- Published: October 31, 2021
- Updated: October 31, 2021
- University / College: The University of Warwick
- Language: English
- Downloads: 29
No matter how hard one tries to be perfect, perfection is nothing we could ever reach”. In spite of its contributions, this research is also subject to some potential limitations in terms of internal and external validity. These limitations could be considered in subsequent studies which may focus on studying the relationships among variables used in this study as well as in related areas of research.
First and foremost, the instrument of the study was the questionnaire survey which this consequently made the study as a whole relies seriously on the perception and opinions of companies’ chief financial officers who participated in the survey as the key informants. Even now the research’s instrument was tested either in terms of the reliability or the validity, there should exist some type of bias when the key informants assess their own performance. The bias could have been alleviated if external parties such as customers, suppliers, allied partners, and competitors, who are classified under the organization’s relational networks, were questioned to assess the firm’s performance. Besides, it would be beneficial if there was a possibility to analyze the annual reports to verify the information provided by the respondents. In that case, the quite high number of organizations puts obstacle in the way of the researcher trying to do so.
Another reason for this is that although performance was evaluated via a subjective instrument, both financial and nonfinancial indicators were included. That is, performance was addressed and measured along multiple dimensions under two broad categories (financial and nonfinancial performance) rather than on any single dimension. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution concerning the possibility of bias despite the fact ample evidence corroborated the consistent results between objective and subjective measurement.
Secondly, the data presented in this research is regarded cross-sectional or one-shot. Those critical factors were captured and measured just once and at a static point instead of as they were developing, thereby missing the value of time explanation. It is imperative to attach importance to long-term effects, particularly on the creation and development of the intellectual capital as well as the evolution of PMS and organizational culture. Besides, survey data derived from cross sectional analyses is incapable of producing conclusive evidence of causality. Instead, the evidence should be regarded in line with theoretical arguments and expected associations. Future research could embark longitudinal survey in order to investigate the causality and interrelationships among factors which are pivotal to intellectual capital and PMS.
Thirdly, the data was collected in a single country (Iran). Potential culture limitations should be noted, especially the cultural differences among developing countries and developed nations that influence the perceptions of knowledge sharing and management accounts practices. The framework of the study must be examined further through including samples from other countries to generalize or modify the concepts. In addition, national cultural differences potentially could affect manpower’s perceptions in relation to some important activities related to intellectual capital (e.g. knowledge sharing) and further investigation could offer a more conclusive hypotheses-testing.
Moreover, concerning the concept of organizational culture, despite an acceptable reliability and validity of the instruments, richness could not be completely acquired via a survey instrument as organizational culture is perceived as a broad construct.