) In 1980, a
research regarding <strong>the</strong> performances <strong>of</strong> Japanese companies concluded that <strong>the</strong>re exist major
differences <strong>of</strong> performance that may be attributed to non-material actives. A series <strong>of</strong> articles issued
at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1980 and in 1990, were explaining <strong>the</strong> use and measurement <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital
as a mean to better evaluate <strong>the</strong> company’s value. Today <strong>the</strong> most significant corporations identify
intellectual capital as a significant part in determining <strong>the</strong> market value.
There is no difficulty <strong>of</strong> understanding <strong>the</strong> essence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> concept ‘intellectual capital’ but it’s
confusing to correlate its semantic dynamics and variety <strong>of</strong> interpretations in time. It seems that we
have to wait for <strong>the</strong> strongest metaphor <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital to show up and make everyone to
converge. Maybe when we finish <strong>the</strong> debates about <strong>the</strong> content <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital we shall reach to
measure it. The measurement is possible but <strong>the</strong> results are still not reflecting reality, <strong>the</strong>y show
distortions. Confronting <strong>the</strong> human capital on individual level and on organizational level we observe
<strong>the</strong> similarity. Human capital at individual level consists in knowledge, intelligence and values and
74