Many prominent authors have presented a general concept of Intellectual Capital (IC) ( [13] , [14] ). The term “Intellectual Capital” was first introduced by John Kenneth Galbraith in 1969 [15] (p. 1337). Kozak (2011) pointed out that the concept of Intellectual Capital is still underdeveloped, and there is no uniform definition accepted for identifying its subcomponents [16] . However, many researchers have attempted, in various ways and for over a few decades, to define the concept of Intellectual Capital.

“Intellectual capital has been considered by many, defined by some, understood by a select few, and formally valued by practically no one” (Sveiby, 1997; cited in [17] , p. 298). Intellectual Capital has been rarely understood or studied. For organizations; Intellectual Capital is considered as an essential source to gain competitive advantage [18] . IC is described by Edvinsson and Sullivan (1996, p. 358) as the knowledge assets that can be converted into value [19] ; knowledge that Stewart (1997) contends has been given by individuals to the company, which is supposed to be an organizational competitive advantage and helps in value creation [20] . Moreover, Edvinsson (1997; cited in [21] ) emphasizes that “Intellectual Capital includes all the processes and the assets which are not normally shown on the balance sheet and all the intangible assets (trademarks, patents and brands) which modern accounting methods consider” [21] (p. 82). It includes the sum of the knowledge of its members and the practical translation of their knowledge. Intellectual Capital is the difference between the book value of the firm and the amount of money someone is prepared to pay for it [22] .

In Edvinsson’s (1997) view, Intellectual Capital is a combination of Human Capital (the brains, skills, insights and potential of those in an organization) and Structural Capital (things like the processes wrapped up in customers, processes, databases, brands and systems). Intellectual Capital is the ability to transform knowledge and intangible assets into wealth-creating resources, by multiplying human capital with structural capital. This is the Intellectual Capital multiplier effect [23] .

Harrison and Sullivan (2000) [24] state that Intellectual Capital is knowledge that can be converted into profit. “Intellectual Capital” represents the main firm intangible resource that can help create opportunities for stable competitive advantage and also help create value and wealth in a Knowledge-based Economy ( [25] , [26] ).

Stralser (2004) states that “Intellectual Capital consists of the knowledge, expertise, and dedication of an organization’s workforce. The management of Intellectual Capital is necessary in order to get the most out of an organization’s material resources and achieve organizational goals” [27] (p. 19). Getting the most from employees necessitates appropriate motivational policies, for “motivation is an important driver in an organization and is crucial to the management of Intellectual Capital” [27] (p. 20). Moreover, effective and efficient utilization of Intellectual Capital constitute a primary goal of high-performance organizations. Stralser (2004) contends that “high-performance organizations focus on Employee Involvement, Teamwork, Organizational Learning, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Integrated Production Techniques” [27] (p. 33).

Intellectual Capital, in the last two decades, has been defined as a valuable intangible resource, which positively affects the firm’s economic value [28] , firm’s performance [29] , and firm’s value depicted by the difference between the market value and booked organization assets [26] . The aforementioned term “Intangible” is a concept on whose definition no consensus exists. Authors like Lev (2001) [22] , Andriessen (2004) [30] , and Cohen (2005) [31] , argue about the intangibles’ impact on businesses and on company’s value creation; thus, historically, intangibles have been treated as an aggregated amount (goodwill), without impact on national wealth, neither is included in financial statements of firms. According to Lev (2001), an intangible asset is any asset that has a future economic benefit or income for the organization but does not have physical representation, such as goodwill [22] . It could be considered as an accounting element. Blair and Wallman (2003) define “Intangibles as non-physical factors that contribute to, or are used in, the production of goods or the provision of services or that are expected to generate future productive benefits to the individuals or firms that control their use” [32] (p. 451). While Andriessen (2004) considers that intangible assets should rather be regarded as intangible resources, because the asset term implies control and ownership, while resource is more appropriate to the intangible nature [30] . As for Epstein and Mirza (2005), “goodwill, in nature, represents a residual, which incorporates all intangibles that cannot be measured separately. The researchers focus on those ones that can be identifiable and be measured under impairment approaches, having or not an indefinite lifetime” [33] (p. 234).

In their definition, Carroll and Tansey (2000) state that Intellectual Capital is best conceived as the knowledge and creativity available to a firm to implement a business strategy that maximizes stakeholders’ value [34] . The definition is broad and designed in such a way that it refers to the benefits to be gained through the application of knowledge. Moreover, the importance of Intellectual Capital has seriously increased in the recent years, since the gap between market values and book values of firms is getting wider; “Especially between the late 1990s and early 2000s, firms with intangible assets enlarged tremendously. A large portion of the value of these firms was linked to their intangible assets instead of tangible and physical assets” [35] (p. 328). Furthermore, Seetharaman, Sooria, and Saravanan (2002) contend that in the new economy, knowledge is considered to be a vital production factor and is the most important competitive advantage of organizations [36] . Later on, Rastogi (2002) asserts that the Intellectual Capital of an enterprise represents its holistic capacity and prowess to create value through exploitation of knowledge as the quintessential resource [37] ; a fact supported by Foray (2004; cited in [38] , p. 15) who points out that in the knowledge-based economy, the contribution of intangible assets is greater than tangible assets. Also, as Peter Schwartz wrote in the September 2000 issue of “Red Herring” (cited in [39] ) that “in the organization of today’s economy, it is knowledge that counts more than anything, knowledge has value. Creating value is about creating new knowledge and capturing its value. The most important property is Intellectual Property. Committed employees creating new ideas, delivering value, and innovating to create growth are the key assets of the new economy” [39] (p. 2). Also, with the revolution in information technology, in the early 1990s, the global economy model has changed fundamentally. In today’s knowledge economy, knowledge is the most important capital and has replaced financial and physical capital [40] . Moreover, Mitchell (2010) asserts that to every business that exists to increase wealth, Intellectual Capital is critical to achieve greater wealth and results [41] . And finally, Pourkiani, Sheikhy, and Daroneh (2014) present Intellectual Capital as “a knowledge package that includes a set of intangible and invisible resources, principles, culture, behavior patterns, capabilities, competencies, structures, communications, processes, processes of knowledge. All knowledge is based on subjective perceptions. Entering the knowledge economy, knowledge is more preferable compared to other factors of production such as land, capital and machinery” [42] (p. 512).

However, to capitalize on the aforementioned knowledge package and to maintain competitive advantage, the company should always look for new knowledge and utilize it in new creative ways. This requires securing an organizational environment that will encourage individuals to employ and exploit this knowledge, taking into consideration that talented employees leave the organization if they are not satisfied with the total rewards, leadership and organizational policies etc. These problems occur when proper talent management practices are not in place [43] . However, to counter the impact of the aforementioned problems, organizations must guarantee the existence of proper motivation, understanding and resources. Hence, knowledge management and motivation management are key strategic elements for securing and sustaining the competitiveness of a company [44] . Moreover, Montano (2005) assert that knowledge “is one of the main organizational assets that increase the value of an organization, and that when appropriately applied can lead to the development of a new or improved products or services” [45] (p. 285). Knowledge is the bedrock that is supporting today’s corporate strategies [46] . In knowledge based economy, “Intellectual Capital is the most critical asset of the organization” (Ramezan, 2011; cited in [38] p. 15). Consequently, and as Hejase, Haddad, Hamdar, Al Ali, Hejase, and Beyrouti (2014) assert, organizations should motivate employees to learn and share knowledge to sustain the value-adding process. “Employees need to be able to associate new obtained knowledge with special rewards, such as higher job security and personal satisfaction and fulfillment. After understanding and associating cost to benefits, people will start to see the psychological costs of change and learning as being less than the value they may attain from acquiring new knowledge” [47] (p. 1554).

Generally, a number of classification literatures ( [20] , [26] and [48] - [50] ) divide Intellectual Capital into three categories:

1) External (Customer-Related) Capital,

2) Internal (Structural) Capital, and

3) Human Capital.

The aforementioned authors state that Intellectual Capital is based on various intangible resources, such as employees’ competence, knowledge, education, skill, intellectual agility, brand name, customer relationship and organization structure, taking into consideration that Ismail (2005) added Spiritual Capital as the fourth component of Intellectual Capital [51] , and that Bueno, Salvador, and Rodriguez (2004) [52] and Wu and Tsai (2005) [53] had extended the concept of Intellectual Capital in their research and introduced two more components, namely Social Capital and Technological Capital. However, Ramezan (2011) states that the components of Intellectual Capital are Human Capital, Organizational Capital (or Structural Capital), Technological Capital, Social Capital and Business Process Capital (or Customer Capital) [54] . Accordingly, the components of Intellectual Capital will be divided in this paper into fundamental components, Human Capital, Structural Capital, and Relational Capital; Spiritual Capital; Social Capital; and, Technological Capital. However, it is important to mention that some researches like Nemec Rudež (2005, pp. 325-326) classify Intellectual Capital into “A Two-Side Intellectual Capital Classification” and “A Three-Side Intellectual Capital Classification”. The two-side classification consists of Human Capital and Structural Capital, while the three-side classification contains Human Capital, Structural Capital, and Relational Capital. So, there are several models or classifications that might be applicable for the study of Intellectual Capital [55] .

Müller (2004) contends that “when evaluating available measurement methods, one will furthermore recognize that there exists a strong emphasis on the strategic aspect of Intellectual Capital. The metrics of IC that are delivered are often highly aggregated. Consequently, their capability to transport good information about the operational aspect of Intellectual Capital is rather restricted” [76] (p. 8), noting that Neely, Marr, Roos, Pike and Gupta (2003) identify in their research a third generation of measurement systems [77] . However, they offer an insight which states that first generation measurement systems, which were financially biased, were supplemented with non-fi- nancial indicators, including intangibles. These systems were static and failed to adequately illustrate the linkage between different performance measures. Later on, second generation measurement systems offered an improvement to the first by “using strategy and/or success maps to take into account the dynamic nature of performance and the transformation processes linking objectives and resources” [77] (p. 129). The proposed third generation measurement systems will build on the aforementioned developments and “seek to link, explicitly, the non-financial and intangible dimensions of business performance to the generation of free cash flow” [77] .

Measuring Intellectual Capital helps to “recognize organizational knowledge’s flows and critical knowledge issues; to accelerate the learning patterns; identify best practices; diffuse them across the firm; and, to increase innovation and collaborative activities” (Kannan and Aulbur 2004; cited in [78] , p. 340). There exist many reasons which incite an organization to measure Intellectual Capital; these reasons can be classified into two groups: internally oriented reasons and externally oriented ones [78] (p. 340). External reasons include a better public image, an increase in market value, a reduction of the difference between market and book value, and additional information for potential investors and the market. While internal reasons include decision making, overall business success, the connection between investments in intangibles and business goals as well as the necessity to manage them [78] .

Different categories of Intellectual Capital measurement methodologies can be distinguished, and all have their pros and cons. The most structured approach of presenting the available methods was developed by Sveiby (2010). The methods are classified into four groups based on the level of measurement and the way of evaluation. These are: Market Capitalization, Return on Assets, Scorecard and Direct Intellectual Capital Methods [79] .

Nowadays, many corporations around the world have found that measuring and managing Intellectual Capital can provide them with a competitive advantage. Although there are several Intellectual Capital Measurement Methods it must be considered that calculated intangible value is not precise. However, Sveiby (2010) offers the following recommendations whereby he matched measuring approaches to measuring motives:

“1) Monitor Performance (Control). Best are Baldrige award-type of performance indicators and KPIs.

2) Acquire/Sell Business (Valuation). Best are Industry rules-of-thumb ($ per click, $ per client, brand valuation).

3) Report to Stakeholders (Justification, PR). Best are IC supplements, EVA, Triple- bottom line.

4) Guide Investment (Decision). None of the intangibles approaches can beat traditional Discounted Cash Flow.

5) Uncover Hidden Value (Learning). Best are score cards and Direct IC methods” [79] (Para 17).

No one method can fulfil all purposes; one must select a method depending on purpose, situation and audience. Gogan (2014) contends that “properly using Intellectual Capital Measurement Methods can cause the creation of competitive advantage consequently create development of the whole company” [80] (p. 175).

The role of Intellectual Capital is important inside small and medium enterprises; the main reason is their influence on formulation and implementation of strategies in these enterprises. “Companies with strong Intellectual Capital have the chance to recruit and retain higher quality personnel” [81] (p. 242). Nowadays, organizations need to utilize all their resources, both tangible as well as intangible assets, to gain competitive advantage [82] . “The importance of Intellectual Capital is highly recognized as a successful factor not only in knowledge-intensive organizations, but also for most other types of organizations” (Lonnqvist and Mettanen, 2002; cited in [83] , p. 341).

Other studies have revealed that Intellectual Capital is positively and significantly related to organizational performance ( [18] , [29] , and [84] ) and to innovation, and competitiveness ( [82] , [85] - [87] ). On the other hand, the interaction between innovation, knowledge management and Intellectual Capital has also been studied ( [88] - [91] ), and was concluded that managers have the opportunity to take necessary actions and give a better direction to their enterprises where they are informed about their organization’s Intellectual Capital. According to Guthrie, Petty, and Ricceri (2006), Intellectual Capital definitely, “enlightens investors and shareholders with a broader perspective about the growth and improvement trend as well as potential of an organization [92] . Parallel to this issue, it is stated that sharing Intellectual Capital information of companies is also advantageous for the economy of nations, since investments are allocated much better” [92] (p. 254). Also, Rexhepi, Ibraimi, and Veseli (2013) contend that Intellectual Capital provides managers with the big picture and serves as an essential part of firm strategy [93] . Rexhepi et al. (2013) refer to Wu (2005) by stating that nowadays, “competitive advantage, material and financial resources of enterprises, depend on how organizations conduct their Intellectual Capital” [93] (p. 45). Furthermore, the aforementioned authors confirm other researchers point of view that “the future of a business move is to create values of working people; business strategy, structure, systems and processes, established by the enterprise and customer community are only possible with effective management of Intellectual Capital” [93] (p. 45).

The value organizations obtain from their Intellectual Capital is the result of well- reasoned, well-planned and well-executed set of management initiatives [94] . Hamzah and Ismail (2008) assert that “different approaches to competition require different resources; and these different resources need to be managed differently to ensure that they create the desired value. Hence, the importance of intellectual capital as a resource must be managed effectively” [95] (p. 242). Laing, Dunn, and Lucas (2010) examine the relationship between IC and financial performance of Australian hotel industry and argue that IC performance is one of the strategic assets. The study concludes that the measured financial performance heavily depends on Human Capital Efficiency (HCE), which indicates efficient staff has great capability to boost the financial performance of any organization through their effective decision making [96] . The aforementioned relationship was also confirmed by Ul-Rehman, Asghar, and Ur Rehman (2013) [97] .

In their book “Managing Intellectual Capital in Practice”, Roos, Pike, and Fernström (2006) state that the proper and efficient management of Intellectual Capital will increase transparency in the financial market which may result in lower weighted cost of capital and therefore a higher market capitalization [98] . This also helps create trust among employees and other stakeholders. In addition, it will support the long-term vision of the company since Intellectual Capital reporting is about long-term perspectives. Marr (2008) shows that Intellectual Capital helps to drive success and create value [74] . Although physical and financial assets remain important, Intellectual Capital elements such as the right skills and knowledge, a respected brand and a good corporate reputation, strong relationships with key suppliers, the possession of customer and market data, or a culture of innovation, set enterprises apart. According to Andrews (2009), the Intellectual Capital component is not well understood; it is a “black hole” of strategic analysis [99] . The key challenge in Intellectual Capital Management is transforming intangible assets into something that creates value for the organization using Dynamic Capability. Dynamic Capability is the ability to achieve new forms of competitive advantage by appropriately adapting, integrating, and reconfiguring intangible assets (organizational skills, resources, and competencies). Understanding intangible assets provides new strategic insights and competitive options for supply chain design and operation.

Talukdar (2008) explains that the tangible assets can be acquired by just about any business which has enough money to buy such assets [75] . However, intangible assets have to be cultivated, nourished and nurtured in a planned manner before their yield can be fully harvested. The real differentiator between one firm and the next therefore is the readiness of the firm’s intangible assets for converting its tangible assets to cash in the most efficient manner. This readiness is more commonly known as core competency in business texts and is the chief source of competitive advantage for companies.

Part of the problem in managing Intellectual Capital is that many organizations do not understand its underlying power. In fact, value creation results from the interaction of the components of Intellectual Capital; for example, the ability to take a human skill or expertise and transform it into a structural asset. For instance, a marketing employee who has developed a method of handling customers efficiently can be encouraged to document his/her method so that other marketers can learn it. In some cases, the method can form the basis of an expert system in which technology can be an enabler that makes the process accessible to others. Converting skills into an organizational asset in this way illustrates the dynamic potential of managing Intellectual Capital. It can be interpreted as a means of capturing the tacit knowledge of the individual and making it explicit in the organizational structure [100] . In his article, “Intellectual Capital: A Human Resources Perspective”, Adelman (2010) states that “Human Resources Professionals and Managers have a major challenge to obtain and store information about

・ Core job knowledge of all employees, their experience, and their key skill-sets.

・ Training is perhaps more important than ever.

・ Performance review systems are based upon meaningful metrics.

・ Development of effective succession planning systems.

・ Leadership and management development programs” [12] (Para 11).

The questionnaire includes a statement describing the information to be collected followed by a statement of confidentiality in which the researchers introduced themselves to the respondents. The questionnaire consists of 45 questions divided into six parts. Different styles of closed questions are used including dyadic, multiple choice, and five- level Likert scale questions. The six parts are explained herein,

・ The first part consists of seven demographic questions.

・ The second part consists of ten questions related to the technical knowledge of the subject. It helps to assess the level of employee’s awareness of Intellectual Capital Management.

・ Third part consists of six five-level Likert scale questions regarding the “Financial Benefits” and their impact on employee’s retention. It identifies the degree of the satisfaction with the level of financial benefits.

・ The fourth part consists of ten five-level Likert scale questions related to the “Non-financial Benefits”. It focuses on listing the degree of satisfaction with several benefits such as Job Security, Work Environment, Team Work, and Work-Life Balance.

・ The fifth part consists of ten questions designed to assess the employees’ awareness of the work’s roles, tasks, conditions, and responsibilities.

・ The final part consists of six questions whose aim is to assess Knowledge Management concept, and check whether employees are familiar with this concept or not. It will also identify the most effective way to gain knowledge based on employees’ response.

Non probability sampling is any procedure in which elements do not have the equal opportunities of being included in a sample. The set target was to collect 300 questionnaires. First, the questionnaire was published on Surveymonkey.com through the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XC5TNV9, and then shared by the researchers (to employees-people who work) through LinkedIn, Research Gate, and Personal E-mails. After this, and from the total of 286 respondents, a total of 258 questionnaires were completely filled out. 28 questionnaires were excluded due to incompleteness or due to inappropriate filling, that is, responses selected haphazardly. Thus, the response rate is 86%. It is worth mentioning that 36.82% of the people who had filled out the questionnaire are females and 63.18% are males. Their age range is mostly between 25 and 34.

All responses were entered to the SPSS program “Statistical Product and Service Solutions, an IBM product acquired by IBM in 2009 [101] (p. 58). The study was performed using exploratory statistics; data tables including frequency and percentage distributions were used and supported by their respective figures. Moreover, cross tabs were performed to study relationships between variables that may add value to the findings of the research.

63.18% of the respondents are males (163 persons) and 36.82% are females (95 persons); 50.8% of the respondents are between 25 and 34 years old, 12.8% are between 18 and 24 years old, and 23.3% are between 35 and 44 years old. The remaining percentage consists of those older than 45 years. Also, 49.6% of the respondents are single, and 47.7% are married. Moreover, 43.8% of the respondents hold a Bachelor Degree (BA/BS), and 37.6% hold a Master’s Degree (MBA/MS/MA), while 8.9% hold a high school degree and 9.7% hold a PhD.

Furthermore, 13.2% of the respondents are first line managers, 31.4% are middle managers, 21.3% are senior/executive managers, 3.9% are owners, and 19.4% hold non-managerial positions. It is important to mention that there is 10.9% who are university professors and advisors. In addition, 52% of the respondents work in the service industry, including consulting, education, information technology, and pharmaceutical companies; 30% work in Retail/Wholesale business; 9% in food production; 3% in government; and, 6% in engineering. Finally, 38.8% of the respondents have been with the company for a period from 1 to 5 years, 24.8% have 6 to 10 years of experience, 15.5% are new joiners, 10.1% have 11 to 15 years of experience, and 10.8% have been for more than 16 years at the company.

The aim of this section is to identify the degree of awareness of different related concepts, such as Knowledge Management, Human Capital, and Intellectual Capital.

When respondents were asked about their awareness of the term “Intellectual Capital”, 77.52% (200/258) answered positively; and, when asked regarding their awareness of all the company’s policies and procedures, 88.37% confirmed. Also, 93.41% feel that Human Capital is considered a valuable asset at the company, and 93.02% of the respondents confirmed that their technical and soft skills have improved during their current jobs. In addition, 97.67% of the respondents (252 persons) are aware of the importance of Human Resources (HR) Management, and 92.25% of the total respondents are familiar with the roles, tasks, and responsibilities of HR Department. However, only 54.65% of the respondents (141 persons) have attended a training/conference on HR concepts.

Moreover, out of 258 respondents, 176 persons are working at a company where the HR Department is divided into divisions/sections. 220 employees (85%) have confirmed that open communication is encouraged at the company they work at, and the remaining 38 persons (14.72%) do not think this is applicable at their companies.

When employees were asked about the existence of awareness on Employee Retention methods at the company, 71.32% of them (184 out of 258) said that these methods exist; however, 28.68% of them (74 out of 258) denied such fact.

Table 1 illustrates the different questions asked regarding the importance of the Financial Benefits for employees. Responses are presented as three categories for the sake of clarity and comparability of details whereby “Strongly Agree and Agree” are labeled as “A: Agreement” and “Strongly Disagree and Disagree” are labeled as “D: Disagreement” while keeping “U: Uncertain” as is.

Table 1 shows that respondents are marginally satisfied with their financial benefits (56.20%), with their salaries as compared to their peers (60.90%), and to their counterparts in similar jobs (53.10%). A similar satisfaction is observed as to their promotion prospects (52.70%).

In the questionnaire, several non-financial benefits have been evaluated in order to assess the degree of satisfaction of respondents. First of all, 67.80% of the respondents agree that “Job Security” is ensured at the company they work at. In addition, 70.90% of them confirm that the work environment of the company is healthy and positive. “Work-Life Balance” is applicable at 59.3% of the respondents’ companies/jobs. 69.80% of surveyed employees (180 out of 258 persons) agree that Team Work level is high and is encouraged by managers. The companies of 143 respondents (55.40%) have a program to show appreciation to employees. The current company’s culture and values are adaptable for 72.50% of respondents. “Non-Financial Benefits” (such as Job Security, Appreciation, Career Path and Healthy Environment) are essential and very important for (241/258) 93.40% of surveyed employees. However, only 127 out of 258 (49.20%) have stated that they will stay at the company they work at whatever the financial benefit is.

This part aims to analyze the degree of satisfaction with the work conditions as well as the degree of commitment to the company/team. In response to the sentence “I’m happy working with the members of the group”, 89.14% of the respondents answered with “Yes”. Moreover, 93.02% of the respondents like the nature of their jobs. 81.78% are satisfied with the duties and responsibilities assigned to them. Also, 72.48% of the respondents claim that the work schedules are flexible, 72.86% of the respondents believe that their workload is fair, and only 67.05% of the respondents said that they are given the sufficient training opportunities at the current company.

This section analyzes the ability to manage the employee’s knowledge within the current job. 82.6% of the respondents confirm that their jobs’ environments help them increase their knowledge. 91.10% of employees (235 out of 258) agree with the fact that having an effective Knowledge Management applied on the company’s Human Capital will give the company a competitive advantage among other companies within the same industry.

Also, 164 out of 258 surveyed people (63.56%) agree that the company they work at gives attention to Knowledge Management. Almost the same rate of respondents (63.95%) agrees that the company cares about the knowledge of the workers. Also, 84.90% of the respondents (219 persons) confirm that they are able to increase and manage their knowledge during their work.

Table 2 shows the distribution of responses when respondents were asked to choose the most effective way to increase their knowledge. Multiple responses were allowed.

Table 2 depicts several responses whereby the top three responses were: 22.70% chose “Work Experience”, 18.58% chose the “Internet”, and 15.17% “On-Job Training”.

When conducting survey analysis, cross tabulations (also referred to as cross-tabs) are a quantitative research method appropriate for analyzing the relationship between two or more variables. Cross tabulations provide a way of analyzing and comparing the results for one or more variables with the results of another (or others) [102] .

Results show that 50.38% (130 out of 258) of the respondents like the nature of their jobs and also agree that their salaries are fair as compared to counterparts in similar jobs in other organizations; while 21.31% (55 out of 258) like the nature of their jobs but think that the salary is not fair as compared to counterparts in similar jobs in other organizations. However, when the aforementioned statements are cross tabulated, no statistical significance is obtained (see Table 3). Similar results are obtained when studying the Cross-tab “I like the nature of my job” versus “The salary is fair compared to my peers within the organization”. Results show that 58.91% (152 out of 258) of the

respondents like the nature of their jobs and their salaries are fair as compared to their peers within the organization; while 17.05% (44 out of 258) like the nature of their jobs but think that the salary is not fair as compared to their peers within the organization. However, the crosstab in question has no statistical significance (see Table 3).

Furthermore, the cross-tab “I like the nature of my job” versus “I am satisfied with the company’s financial benefits” shows that 54.26% (140 out of 258) of the respondents like the nature of their jobs and are satisfied with the company’s financial benefits; while 20.15% (52 out of 258) like the nature of their jobs but are dissatisfied with the company’s financial benefits. Here, although Pearson’s R indicates a weak and negative correlation, the crosstab in question has statistical significance (see Table 3).

Cross-tab “I like the nature of my job” versus “The salary adjustment granted to me reflects my level of performance” show that 42.63% (110 out of 258) of respondents like the nature of their jobs and that the salary adjustment granted to them reflects their level of performance; while 26.35% (68 out of 258) like the nature of their jobs but the salary adjustment granted to them does not reflect their level of performance. Here, Table 3 shows that Pearson’s R indicates a weak and negative correlation and there is statistical significance to the cross tab in question since the calculated error is 0.009 less than 5%.

Cross-tab “I like the nature of my job” versus “The promotion prospects in the company are acceptable” shows that 51.93% (134 out of 258) of the respondents like the nature of their jobs and the promotion prospects in the company are acceptable to them; while 21.31% (55 out of 258) like the nature of their jobs but the promotion prospects in the company are not acceptable to them. In addition, Pearson’s R indicates a weak and negative correlation and one may observe that there is a statistical significance to the cross tab in question since the calculated error is 0 less than 5% (see Table 3).

Note: Approx. Sig. is compared to the standard error α = 5%.

Cross-tab “I like the nature of my job” versus “I’m satisfied with the duties and responsibilities assigned to me” shows that 79.06% (204 out of 258) of the respondents like the nature of their jobs and are satisfied with the duties and responsibilities assigned to them. The crosstab in question is valid since Pearson’s R = 0.304 indicates a moderate and positive correlation and the calculated error is much less than 5% (see Table 3).

Cross-tab “Human Capital is considered a valuable asset at the company” versus “Job Security is ensured at the company” shows that 64.72% (167 out of 258) of the respondents confirm that the company considers Human Capital as a valuable asset, and that the Job Security is ensured at the company; while 13.17% (34 out of 258) confirm that the company considers Human Capital as a valuable asset but does not ensure Job Security. Moreover, Pearson’s R equals to −0.155, which indicates a weak and negative correlation; however, there is statistical significance to the cross tab in the question since the calculated error is 0.013 less than 5% as shown in Table 3.

According to Hejase & Hejase (2013) a “Multiple Regression Model is needed when the researcher faces the scenario where more than one independent variable causes variations in the dependent variable under study” [101] (p. 478). Therefore, the next step is to construct possible relationships which may help analyze the impact of “Financial” and “Non-financial” benefits on either employees or organizational factors.

The concept of Intellectual Capital is becoming popular with time; however, the number of studies conducted around this concept in Lebanon is very small. Although the sample size of the survey consists of 258 respondents, this number is just enough to explore the topic in question but results and findings may not be generalized because the respondents do not represent all the economic sectors of Lebanon.

Several points must be taken into consideration once future related researches are conducted:

Researchers may focus on specific economic sectors to be able to conduct comparative analysis; researchers from the Arab countries may duplicate the research to upgrade the published results pertaining to other studies, which are very few; future researchers can focus on one type of benefits-either the financial or non-financial―so that the impacts of the benefits are well-analyzed; and, future researches may include analysis on how to let valuable employees adapt to the culture and live the values of the organization.