jai | Journal of Accounting and Investment Article Type: Research Paper Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organizational Performance Dwi Irawan 1 *, Elvin Bastian 2 , Imam Abu Hanifah 2 Abstract: This study aims to examine the influence of knowledge sharing and organizational culture toward organizational performance with intellectual capital as an intervening variable. The questionnaire was sent to 71 general managers of manufacturing companies, and 60 questionnaires were returned. The data of this research were analyzed using structural equation modelling (SEM) method, with Partial Least Square (PLS) approach. The results of this study indicated that knowledge sharing had a significant positive effect on human capital, yet no significant effect on structural capital and relational capital. Knowledge sharing also had no significant effect on organizational performance. Meanwhile, the organizational culture had a significant positive effect on human capital, structural capital, and relational capital and also significant effect on organizational performance. The influence of knowledge sharing on organizational performance was only partially mediated by intellectual capital or only mediated by human capital, while the influence of organizational culture on organizational performance was not mediated by intellectual capital which consists of human capital, structural capital, and relational capital. Keywords: Knowledge Sharing; Organizational Culture; Intellectual Capital; Organizational Performance; Manufacturing Companies Introduction Knowledge is considered important to maintain competitive advantage and improve organizational performance amidst the business world’s uncertainty, where changes in customer behavior and technology are among those real challenges many business organizations currently need to deal with (Dunamis, 2013). Knowledge is a mixture of experience, value, contextual information, experts’ views and basic intuition which gives an environment and framework to evaluate and combine a new experience with information (Ray & Little, 2001). According to Ray and Little (2001) knowledge era emerges for some factors, including: 1) Prosperity is intended and produced through intangible assets and knowledge. 2) Re-invention that HR factor is the locus of organizational knowledge. 3) The right changes in market, competition, and technology make sustainable learning important. AFFILIATION: 1 Department of Accounting, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, Indonesia 2 Department of Accounting, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Banten, Indonesia *CORRESPONDENCE: irawan@umm.ac.id THIS ARTICLE IS AVALILABLE IN: http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/ai DOI: 10.18196/jai.2003128 CITATION: Irawan, D., Bastian, E., & Hanifah, A. (2019). Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance. Journal of Accounting and Investment, 20(3), 267-282. ARTICLE HISTORY Received: 22 October 2018 Reviewed: 16 May 2019 Revised: 9 July 2019 Accepted: 10 July 2019 mailto:irawan@umm.ac.id http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/ http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/ai/article/view/5268 http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/ai Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 268 4) Acknowledgement that innovation is the key to competition and it depends on the creation of knowledge and its application. 5) The need for cross-boundary knowledge transactions increases. 6) Technology limitation and potential, information system limitation and communication technology and knowledge potentials. An organizations’ success is highly dependent on their ability to operate within rapidly changing and unpredictable global business environment by focusing on creating and utilizing intellectual capital. Intellectual capital (IC) which consists of human capital, relational capital and structural capital is the main driver of innovation and competitive advantage in the currently de- veloping knowledge-based economy (Teece, 2000). In Indonesia, IC has implicitly been acknowledged and discussed in the Financial Accounting Standards Statement 19 revi- sion 2014 on intangible assets. Intangible assets are those non-monetary assets identi- fied with no physical forms and owned for use in producing or delivering goods or ser- vices, leased to other parties, or for administrative purpose and having economic bene- fits in the future (Indonesia, 2014). IC is considered as knowledge with potential values if that knowledge could give benefits to the company. Therefore, IC can be said as knowledge, yet not just any knowledge. An organization basically cannot create knowledge on its own attempt. Knowledge is created through individual initiative and the interactions occurring within a group of in- dividuals which later will be crystallized through such processes as dialogues, discussions, various experiences, and observations (Sudarno & Yulia, 2012). In this case, experience can also be deemed as an element for the presence of IC in a company, yet the fact that its nature is personal makes it hard to be formulated and communicated, thus experience is classified as tacit knowledge. When tacit knowledge can be manifested in writing or a documented statement, then this tacit knowledge can be said as explicit knowledge (Sudarno & Yulia, 2012). Knowledge sharing is the best way to turn tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and it is a part of the knowledge management process (Dalkir, 2013). In an organization, knowledge is frequently stored not only in a document or repository but also in its rou- tines, processes, practices and norms. Thus, knowledge sharing is highly important to turn the knowledge owned by individuals in the organization into organization’s assets accessible to all members of the organization. Knowledge sharing is the key to opening knowledge management. Knowledge sharing is constantly associated with the strategy to compete in maintaining an organization’s core competence and competitive advantage (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Nevertheless, in reality, knowledge sharing under a certain circumstance is considered unreasonable since the knowledge owned by individuals is deemed as valuable assets. Hence, these individuals are more likely to keep the information they own to secure their positions in an organi- zation. Knowledge sharing is important in knowledge management process, which gradually improves and fixes the production system and relevant elements (Darudiato & Setiawan, 2013). As a result, knowledge sharing is tightly related to a company’s long- term performance and competitive advantage. Therefore, knowledge sharing in Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 269 manufacturing companies can maintain the production process stability and increase innovation (Wang, Wang & Liang, 2014). Some previous studies also support the notion that knowledge sharing can reduce production costs, accelerate the development of new project, improve decision making and coordination, increase innovation ability, increase sales and income from new products and services (Wang et al. 2014). Seleim and Khalil (2011) who study the correlation between KM and IC find that knowledge sharing only has a positive influence on relational capital. This is different from Wang et al. (2014), whose research investigates knowledge sharing, intellectual capital, and company’s performance, who suggest that knowledge sharing has a positive influence on human capital, structural capital, and relational capital. Furthermore, the study conducted by Wang et al. (2014) also finds that the influence of knowledge sharing on company’s performance is partially mediated by intellectual capital. Research on IC in Indonesia has shown that IC positively influences financial performance (Suhardjanto & Wardhani, 2010), yet further research is still needed regarding its overall influence on company’s performance. The researcher adds organizational culture as an independent variable, since each coun- try has varied organizational cultures (Bangun, 2008), making this research still relevant to be conducted. Organizational culture is a system of shared meaning followed by members which distinguish the organization from others (Robbins & Judge, 2008). When an organization member knows a positive organizational culture, then the work envi- ronment is more likely to be more fun and hence boosts the spirit to work (Sadri et al., 2001). One of the previous studies on organizational culture is conducted by Rumanti, Hidayat, and Yordy (2015) who investigate the influence of organizational culture on intellectual capital and the finding is that good organizational culture and support at work will improve the intellectual capital which consists of human capital, structural capital, and relational capital. Meanwhile, the research conducted by Astuti (2011) shows that organizational culture does not have a significant influence on human capital, customer capital, and structural capital. However, the correlation between these three dimensions of IC has an influence on organizational performance. The fact that the cultures are different between the previous studies’ objects and what happens in Indonesia makes this research worth-conducting for it will give empirical evi- dences and new construction in the development of insight into knowledge sharing, organizational culture and intellectual capital. In addition, this article can also give an insight for manufacturing companies in optimizing their intangible assets to improve the organizational performance. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development Resources Based View Theory RBT believes that a company’s resources serve as the main controller behind its perfor- mance and competitiveness. These resources consist of tangible and intangible assets, Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 270 to be used effectively and efficiently while implementing the company’s competitive and profitable specific strategy. This theory states that the traditional performance measurement commonly found in financial statements fails to reflect completely the intangible resources in a company (Riahi-Belkaoui, 2003). Two assumptions are inherent to RBT, they are resources heterogeneity and resources immobility. Resources hetero- geneity (also known as resources diversity) deals with whether a company has the re- sources or capability owned by other companies who compete with them, thus some thought these resources cannot be an advantage to compete. Meanwhile, resources immobility refers to a resource particularly hard to obtain for a competitor since it is not easy to obtain or the costs to merely use the resource is extremely high (Ulum, 2017). A company's resources include all assets, abilities, organization process, corporate attribute, information, knowledge, and so on which are controlled by the company to allow it to understand and implement a strategy to increase its efficiency and effective- ness. A company’s resources are the strength they can use to understand and apply its strategy (Barney, 1991). Barney (1991) classifies resources into three: 1. Physical resources capital Resources owned by a company which include technology, buildings and equipment, geographic location, and access to raw materials. 2. Human resources capital The ability of employees owned by a company which includes training, experience, assessment, intelligence, relationship, and insights. 3. Organizational resources capital The ability that a company has including its formal reporting structure, planning system, control, and coordination both formally and informally, and the company’s relations with its surrounding. The unique resources referred to in RBT are those resources with VRIN (valuable, rare, imperfect imitability, non-substitution) criteria. Knowledge Based View Theory Knowledge-Based View (KBV) is a new extension of the Resource-Based View (RBV) of a company and provides a strong theoretical background in supporting intellectual capital/IC. KBV derives from RBV and shows that knowledge in its various forms is the interest of resources (Wang et al., 2014). The basic assumptions of knowledge-based theory come from resource-based view. However, resources-based view gives no adequate acknowledgement of knowledge. The knowledge-based theory explains its specific characteristics as follows: 1. Knowledge holds the most strategic meaning in a company. 2. Production activities and processes in a company involve application of knowledge. Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 271 3. Individuals in the organization are responsible for creating, holding, and sharing knowledge Knowledge Sharing Knowledge is often stored not only in documents or repository, rather it is also saved in an organization’s routines, processes, practices and norms. Knowledge is the main object managed by an organization which applies Knowledge Management (KM). Knowledge sharing is believed to be one of the most important processes for KM (Bock & Kim, 2002). Knowledge sharing (KS) is a social interaction culture, which involves exchanges of employees’ knowledge, experience, and skills through all departments or organizations (Teh & Sun, 2012). KS is not a two-way exchange of knowledge between knowledge providers and receivers and KS is limited only to knowledge provider’s behaviour (Wickramasinghe & Widyaratne, 2012). Dalkir (2013) suggests that a conversion process is needed to make personal knowledge usable to others in a company. There are four models of knowledge conversions, namely: 1. From tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, with socialization process, i.e. transfer and sharing of personal experience through actions (teacher transfers knowledge to students). However, this conversion process has its limitation for it does not produce explicit knowledge readily usable for all organizations, hence it needs no written words. 2. From tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, with externalization process, i.e. by sharing knowledge through metaphor and ideas. 3. From explicit knowledge into explicit knowledge, with combination process, i.e. by storage, combination and classification of knowledge to obtain a systematic explicit knowledge. 4. From explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge, with internalization process, i.e. using inspection and application methods, internalization of explicit language, words, charts, or information into one’s knowledge through a combination of socialization and externalization. Hypotheses Development Based on KBV theory, knowledge is the key resource which could improve an organization’s ability or knowledge-based capital. Yet, when knowledge remains isolated within a certain individual or unit, it is hard for a company to utilize the existing knowledge optimally and to improve or develop its IC. Therefore, knowledge sharing is important in utilizing knowledge for IC development. KS involves transferring or distributing knowledge from one person to other groups, it is an important aspect in increasing, transmitting and creating knowledge, and a fundamental process for a Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 272 company’s knowledge management (Wang et al., 2014). KS is more likely to improve the scope of knowledge integrated with numerous types of specific knowledge, and facilitates knowledge-based abilities which cannot be compared to competitors. IC is the number of resources related to knowledge, it represents richness in ideas, ability, infrastructure and relations which determine the organization’s competitiveness (Sharabati, Naji Jawad, & Bontis, 2010). In general, IC is divided into human capital, structural capital, and relational capital. As an organization, a company certainly needs individuals with knowledge, good ability to solve problems and ability to make effective decisions, human capital is considered as the strategic resources which underlies the sustainable competitive advantage in the face of recent rapidly changing environment (Wang et al., 2014). The codified knowledge and skills of both knowledge receivers and providers will deepen employees’ understanding. Personal interaction and contact among employees in knowledge sharing can possibly drive learning effectiveness, changes in staff’s knowledge structure, and improve individual performance within (Wang et al., 2014). Thus, knowledge sharing can indeed increase an organization’s human capital. As individuals who work for the same organization usually have mutually complementary expertise and workloads, sharing information and resources and collaboration will improve the performance and personal relationships of fellow employees (Wang et al., 2014). When people work together for common goals in groups and organizations, KS practice will help them build good structural capital relationships. This is characterized by the closeness and frequency of interactions or personal relationships that show relational aspects such as trust and trustworthiness. Customers are the main goal for a company, being able to serve customers well will provide a competitive advantage for it. Serving customers is a task for both senior and junior employees. KS can help companies in knowledge learning and exchange between generations within the company, allowing the company to maintain the quality of products and services to customers. This way the practice of KS will maintain the relational capital with customers. Based on the description, the hypothesis in this study are as follows: H1a: Knowledge sharing has a positive influence on human capital. H1b: Knowledge sharing has a positive influence on structural capital. H1c: Knowledge sharing has a positive influence on relational capital. H2: Knowledge sharing has a positive influence on organizational performance. Sadri et al. (2001) suggest that when members of an organization recognize that organizational culture is positive, the work environment is more likely to be more pleasant, and eventually it will encourage the spirit for work. Cooperation and information sharing among organization members can increase and lead to new ideas to support the development of new products and innovations. Organizational culture will help attract and retain its best employees since organizational culture is recognized as a major determinant of an employee’s interest. Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 273 Managerial empowerment and involvement are needed for the organization’s growth and sustainability and they can be implemented by paying more attention to employees to play the role of job supervision and decision making which might consequently increase the value of intellectual capital and innovations of the organization (Astuti, 2011). Organizational culture will be a more valuable resource once it is managed with the intellectual capital to allow the generation of better performance for the organization. Organizational culture is a system of values believed by all members of an organization and learned, implemented and developed on an ongoing basis, serving as a system of adhesives, and can be used as a reference to behave in the company to achieve the company’s predetermined goals, hence it has both direct and indirect influences on organizational performance. Based on the explanation, the hypotheses in this research are as follows: H3a: Organizational culture has a positive influence on human capital. H3b: Organizational culture has a positive influence on structural capital. H3c: Organizational culture has a positive influence on relational capital. H4: Organizational culture has a positive influence on organizational performance. IC is a highly valuable asset and it can provide a competitive advantage in the long run. IC is elusive in nature, yet once found and exploited, it will give an organization a new source basis to compete and win (Astuti, 2011). IC is the number of resources related to knowledge, representing richness in ideas, abilities, infrastructure and relations which determine an organization’s competitiveness (Sharabati et al., 2010). Generally, IC is divided into human capital, structural capital, and relational capital. Human capital is the most important aspect of IC, and companies that have realized the importance and invested in their employees are more likely to produce better performance (Seleim & Khalil, 2011). Incorporating structural capital into their overall business strategy not only creatively enhances the way of collecting, producing and transmitting knowledge, but also gets them to a better position to produce higher quality, lower costs, and deeper insights that lead to improved performance (Wang et al., 2014). The company can also improve quality, reduce costs, respond better, improve their asset productivity and management through new insights that come from strong relational capital, since the company may find new and better ways of doing their business by learning from others, advanced experience and becoming more innovative (Wang et al., 2014). Based on the explanation, the hypotheses in this research are as follows: H5a: Human capital has a positive influence on organizational performance H5b: Structural capital has a positive influence on organizational performance. H5c: Relational capital has a positive influence on organizational performance. Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 274 Figure 1 Research Model Based on the hypothesis development, the model of this research can be illustrated as shown by Figure 1. Research Method Sample The population in this study is all manufacturing companies in the Cikande Modern Industrial Estate, Serang Regency since most of these companies are multinational ones. Additionally, this Cikande industrial estate is the largest and piloting industrial estate around Jakarta. The sample in this research is multinational companies in the Cikande modern industrial estate. The unit of analysis of this research is the top management of these manufacturing companies in the Cikande Modern Industrial Estate, Serang Regency. The top management here means the CEO/General Manager or Senior Manager. Top management is chosen since their position is deemed to have represented the company and they act as the controller of all resources owned by their company. Variable Operationalization To measure each construct in the research model, measuring instruments are drawn on each of the existing constructs. In this study, the variables consist of independent, dependent, and mediating variables. The independent variables are knowledge sharing and organizational culture, the dependent variable is the organizational performance, and finally the mediating variable is intellectual capital. Knowledge sharing is a reciprocal process where individuals exchange (tacit and explicit) knowledge to each other and collectively create new knowledge (solution) (Van Den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004). Questions on knowledge sharing use the indicators from Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) as adopted by Wang et al. (2014) known as SECI (socialization, externalization, combination, internalization) indicators. Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 275 Organizational culture is a system of common meanings of primary values shared and valued by organizations, which serves a clear distinction between one organization and another, creates a sense of identity for the organization members, facilitates the emergence of collective commitment to the organization, enhances social system stability, and creating meaning-making and control mechanisms that guide the formation of attitudes and behaviors of its members (Moeheriono, 2012). Questions on organizational culture use the indicators from Chaterina and Intan (2012). Intellectual Capital includes all processes and assets normally not visible on the balance sheet and all intangible assets (trademarks, patents, and brands) to which attentions are paid in modern accounting methods. A large number of practitioners state that IC consists of three main elements, namely human capital, structural capital, and relational capital (Ulum, 2017). Human capital is knowledge, skill, and experience that employees bring along when they leave the company (Astuti, 2011). Structural capital is a strategic asset consisting of non-human assets such as systems and programs, research and development, and intellectual property rights (Ngari & Kagiri, 2013). Relational capital is an established relationship and knowledge exchange that occurs with the various stakeholder of the organization (Lopes-Costa & Munoz-Canavate, 2015). The questions on intellectual capital use the indicators from Wang et al. (2014). Organizational performance is the comparison of the expected and actual results, investigating deviations from the plan, assessing individual performance and checking the progress made to meet the targeted goals (Ngah & Ibrahim, 2010). The questions on organizational performance use the indicators from Wang et al. (2014). In this study, respondents are asked on how much in their opinions they rate the questions on the influence of knowledge sharing and organizational culture on organizational performance with intellectual capital as a mediating variable. The data in this research are collected using questionnaire. The questionnaire is delivered in person to the 71 manufacturing companies in the Cikande Modern Industrial Estate. From a total of 71 questionnaires delivered, only 60 questionnaires are returned and completed, thus only 60 companies serve as the sample in this research. The answers to questions in the questionnaire are measured using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 means strongly disagree and 7 means strongly agree. This 7-point Likert scale is chosen since it has a stronger correlation level than the 5-point Likert scale (Lewis, 1993). Data Analysis This research uses Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in its data analysis, i.e. using Partial Least Square (PLS) 3.0 software. The SEM path modelling uses SmartPLS which is suitable to perform a more reliable and valid confirmatory factor analysis (Afthanorhan, 2013). In the analysis using PLS, 2 assessments are made, namely: 1. Assessing the Outer Model or Measurement Model 2. Assessing the Inner Model or Structural Model Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 276 In this research, one variable serves as a mediating variable, i.e. intellectual capital (human capital, structural capital, and relational capital). To test the direct and indirect influences, this research uses Sobel test, since this Sobel test conservatively tests the data reduction by dividing the mediator effect with the standard errors, then comparing it with the standard normal distribution to test its significance (Topor, Keane, Shelton, & Calkins, 2010) and the estimation method can be used for a more complex model (Baron et al., 1986). The Sobel test is carried out by testing the indirect influence strength of independent variable (X) on the dependent variable (Y) through mediating variable (M), and if the z-value > 1.96 (z-absolute), then there is a mediation. Result and Discussion Questionnaire Return Rate This research was conducted by distributing the questionnaires to 71 manufacturing companies in Cikande Modern Industrial Estate. From the 71 distributed questionnaires, only 60 questionnaires were processable. 2 questionnaires were not returned, and 9 questionnaires were not completed or partially completed. The number and rate of returning questionnaires can be seen in Table 1. Table 1 Questionnaire Return Rate Number Note Total Percentage 1 Distributed questionnaires 71 100% 2 Returned questionnaires 69 97% 3 Non-returning questionnaires 2 3% 4 Incomplete questionnaire 9 13% 5 Sub-total of processable questionnaires 60 84% Assessing the Outer Model or Measurement Model This testing was intended to ensure that each construct along with the indicators used had been valid and reliable. This testing was done by seeing the loading factor value of each indicator. Ghozali (2008) states that the minimum limit of outer loading factor value of an indicator to make it eligible to reflect a variable was 0.5. The reliability test in this research was done by seeing the composite reliability value. A construct was said to be reliable if it gives a composite reliability value of >0.70 (Ghozali, 2008). Additionally, the Average Variance Extract (AVE) should also be considered, where AVE value >0.50. Based on Table 2, it could be seen that the loading factor value of each indicator was >0.5, value of AVE was > 0.5, and the value of composite reliability was > 0.7, hence it was safe to say that all research constructs and indicators had met the criteria. Assessing the Inner Model or Structural Model The inner model or structural model was tested to see the correlation between constructs, significance value and R-square of the research model. The structural model was evaluated using R-square for the dependent construct of t-test and significance of the structural path parameter coefficient. Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 277 Table 2 Values of Loading Factor, Composite Reliability, and AVE Variable Indicator Outer Loading Factor Value AVE Composite Reliability Knowledge Sharing KS 1 0.866 0.747 0.898 KS 2 0.840 KS 3 0.886 Organizational culture KUL 1 0.715 0.522 0.867 KUL 2 0.751 KUL 3 0.586 KUL 4 0.818 KUL 5 0.700 KUL 6 0.745 Human Capital HC 1 0.834 0.593 0.878 HC 2 0.888 HC 3 0.635 HC 4 0.741 HC 5 0.728 Structural Capital SC 1 0.632 0.526 0.885 SC 2 0.759 SC 3 0.667 SC 4 0.660 SC 5 0.858 SC 6 0.668 SC 7 0.801 Relational Capital RC 1 0.779 0.555 0.861 RC 2 0.750 RC 3 0.736 RC 4 0.781 RC 5 0.674 Organizational performance KO 1 0.804 0.500 0.899 KO 2 0.777 KO 3 0.657 KO 4 0.580 KO 5 0.672 KO 6 0.741 KO 7 0.701 KO 8 0.828 KO 9 0.551 Table 3 shows the R-square of the independent variables. The r-square value of the human capital variable was 0.544, meaning that the knowledge sharing and organizational culture variables could explain the human capital variable by 54.4%. The r-square value of structural capital variable was 0.636, meaning that the knowledge sharing and organizational culture variables could explain the structural capital variable by 63.6%. The r-square value of relational capital variable was 0.538, meaning that knowledge sharing and organizational culture variables could explain the relational capital variable by 53.8%. Meanwhile, the r-square value of organizational performance variable was 0.825, meaning that the knowledge sharing, organizational culture, human Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 278 capital, structural capital, and relational capital variables could explain the organizational performance variable by 82.5%. The estimated parameter significance gave very useful information regarding the correlation between research variables. The limit to reject and accept a proposed hypothesis was ± 1.960, where if the value of t statistic was greater than the t table (1.960), then the hypothesis was accepted, and on the contrary if the value of t statistic was less than the t table (1.960), then the hypothesis was rejected. Table 4 shows the hypotheses test result. Knowledge sharing had a positive, yet insignificant influence on structural capital and relational capital. This indicated that knowledge sharing had not optimally utilized to develop the company’s ability in its routine processes to support its employees to produce optimal intellectual performance. In addition, knowledge sharing had not optimally utilized in building relationship with the company’s partners. This research finding was consistent with the research conducted by Seleim and Khalil (2011) who found that knowledge sharing had a positive, yet insignificant influence on structural capital. The result of this research which found that knowledge sharing had a positive, yet insignificant influence on relational capital was consistent with the research conducted by Wang et al. (2014). Table 3 R-Square Variable R-square Human Capital (HC) 0.544 Structural Capital (SC) 0.636 Relational Capital (RC) 0.538 Organizational performance (PO) 0.825 Table 4 Path Coefficients between Variables and Significance Test Original Sample t-Statistics Conclusion KS -> HC 0.380 3.305* Accepted KS -> SC 0.227 1.196 Rejected KS -> RC 0.200 1.324 Rejected KS -> OP 0.037 0.271 Rejected KUL -> HC 0.425 2.322* Accepted KUL -> SC 0.626 2.442* Accepted KUL -> RC 0.583 3.457* Accepted KUL -> OP 0.358 2.007* Accepted HC -> OP 0.296 2.662* Accepted SC -> OP 0.233 1.651 Rejected RC -> OP 0.091 0.768 Rejected Independent Mediating Dependent z-Value Conclusion KS  HC  OP 2.073* Accepted KS  SC  OP 0.968 Rejected KS  RC  OP 0.664 Rejected KUL  HC  OP 1.749 Rejected KUL  SC  OP 1.367 Rejected KUL  RC  OP 0.749 Rejected Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 279 Knowledge sharing was found to have a positive, yet insignificant influence on organizational performance. This indicated that knowledge sharing had not been utilized in a systematic and measured manner in supporting the company’s performance better. This research finding was inconsistent with the research conducted by Wang et al. (2014) who found that knowledge sharing had a positive significant influence on organizational performance. Organizational culture had a positive significant influence on human capital, structural capital and relational capital. This indicated that the culture established in those companies had been capable of improving the quality of human capital, thus their employees' professional expertise and work experience had been as expected by the companies, where these companies improved their employees’ expertise through training and providing spaces for them to innovate creatively. In addition, the established organizational culture could support the employees as well in producing an optimal intellectual performance and building a harmonious relationship with the company’s business partners. This research finding was consistent with the research conducted by Rumanti et al. (2015) who found that organizational culture had a positive significant influence on intellectual capital and could drive the company’s intellectual capital better. Organizational culture had a positive significant influence on organizational performance. This indicated that the organizational culture in the companies had successfully driven the employees to improve organizational performance. This research finding was consistent with the research conducted by Kim Jean Lee and Yu (2004) who found that strengthening organizational culture would improve organizational performance. Human capital had a positive significant influence on organizational performance. This indicated that suitable work experience, excellent professional skills, training, and being innovative and creative could improve organizational performance. Human resources that a company owned improved its performance from one period to another. Structural capital and relational capital had a positive, yet insignificant influence on organizational performance. This was because the structural capital represented by such indicators as efficient SOP, responsiveness, easy access to information, supportive SOP for innovation, convenient work culture, investment in new market development and fair work environment could improve company’s performance better. The relational capital which was represented by such indicators as in-depth communication, interaction with stakeholders, long-term relationship building with customers, having many excellent customers and having a good and stable relationship with partners had not been capable of improving the organizational performance better from one period to another. This research finding was consistent with the research conducted by Wang et al. (2014) who found that human capital had a positive significant influence on organizational performance. The result was different in terms of the influence of structural capital and relational capital which, in this research, was found to have a positive yet insignificant influence. Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 280 Knowledge sharing coupled with good human capital will drive the company’s performance better even further. This was because having it that way the existing knowledge sharing in the companies would be well-organized and could be controlled well in order to support optimal performance. This research finding was consistent with the research conducted by Wang et al. (2014) who found that the influence of knowledge sharing on organizational performance was partially mediated by intellectual capital. In this research, the influence of knowledge sharing on organizational performance was only mediated by human capital. An organizational culture which was coupled with a good intellectual capital failed to make the company’s performance better. This was possibly due to the fact that the organizational culture in those companies ran better than the management of intellectual capital done by the company. Additionally, according to resources based theory, organizational culture and intellectual capital were the unique, hard-to-imitate resources, both of which created competitive advantage and values for companies. The research result also showed that the top management played a more dominant role in managing their organizational culture than in managing their intellectual capital. For that reason, the influence of organizational culture on organizational performance could not be mediated yet by intellectual capital, since IC was still not utilized optimally by the management as compared to the organizational culture. Conclusion This research presented empirical evidence on the influence of knowledge sharing and organizational culture on organizational performance which was mediated by intellectual capital. The influence of knowledge sharing on organizational performance was partially mediated by intellectual capital, which was only mediated by human capital. This indicated that if knowledge sharing was coupled with a good human capital, it would improve the company’s performance better even further. Meanwhile, the influence of organizational culture on organizational performance was not mediated by intellectual capital. This indicated that if the organizational culture was coupled with a good intellectual capital, it would still fail to make the company’s performance better. This was possibly due to the fact that the organizational culture in those companies had run better than the management of intellectual capital made by the companies. Based on the results of the research, the implication of this research was that the company’s top management should optimize further the intellectual capital in managing knowledge sharing to allow a better performance of their organization. In addition, it was expected that organizational culture and intellectual capital could be combined to allow them to share the same roles in promoting organizational performance. The limitation of this research was that the industries serving as the research object were not distinguished based on their product sectors, such as food and beverages, automotive, fashion and technology. Furthermore, this research only tested knowledge sharing which was actually a part of the knowledge management process. Therefore, Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 281 further research could add another variable such as environmental uncertainty, other knowledge management processes such as knowledge creation. References Afthanorhan, W. (2013). A comparison of partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) for confirmatory factor analysis. International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology, 2(5), 198-205. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, (25)1, 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961 Astuti, P. D. (2011). Trust dan kultur organisasi sebagai penggerak intellectual capital terhadap kinerja organisasi. Jurnal Siasat Bisnis, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.20885/jsb.vol15.iss2.art8 Bangun, W. (2008). Budaya Organisasi: Dampaknya pada peningkatan daya saing perusahaan. Jurnal Manajemen Maranatha, 8(1), 38-49. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained 99mPetitive advantage', Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. Baney, JB (2001). Is the resource-based" view ause PerSpective forstrategic management research) Yes', Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.51.6.1173 Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 15(2), 14-21. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2002040102 Chaterina, M. T., & Intan, R. (2012). Analisis pengaruh budaya organisasi dan kepuasan kerja terhadap komitmen organisasional dalam meningkatkan kinerja karyawan (Studi pada PT. Sido Muncul Kaligawe Semarang). Jurnal Bisnis dan Ekonomi, 19(2). Dalkir, K. (2013). Knowledge management in theory and practice: Routledge. Darudiato, S., & Setiawan, K. (2013). Knowledge management: konsep dan metodologi. Ultima InfoSys: Jurnal Ilmu Sistem Informasi, 4(1), 11-17. https://doi.org/10.31937/si.v4i1.237 Dunamis. (2013). Succesful Implementation of KM in Indonesia (T. D. Publishing Ed.). Jakarta: PT. Dunamis Intra Sarana. Ghozali, I. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Metode alternatif dengan partial least square (pls): Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro. Indonesia, I. A. (2014). Standar Akuntansi Keuangan Per Efektif 1 Januari 2015. Kim Jean Lee, S., & Yu, K. (2004). Corporate culture and organizational performance. Journal of managerial psychology, 19(4), 340-359. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410537927 Lewis, J. R. (1993). Multipoint scales: Mean and median differences and observed significance levels. International Journal of Human‐Computer Interaction, 5(4), 383-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319309526075 Lopes-Costa, J. A., & Munoz-Canavate, A. (2015). Relational capital and organizational performance in the portuguese hotel sector (NUTS II Lisbon). Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00839-4 Moeheriono. (2012). Pengukuran Kinerja Berbasis Kompetensi. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961 https://doi.org/10.20885/jsb.vol15.iss2.art8 https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2002040102 https://doi.org/10.31937/si.v4i1.237 https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410537927 https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319309526075 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00839-4 Irawan, Bastian, & Hanifah Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Culture, Intellectual Capital, and Organization Performance Journal of Accounting and Investment, 2019 | 282 Ngah, R., & Ibrahim, A. R. (2010). The effect of knowledge sharing on organizational performance in small and medium enterprises. Ngari, J. M. K., & Kagiri, A. (2013). Structural capital and Business Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms in Kenya. Ray, T., & Little, S. E. (2001). Managing knowledge: An essential reader: Sage Publications, Inc. Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2003). Intellectual capital and firm performance of US multinational firms: a study of the resource-based and stakeholder views. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2), 215-226. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310472839 Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Perilaku organisasi (Organizational behavior). Jakarta: Salemba Empat. Rumanti, A. A., Hidayat, T. P., & Yordy. (2015). Analysis of Influence Organizational Culture toward Intellectual Capital. International Journal of Knowledge Engineering, 1(3), 204-208. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijke.2015.1.3.035 Sadri, G., & Lees, B. (2001). Developing corporate culture as a competitive advantage. Journal of Management Development, 20(10), 853-859. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710110410851 Seleim, A. A., & Khalil, O. E. (2011). Understanding the knowledge management-intellectual capital relationship: a two-way analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(4), 586-614. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931111181742 Sharabati, A.-A. A., Naji Jawad, S., & Bontis, N. (2010). Intellectual capital and business performance in the pharmaceutical sector of Jordan. Management Decision, 48(1), 105- 131. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011014481 Sudarno, S., & Yulia, N. (2012). Intellectual Capital: Pendefinisian, Pengakuan, Pengukuran, Pelaporan Dan Pengungkapan. Jurnal Akuntansi Universitas Jember, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.19184/jauj.v10i2.1256 Suhardjanto, D., & Wardhani, M. (2010). Praktik intellectual capital disclosure perusahaan yang terdaftar di bursa efek Indonesia. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia (JAAI), 14(1), 71-85. Teece, D. J. (2000). Managing intellectual capital: Organizational, strategic, and policy dimensions: OUP Oxford. Teh, P.-L., & Sun, H. (2012). Knowledge sharing, job attitudes and organisational citizenship behaviour. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112(1), 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211193644 Topor, D. R., Keane, S. P., Shelton, T. L., & Calkins, S. D. (2010). Parent involvement and student academic performance: A multiple mediational analysis. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in The Community, 38(3), 183-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2010.486297 Ulum, I. (2017). INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL: Model Pengukuran, Framework Pengungkapan& Kinerja Organisasi: UMM Press. Van Den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270410567675 Wang, Z., Wang, N., & Liang, H. (2014). Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance. Management decision, 52(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02- 2013-0064 Wickramasinghe, V., & Widyaratne, R. (2012). Effects of interpersonal trust, team leader support, rewards, and knowledge sharing mechanisms on knowledge sharing in project teams. Vine, 42(2), 214-236. https://doi.org/10.1108/03055721211227255 https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310472839 https://doi.org/10.18178/ijke.2015.1.3.035 https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710110410851 https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931111181742 https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011014481 https://doi.org/10.19184/jauj.v10i2.1256 https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211193644 https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2010.486297 https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270410567675 https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2013-0064 https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2013-0064 https://doi.org/10.1108/03055721211227255